NVIDIA GK104 Coming Soon?

Status
Not open for further replies.
BababooeyHTJ said:
Even GTX260 which most people especially AMD fans considered a horrible value launched at a lower price than 7950.

Edit: Looks like it was the same price actually.
Click to expand...
yeah even though the gtx280/260 were very pricey at launch they still offered more performance per dollar over the cards they replaced. luckily for all of us AMD launched the 4870/4850 at really nice price points. I was able to get a gtx260 for just 190 bucks not long after that.
 
Flyinfinni said:
Really, this comes down to the 580. Yes- it was and still IS overpriced. BUT the argument for the 7970 is that it is FASTER than the 580, and was released at ~ THE SAME PRICE as the 580, so it's release price matched the market value due to the 580s price. I think BOTH ought to be less, but thats just me wishing. Perf/$ it beats the 580 handily, and that was what AMD was aiming for.
Click to expand...

Actually the GTX 580 was $50 less MSRP than the 7970.
 
cannondale06 said:
yeah even though the gtx280/260 were very pricey at launch they still offered more performance per dollar over the cards they replaced. luckily for all of us AMD launched the 4870/4850 at really nice price points. I was able to get a gtx260 for just 190 bucks not long after that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the GTX260 about 10% faster than a 4870 which costed around € 120 when I bought it in 2009.
 
Flyinfinni said:
Not the 3gb version. But even still, 10% more money than a 1.5gb 580 and 20+% more performance puts it in a pretty good place value-wise in comparison.
Click to expand...

Not on a whole new node, generation, and 14 months later, though. Prices are supposed to go down for that close of a performance gap over that kind of timespan. Instead, as others said... the 7970 set the bar low enough that nVidia's mid-range card is now going to get by as high-end price-wise.
 
Shago said:
I'm not sure about that. Wasn't the GTX260 about 10% faster than a 4870 which costed around € 120 when I bought it in 2009.
Click to expand...
what? the gtx280/260 came out before the 4870. the gtx280 and gtx260 completely obliterated the 3850 and 3870 and even beat the 3870x2.
 
cannondale06 said:
the 7970 went up 50% in price over the 6970 while delivering 40% more performance than it. we usually get really nice gains at the SAME price point. instead we get a next gen card that actually deliver less performance per dollar than the card it replaces.
Click to expand...



Well, according to the President, we all have to suffer to help the corporations.

And according to the previous President you are a terrorist if you don't buy it.
 
cannondale06 said:
yeah even though the gtx280/260 were very pricey at launch they still offered more performance per dollar over the cards they replaced. luckily for all of us AMD launched the 4870/4850 at really nice price points. I was able to get a gtx260 for just 190 bucks not long after that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got a good deal on a GTX260 because of that too. It was a great card. I'm going to miss those pricing wars.
 
Not on a whole new node, generation, and 14 months later, though. Prices are supposed to go down for that close of a performance gap over that kind of timespan. Instead, as others said... the 7970 set the bar low enough that nVidia's mid-range card is now going to get by as high-end price-wise.
Click to expand...


Nvidia has released parts barely faster than the competition with a huge price jump, GTX 480 was 10% faster than the competition with a 30% price hike (while being a hot loud piece of junk) and the GTX 580 was 10% faster than 6970. Again 30% price premium. This argument does not hold any water, sorry, you can be taken seriously by stating that both companies have charged too much, period. UNLESS in your mind nvidia gets a free pass for charging 500$+ for a 10% performance increase while AMD is suddenly the bad guy. Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
xoleras said:
Nvidia has released parts barely faster than the competition with a huge price jump, GTX 480 was 10% faster than the competition with a 30% price hike (while being a hot loud piece of junk) and the GTX 580 was 10% faster than 6970. Again 30% price premium. This argument does not hold any water, sorry, you can be taken seriously by stating that both companies have charged too much, period. UNLESS in your mind nvidia gets a free pass for charging 500$+ for a 10% performance increase while AMD is suddenly the bad guy. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

But the GTX 580 replaced the GTX 480 at the same price (and launched before the 6970). So you got extra performance for free in that case.
 
Flyinfinni said:
Not the 3gb version. But even still, 10% more money than a 1.5gb 580 and 20+% more performance puts it in a pretty good place value-wise in comparison.
Click to expand...

Not really, not from a performance per dollar point of view. Marginal at best.

perfdollar_1920.gif
perfdollar_2560.gif
 
Forceman said:
But the GTX 580 replaced the GTX 480 at the same price (and launched before the 6970). So you got extra performance for free in that case.
Click to expand...

