AMD Radeon HD 7870 and 7850 Video Card Review @ [H]

fps4ever said:
SSHHHhhhh....stop using common sense, nobody here appreciates that.
Click to expand...

some of you will defend prices no matter what. please tell me who would be interested in a $350 7870? the person that bought a $240 6870 at launch probably is not. the person that paid 170 bucks or less for a 6870 in the last few months is certainly not. the person with a 6950 or 6970 probably is not since the jump is pretty small. about the only users interested in getting a $350 7870 would be those with older gpus like the 5850 or 5870 and that is even according to AMD's own marketing slides. even then a 7870 is only about 35% faster than the 5870 that came out 2.5 years ago.
 
Last edited:
KaptainKhaos said:
new mid-range beats old high end news @ 11, i fail to see how this is a bad thing, pricing reflect 28nm process and lack of competition if you don't like it vote with your wallet - fanboys can go sit in the corner with their empty green box - which might not be empty much longer but green pricing will be intresting.
Click to expand...

You mean new midrange beats old high end at the same price as the old high end? Actually if you had found a good deal near Boxing Day, the new 78xx cards are not as good for bang for the buck as the 6950/70 cards. Really wish I had of bought one of those $300 6970s :(
 
txsizzler said:
As a mentioned in another, similar thread:

".. I figure you will see a massive price drop once the GTX 660 series emerges... I figure this price drop will occur in the beginning of the 3rd quarter. Based on figures I have seen, the GTX 660 will flat out DOMINATE the 7870 in performance (the GTX 660 is supposed to be as fast as the 580, and the 660 Ti should trump the 7950... the 660 is rumored to be priced at $319, the Ti at $399)."


Ian
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. First you say GTX 660 will flat out DOMINATE the 7870 in performance and then you say its as fast as GTX 580. GTX 580 is only around 5-7 % faster than 7870. 5-7% is flat out DOMINATION?
 
So is it worth jumping from a 5850 to a 7850? It doesn't look as big as jump as I went from 4850 to 5850...
 
I think I understand your point now cannondale06

Try this on:

Last generation you paid for a certain level of performance at $349

One would expect that in the next generation after it, the level of performance at $349 should be moved up, doubled, improved, whatever, so that the level of performance you get at $349 now, is better than what you got at $349 then

Same for the $249 price point, or any price point. The performance you got last year at any given price point should be improved at the same price point this year, so that the performance provided at that price point is now an upgrade, which is what you'd expect of a next generation.

I can agree with that point
 
fps4ever said:
$350 gets you a certain performance level...they are priced where they should be. I don't see people bitching because the GTX 570 is the same price as the 7870...you want $350 worth of performance you pay $350...too many people are stuck on the numbering of the video cards...
Click to expand...

How about NVIDIA release a GTX 660 = GTX 570 at $350. Hell, why not take it another generation and release the GTX 750 = GTX 660 = GTX 570 and price that at $350 too?
 
blade52x said:
How about NVIDIA release a GTX 660 = GTX 570 at $350. Hell, why not take it another generation and release the GTX 750 = GTX 660 = GTX 570 and price that at $350 too?
Click to expand...

You mean like the 4770 - 5770 - 6770 - 7770?
 
Lord_Exodia said:
So... For $100 less per card and over a year ago, my 6950's unlocked and overclocked heavily give about the same performance and brand new $349.99 7870s.

Not to mention that the 6950s have matured drivers compared to these cards.

Even overclocking these cards wouldn't make them worth the extra $100 per card over what I have.

Price fail? I would have to guess so. The performance is astounding for mid range replacement cards but the price is where it is due to lack of compelling competition. The good news is that hopefully with this nvidia cards price will drop to clearance levels as they wait for Kepler to be ready for prime time.

Guess I'll be hanging on to my tried and true 6970 (6950s) until kepler comes out to show me something truly amazing worth an extra $100 or more per card or bitch smacks some price sense into AMD's marketing team.

Competition FTW ;)
Click to expand...