By the same token, the 7970 launched for less than the 3GB GTX 580 and gave better perfomance, so it gives better performance for less. It doesn't excuse the prices AMD has set for the 7900 series, but we can't argue over the fact that they give better perf/price ratio over the massively overpriced 3GB GTX 580.

We can't point fingers at AMD without pointing them at Nvidia. Nvidia were happy to charge a 70-80% price premium for the GTX 580 3GB compared to the only slightly slower GTX 570 and HD 6970. Even the 1.5GB GTX 580 was priced ~40-50% higher for a piffling 10-15% performance.

It looks like we GPU enthusiasts have been getting ripped off for years. :)
 
MavericK96 said:
Lol, based on those screens it's not even marginal, it's downright terrible.
Click to expand...

Yep, the 7900 series has zero value. You're paying for more performance over a last gen card.
If Nvidia does the same with the 600 series, I'm not buying. The more they charge, the better buy last gen cards become.

20% less for 20-40% more performance is value.
 
MavericK96 said:
Lol, based on those screens it's not even marginal, it's downright terrible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that about says it all... And that's not even taking into account better multicard on the 580, far better 3d support, and other things like transparency aa.
 
ICDP said:
By the same token, the 7970 launched for less than the 3GB GTX 580 and gave better perfomance, so it gives better performance for less. It doesn't excuse the prices AMD has set for the 7900 series, but we can't argue over the fact that they give better perf/price ratio over the massively overpriced 3GB GTX 580.

We can't point fingers at AMD without pointing them at Nvidia. Nvidia were happy to charge a 70-80% price premium for the GTX 580 3GB compared to the only slightly slower GTX 570 and HD 6970. Even the 1.5GB GTX 580 was priced ~40-50% higher for a piffling 10-15% performance.

It looks like we GPU enthusiasts have been getting ripped off for years. :)
Click to expand...

Comparing it to the 3GB GTX 580 is kind of pointless though, since that card has no performance benefit over the 1.5GB GTX 580. If someone makes a $800 6GB version of the 7970 does that then become a valid card to use for price comparisons? No one is going to argue that the GTX 580 was in any way a good value, or well-priced, so using that as justification for 7970 pricing is questionable at best. The GTX 480 about par with the GTX 285 is price/performance (~30% more expensive for ~30% performance gain), the GTX 580 was 10-15% faster than the GTX 480 at the same price, and the HD7970 is ~40% faster than the 6970 while costing ~55% more. Compared to the 6970, the 7970 is a terrible value.

Isn't it interesting how every discussion of the 7970 invariably ends up in a pricing justification argument? Doesn't that fact alone indicate that there is some problem with the 7970 pricing?
 
Last edited:
MavericK96 said:
Lol, based on those screens it's not even marginal, it's downright terrible.
Click to expand...

Yeah we should all go out and buy 6870s since it is the clear winner on that chart. :rolleyes:

The arguments that come across this forum are just unbelievable sometimes, at least it keeps me humored.
 
Forceman said:
Comparing it to the 3GB GTX 580 is kind of pointless though, since that card has no performance benefit over the 1.5GB GTX 580.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. You ever tried doing 3d surround on SLI 1.5gb 580s? :) I'd suggest not trying it , because its a dog. First of all, nvidia doesn't allow single card surround, and even with SLI 1.5gb , the VRAM is a big limitation.
 
To be fair though, nV Surround/EyeFinity is an extremely niche use for these cards. So, other than that, it doesn't come into play really at this point in time. I think I saw somewhere that 3-monitor gamers were under 1% of all enthusiast part users, which already is a niche of the overall market? I could be wrong.

Price/performance-wise, the 6870 is a great card for the mainstream user, chart is spot-on there.
 
xoleras said:
Yeah we should all go out and buy 6870s since it is the clear winner on that chart. :rolleyes:

The arguments that come across this forum are just unbelievable sometimes, at least it keeps me humored.
Click to expand...

You even posting here trolling and flaming Nvidia like a boss is interesting as well. I still don't understand why you find the need to talk shit on Nvidia in every post in the NVIDIA section, if you hate them that much go to the AMD section and post there.
 
GoldenTiger said:
To be fair though, nV Surround/EyeFinity is an extremely niche use for these cards. So, other than that, it doesn't come into play really at this point in time. I think I saw somewhere that 3-monitor gamers were under 1% of all enthusiast part users, which already is a niche of the overall market? I could be wrong.