That says enough right there, you're using a modified, and heavily overclocked card....
 
ome of you will defend prices no matter what. please tell me who would be interested in a $350 7870? the person that bought a $240 6870 at launch probably is not. the person that paid 170 bucks or less for a 6870 in the last few months is certainly not. the person with a 6950 or 6970 probably is not since the jump is pretty small. about the only users interested in getting a $350 7870 would be those with older gpus like the 5850 or 5870 and that is even according to AMD's own marketing slides. even then a 7870 is only about 35% faster than the 5870 that came out 2.5 years ago.
Click to expand...

I would buy two 7870's if i could buy them today. YES i said two.

graphics cards development has changed quite a bit as of late. Back in the 4XXX and 5XXX series people needed the extra performance to run games. Now that games are really at a standstill graphic wise there isn't a need to drastically improve performance. So what do you do? make your designs more efficient use less power while offering a bump in performance.

some would argue what about those using eyefinity or surround? well those are still considered high cost setups and the people who run them have no problem purchasing more than one video card to run them.
 
blade52x said:
I guess you're content with paying $350 for GTX 570 performance forever?
Click to expand...

Not even close to what I meant and how to do you get forever out of that? That's what we are currently at...I hope it changes when Kepler comes out but for now that's the performance you get for $350...pay or don't, I couldn't care less as it's just a video card.
 
ebduncan said:
I would buy two 7870's if i could buy them today. YES i said two.

graphics cards development has changed quite a bit as of late. Back in the 4XXX and 5XXX series people needed the extra performance to run games. Now that games are really at a standstill graphic wise there isn't a need to drastically improve performance. So what do you do? make your designs more efficient use less power while offering a bump in performance.

some would argue what about those using eyefinity or surround? well those are still considered high cost setups and the people who run them have no problem purchasing more than one video card to run them.
Click to expand...

there are demanding games out there if you run all max settings and/or use a lot of AA. plus some people play above 1920x1080. regardless though the fact is we got no increase in performance per dollar over last gen and the 7870 is now at a price point that leaves mid range priced card buyers with nothing to get.
 
Bear in mind the current pricing is because Nvidia haven't released their cards yet... AMD need to be able to drop prices when they do so that their cards look more attractive.
 
TheReproducer said:
Bear in mind the current pricing is because Nvidia haven't released their cards yet... AMD need to be able to drop prices when they do so that their cards look more attractive.
Click to expand...
even when there is no direct competition both companies usually launch faster cards for the money over the previous gen.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
That says enough right there, you're using a modified, and heavily overclocked card....
Click to expand...

in all fairness in the same quote that you used for me I went on to say...

Even overclocking these cards wouldn't make them worth the extra $100 per card over what I have.
Click to expand...

My point is that my cards perform on par or slightly faster than stock 7870s and I purchased them over a year ago and back then around $100 LESS. Yes one can overclock a 7870 to overtake my card, but is it really worth paying $349.99 or more for one of those over $220 for one of my cards. Or even should I even consider this card a value for either price OR performance based on what I have.

I think the best approach based on where the 7870 and 7850 land, is to buy a used and unlockable 6950 FTW is all I'm saying ;)
 
Lord_Exodia said:
in all fairness in the same quote that you used for me I went on to say...
My point is that my cards perform on par or slightly faster than stock 7870s and I purchased them over a year ago and back then around $100 LESS. Yes one can overclock a 7870 to overtake my card, but is it really worth paying $349.99 or more for one of those over $220 for one of my cards. Or even should I even consider this card a value for either price OR performance based on what I have.

I think the best approach based on where the 7870 and 7850 land, is to buy a used and unlockable 6950 FTW is all I'm saying ;)
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly, the 6950 was a FANTASTIC value, and because of the unlocking was a REALLY REALLY unbeatable value. However, if you had been unlucky enough to get one that was NOT unlockable, it would not have been NEARLY the value of an unlockable one. That is REALLY in the same vain as overclocking, which is not a guarantee. You shouldn't compare the value of an unlocked, highly overclocked card to a stock version of another card. If you assume no unlocking, I bet the 7870 overclocks better. The 6950 was a unique card because of the unlocking, and thus a unique value proposition of basically getting the next step up in performance without paying for it, like a free upgrade. Almost like if I bought a 7950 and it broke and I RMAd it and was given a 7970 as a replacement. Hard to compare because of that. Especially now since most of the 6950s don't unlock now.
 
Brent_Justice said:
I think I understand your point now cannondale06

Try this on:

Last generation you paid for a certain level of performance at $349

One would expect that in the next generation after it, the level of performance at $349 should be moved up, doubled, improved, whatever, so that the level of performance you get at $349 now, is better than what you got at $349 then

Same for the $249 price point, or any price point. The performance you got last year at any given price point should be improved at the same price point this year, so that the performance provided at that price point is now an upgrade, which is what you'd expect of a next generation.

I can agree with that point
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly the point being made. You are paying the same price for the same performance increase versus the previous generation.

Like I said before, if we never had price/performance ratio increase, we would be paying $2k+ for a GPU.
 
Flyinfinni said:
Undoubtedly, the 6950 was a FANTASTIC value, and because of the unlocking was a REALLY REALLY unbeatable value. However, if you had been unlucky enough to get one that was NOT unlockable, it would not have been NEARLY the value of an unlockable one.
Click to expand...

Thing is, the value didn't change a whole lot due to simply unlocking the card, which without overclocking netted like a 5-10% or less increase IIRC. The value was if you could actually unlock and overclock the card to 6970 levels, so essentially you were getting a 6970 for the price of a 6950. That is where the massive value came in.
 
Lord_Exodia said:
in all fairness in the same quote that you used for me I went on to say...



My point is that my cards perform on par or slightly faster than stock 7870s and I purchased them over a year ago and back then around $100 LESS. Yes one can overclock a 7870 to overtake my card, but is it really worth paying $349.99 or more for one of those over $220 for one of my cards. Or even should I even consider this card a value for either price OR performance based on what I have.

I think the best approach based on where the 7870 and 7850 land, is to buy a used and unlockable 6950 FTW is all I'm saying ;)
Click to expand...

I had no issue with the price part of ur comment :) just the performance comparison using those cards, a better comparison IMO is to the 6970, which is on par and used to cost $349 too.
 
I would purchase a 7870 today to replace my 6870 if I didn't have some unexpected expenses popping up. I get 6970 performance with a lot less noise, heat, and power consumption. To top it off, if the card I buy overclocks decently I will get better then 7950 performance.

Since I can't buy one this month though, I can only look forward to lower prices if Nvidia manages to launch something soon.
 
Whining about price never gets old lol. You people fail to realize that you are competing with bitcoin miners who put together multiple quad 7970/7950 rigs that pay for themselves in a few weeks. This is why 9 out of 11 7970 SKUs and 6 out of 11 7950 SKUs are sold out.

Nothing any of you say will change this, so go ahead and "vote with your wallets" the bitcoin miners and people who can afford the price already beat you to it.

P.S: And don't kid yourselves, Nvidia is not coming to save you as their fanboys seem to believe. Pricing is going up, and you better get used to it.
 
Last edited:
Lorien said:
Whining about price never gets old lol. You people fail to realize that you are competing with bitcoin miners who put together multiple quad 7970/7950 rigs that pay for themselves in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

That is an extremely dubious comment, considering bitcoins are barely worth shit anymore compared to what they used to be when bitcoin mining was big.

EDIT: Here are some real numbers:

Using this, and the values 1650 MH/s for 3x 7970s (couldn't find info about quadfire) and ~$5 for the value of the bitcoin currently, you end up with:

per Day ฿1.11 $5.54
per Week ฿7.76 $38.80
per Month ฿33.70 $168.51

So basically, if you are mining 24/7 with 3x 7970s you are getting ~$170 per month. Given the minimum retail price of the 7970 ($550), it would take you almost 10 months to "break even" on only the GPUs alone. That is, of course, neglecting all electrical and maintenence costs, and not including any other hardware costs. That is also assuming the price of the bitcoin stays constant (which, lately, it's been fluctuating around $4-5 so it probably will stay pretty much the same).
 