Price/performance-wise, the 6870 is a great card for the mainstream user, chart is spot-on there.
Click to expand...
What kind of experience do you think the 6870 is going to give at 2560x1600? Since that's what the lot of you seem to be using as your comparison.

Honestly, the retardation that surfaces in these threads is something else.
 
I said for the mainstream user in the same sentence..... those people aren't running 2560.
 
xoleras said:
Nvidia has released parts barely faster than the competition with a huge price jump, GTX 480 was 10% faster than the competition with a 30% price hike (while being a hot loud piece of junk) and the GTX 580 was 10% faster than 6970. Again 30% price premium. This argument does not hold any water, sorry, you can be taken seriously by stating that both companies have charged too much, period. UNLESS in your mind nvidia gets a free pass for charging 500$+ for a 10% performance increase while AMD is suddenly the bad guy. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

The reason why the gtx 480 was priced as it was was it was too damn expensive to make. Considering that it is a little over 50% larger die size than a 5870, and the yields were terrible on it, there are articles that say the bill of material and the manufacturing cost of the gtx 480 were more than the 5970(a 700 dollar card). The larger the chip gets the more expensive things get as yields go down exponentially.

http://semiaccurate.com/2010/02/17/nvidias-fermigtx480-broken-and-unfixable/

The problem on pricing of Nvidia flagship cards is a result of their duality. These cards are primarily designed with the professional market in mind and has two jobs to do as a result. Be a good gaming part, but also cater to the workstation and professional market. This causes the chips to be inherently be way bigger than they have to be to get their gaming performance and it causes the chips to cost more to make. This isn't a problem in the pro market because these type of cards cost 1000s of dollars. If you look at fermi's performance in the professional market, it would regularly see a 100% or 200% performance jump over it AMD competition at the time.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/NVID...d-5000-Series-Workstation-GPUs-Review/?page=5

Selling these monoliths at anything less would have cost Nvidia more money then it cost to make them.

This is why the pricing of the 7970 is less excusable in a way. The die size is somewhere around the 361mm2. This makes the chip far cheaper to manufacture and as a result, AMD can charge way less and still make money. They have brought very little performance/ price increase with this new generation compared to their old generation.
 
Forceman said:
Isn't it interesting how every discussion of the 7970 invariably ends up in a pricing justification argument? Doesn't that fact alone indicate that there is some problem with the 7970 pricing?
Click to expand...

Excellent observation.

People have to and will protect their purchases.
 
Forceman said:
Comparing it to the 3GB GTX 580 is kind of pointless though, since that card has no performance benefit over the 1.5GB GTX 580. If someone makes a $800 6GB version of the 7970 does that then become a valid card to use for price comparisons? No one is going to argue that the GTX 580 was in any way a good value, or well-priced, so using that as justification for 7970 pricing is questionable at best. The GTX 480 about par with the GTX 285 is price/performance (~30% more expensive for ~30% performance gain), the GTX 580 was 10-15% faster than the GTX 480 at the same price, and the HD7970 is ~40% faster than the 6970 while costing ~55% more. Compared to the 6970, the 7970 is a terrible value.

Isn't it interesting how every discussion of the 7970 invariably ends up in a pricing justification argument? Doesn't that fact alone indicate that there is some problem with the 7970 pricing?
Click to expand...
I imagine that's how everything seems through a world of green-tinted glasses. The reason these arguments devolve to "horrible value" arguments is that's the only thing the nvidiots can say is wrong with the 7970. The sad thing is, even that's not true.

The GTX 480 was a horrible value. Not only was $120 more expensive than a 5870, it was only 10-15% faster while drawing 50% more power and being much louder. The 7970 is ~25% faster than GTX 580, has twice the vRAM, and is only $50 more. The icing on the cake is that it overclocks like a dream, and give unrivaled single GPU performance, upwards of 60-80% of its closest competitor (the GTX 580). So now that the "horrible value" argument is shot down, what's the Green Team going to spin for damage control next?
 
Mr. K6 said:
I imagine that's how everything seems through a world of green-tinted glasses. The reason these arguments devolve to "horrible value" arguments is that's the only thing the nvidiots can say is wrong with the 7970. The sad thing is, even that's not true.

The GTX 480 was a horrible value. Not only was $120 more expensive than a 5870, it was only 10-15% faster while drawing 50% more power and being much louder. The 7970 is ~25% faster than GTX 580, has twice the vRAM, and is only $50 more. The icing on the cake is that it overclocks like a dream, and give unrivaled single GPU performance, upwards of 60-80% of its closest competitor (the GTX 580). So now that the "horrible value" argument is shot down, what's the Green Team going to spin for damage control next?
Click to expand...