Last edited:
The one thing missing from this review is the GF 560 Ti Core 448 model. I think the review would have been more complete with a GF 560 Ti Core 448 included as I was never considering the standard 560 Ti ever since the core 448 models were announced.

a good comparison of the card being reviewed against its direct competitor and the next step above/below for both competitors to give an accurate representation of performance compared to other models..
 
omegatotal said:
The one thing missing from this review is the GF 560 Ti Core 448 model. I think the review would have been more complete with a GF 560 Ti Core 448 included as I was never considering the standard 560 Ti ever since the core 448 models were announced.

a good comparison of the card being reviewed against its direct competitor and the next step above/below for both competitors to give an accurate representation of performance compared to other models..
Click to expand...

IIRC the 560 Ti 448 is pretty similar to the 570, which is one of the cards included in the review. I would just figure the 560 Ti 448 would be slightly slower than the 570.
 
Gotta love it...

When Nvidia is first out the gate and kicking ass, bending peeps over is ok because they are faster.

When AMD is first out the gate and kicking ass, it's higway robbery to charge what the market will bear.

Was the same way when they had the best CPU. Sure Intel did everything it could to keep them out of as many OEMs as possible, but it didn't help that people (FYI, we're not people :) ) didn't want to pay as much for AMD as they would for Intel.

And ya'll wonder why AMD has problems keeping up with R&D.

For those complaining about price, go check inflation data for the last 8 years. It's not pretty. A teaser... adjusted for inflation the 8800GTX makes the 7970 look downright cheap.
 
Dreknaught said:
Gotta love it...

When Nvidia is first out the gate and kicking ass, bending peeps over is ok because they are faster.

When AMD is first out the gate and kicking ass, it's higway robbery to charge what the market will bear.

Was the same way when they had the best CPU. Sure Intel did everything it could to keep them out of as many OEMs as possible, but it didn't help that people (FYI, we're not people :) ) didn't want to pay as much for AMD as they would for Intel.

And ya'll wonder why AMD has problems keeping up with R&D.

For those complaining about price, go check inflation data for the last 8 years. It's not pretty. A teaser... adjusted for inflation the 8800GTX makes the 7970 look downright cheap.
Click to expand...
gotta love the ignorant comments that try to make this an Nvidia vs AMD issue. please show me these Nvidia launches where they they did not offer more performance per dollar than their previous gen. it might be close on some of the high end launches but not one time has Nvidia or even AMD launched midrage cards that did not give a performance per dollar boost that I can recall. :rolleyes:
 
MavericK96 said:
That is an extremely dubious comment, considering bitcoins are barely worth shit anymore compared to what they used to be when bitcoin mining was big.

EDIT: Here are some real numbers:

Using this, and the values 1650 MH/s for 3x 7970s (couldn't find info about quadfire) and ~$5 for the value of the bitcoin currently, you end up with:

per Day ฿1.11 $5.54
per Week ฿7.76 $38.80
per Month ฿33.70 $168.51

So basically, if you are mining 24/7 with 3x 7970s you are getting ~$170 per month. Given the minimum retail price of the 7970 ($550), it would take you almost 10 months to "break even" on only the GPUs alone. That is, of course, neglecting all electrical and maintenence costs, and not including any other hardware costs. That is also assuming the price of the bitcoin stays constant (which, lately, it's been fluctuating around $4-5 so it probably will stay pretty much the same).
Click to expand...

No one mining bitcoins today goes in green. The large majority of miners are doing it with hardware that already paid for itself and are buying new hardware with their profits.
My previous dual 6970s paid for themselves and generated enough profits to be able to buy 3 monitors and a whole bunch of other hardware. After I stopped mining (around September last year) I just churned the coins I had left in the market and made enough to cover the expense of upgrading to a pair of 7970s (I only spent ~$200 out of pocket at the time). Shortly after upgrading I sold my pair of 6970s for ~$500 for a net $300 profit.
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
gotta love the ignorant comments that try to make this an Nvidia vs AMD issue. please show me these Nvidia launches where they they did not offer more performance per dollar than their previous gen. it might be close on some of the high end launches but not one time has Nvidia or even AMD launched midrage cards that did not give a performance per dollar boost that I can recall. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

*shrugs* depends on your definition of performance per dollar, to me the less heat, less power consumption and less noise, is a HUGE part of performance per dollar.
 
People really were spoiled by the pricing of the 58xx and 69xx series. Add the fact that some 6950 models could unlock to a 6970, then you get some people with really skewed views of reality. Did you really think the old pricing scheme was a sustainable business model? The pricing on the 78xx series is reasonable. It doesn't increase price/performance over the previous generation, but that's because the price from the 6xxx series was amazingly low to begin with. At some point, AMD needs to make money, and they decided the 7xxx is the time to do it. With no competition from Nvidia, I'd say they chose a good time.

My main gripe with Southern Islands is there's no card that falls nicely into the $200 price point. That has always been the sweet spot, and AMD's current lineup has a big gap there. To me, the big fail was on Cape Verde; they should have targeted performance just below 560Ti, and priced the 7770 and 7750 at $200 and $150 accordingly. The $100 and below gap can be filled by ongoing production of 6870 and 6850 models.
 
TheReproducer said:
Bear in mind the current pricing is because Nvidia haven't released their cards yet... AMD need to be able to drop prices when they do so that their cards look more attractive.
Click to expand...

I think they have a lot of room as well...

from TR's review

value-average.png


Perf-per-dollar is actually pretty damn good. Directly above both of their own cards which were ahead of nV alternatives themselves.

Those are all remarkable achievements, but they're diminished by AMD's somewhat conservative pricing. The key thing to note is that Pitcairn is considerably smaller than the GPUs inside the Radeon HD 6900 and GeForce GTX 560 series. In fact, it's even smaller than Barts, a chip that powers Radeon HD 6800-series cards priced as low as $140. It seems like a given that the Radeon HD 7850 will find its way south of the $200 mark eventually, and that is a truly exciting prospect. Heck, we may even be treated to a price war once Nvidia's 28-nm Kepler GPUs come out. If that happens, AMD clearly has plenty of ammunition.
Click to expand...

Considering AMD hasn't complained of any yield issues at all, it's going to be really interesting to see just how far down the prices of these 2 cards can go when TSMC's 28nm reaches full capacity. Really, the only thing that allowed AMD to put the prices so high was, like Kyle mentioned, nV being late to the game here.
 
you mean over time stuff gets more expensive?

what kind of a bizzarro world are we living in? Next you are going to tell me gasoline costs 4 dollars a gallon!
 
stealthy123 said:
you mean over time stuff gets more expensive?

what kind of a bizzarro world are we living in? Next you are going to tell me gasoline costs 4 dollars a gallon!
Click to expand...
just the fact that you are comparing video cards to gasoline prices shows just how ignorant you are about computer hardware prices.
 
you mean they teleport video cards into the stores and there is no energy used? You mean the price of gasoline doesn't figure into the shipping costs of just about everything?

You mean inflation is a myth?

You mean Santa isn't real?
 
Lorien said:
No one mining bitcoins today goes in green. The large majority of miners are doing it with hardware that already paid for itself and are buying new hardware with their profits.
My previous dual 6970s paid for themselves and generated enough profits to be able to buy 3 monitors and a whole bunch of other hardware. After I stopped mining (around September last year) I just churned the coins I had left in the market and made enough to cover the expense of upgrading to a pair of 7970s (I only spent ~$200 out of pocket at the time). Shortly after upgrading I sold my pair of 6970s for ~$500 for a net $300 profit.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether that's true or not (and it probably is in many cases), what you said was the hardware "paid itself off in a few weeks". That is not a true statement, and I proved it.
 
stealthy123 said:
you mean they teleport video cards into the stores and there is no energy used? You mean the price of gasoline doesn't figure into the shipping costs of just about everything?

You mean inflation is a myth?

You mean Santa isn't real?
Click to expand...
you are right. we should all be paying about 10,000 bucks for gpus by now. hell my cell phone should probably cost that much since it is faster than computers were 20 years ago when gas was cheaper. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top