So if the GK104 part is 45% faster than a GTX 580, you are going to be fine with Nvidia charging $700 for it? Because that's the same logic that says the 7970 is fairly priced. You're cool with the 7990 being $900?

The GTX 580 replaced the GTX 480 with 10% higher performance at the same price. AMD replaced the HD 6970 with the HD 7950, with ~15% higher performance, for $100 more (~30%).

I don't understand why anyone is defending AMD's pricing. Do you like paying more?
 
Last edited:
Mr. K6 said:
I imagine that's how everything seems through a world of green-tinted glasses. The reason these arguments devolve to "horrible value" arguments is that's the only thing the nvidiots can say is wrong with the 7970. The sad thing is, even that's not true.

The GTX 480 was a horrible value. Not only was $120 more expensive than a 5870, it was only 10-15% faster while drawing 50% more power and being much louder. The 7970 is ~25% faster than GTX 580, has twice the vRAM, and is only $50 more. The icing on the cake is that it overclocks like a dream, and give unrivaled single GPU performance, upwards of 60-80% of its closest competitor (the GTX 580). So now that the "horrible value" argument is shot down, what's the Green Team going to spin for damage control next?
Click to expand...


most people here do not give a damn whether it is AMD or Nvidia. its people like you that act all psycho and try to make this an AMD vs Nvidia issue when all most people want out of the next gen are much faster cards at the same price points.

7970 costs 50% more than the 6970 while only being about 40% faster. so much for getting a faster card at the same price point. and the gtx580 was considered a poor value by just about everybody. funny how AMD's next gen card comes out and only beats it by 20-25% and while also costing more and all of sudden that is supposed to be a great deal. these prices are going to trickle down and we end up paying high end prices for what is really just next gen upper mid range performance.

sorry but if it was not for the great overclocking, the 7970/7950 would be a joke for a next gen card IMO. and if the opinions of these "nvidiots" bother you so much then stay out of the Nvidia sub forum.
 
Last edited:
Johnny_Utah said:
Okay, so basically these 40-50 percent numbers don't mean a thing until we find out which card the 104 actually is.
Click to expand...

I guess so. I'm now more confused than ever with all these new info :p

If the 680 Kyle mentioned is GK110, then surely it couldn't be too far off since they actually have the card to run the benchmarks. If we're talking about GK104 benchmark, then that would make sense as we know these cards are out there. But that would also mean GK104 being called 680.
 
Mr. K6 said:
What kind of experience do you think the 6870 is going to give at 2560x1600? Since that's what the lot of you seem to be using as your comparison.

Honestly, the retardation that surfaces in these threads is something else.
Click to expand...


maybe everyone you know has money and you can only guess about the rest of the people but I'll tell you. 2560x1600 isn't mainstream.
 
if its 40-50% faster then the 580 GTX (NON canned benchmarks) there is no way this card would sell for under $500.

So IF its true, I expect 104GK to be around $600-650....and not shocked if I see it at $700 either.
 
DASHlT said:
if its 40-50% faster then the 580 GTX (NON canned benchmarks) there is no way this card would sell for under $500.

So IF its true, I expect 104GK to be around $600-650....and not shocked if I see it at $700 either.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why people assume that new products will always cost more than what they are replacing, when the general trend is for price/performance to improve over time.

There is no way in hell Nvidia is going to charge $650 for this card, even if it is 50% faster than a GTX 580.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Excellent observation.

People have to and will protect their purchases.
Click to expand...

I bought a 7970 and I know and accept it is too expensive. I have said all along that it needed to be cheaper. I bought one and in absolutely no way do I need to justify my purchase to you or anyone else.

Do you honestly believe that people who purchased a 7970 feel they need to justify their purchase on an internet forum, to a complete stranger?
 
Forceman said:
I really don't understand why people assume that new products will always cost more than what they are replacing, when the general trend is for price/performance to improve over time.

There is no way in hell Nvidia is going to charge $650 for this card, even if it is 50% faster than a GTX 580.
Click to expand...

So you honestly think, if this card is lets say 20% faster then a 7970, Nvidia would charge less then AMD?

Since when did Nvidia charge less then AMD on any video card?

P.S. Also remember with 28nm issues. Not making money on a video card isnt smart business sense.
 
DASHlT said:
if its 40-50% faster then the 580 GTX (NON canned benchmarks) there is no way this card would sell for under $500.

So IF its true, I expect 104GK to be around $600-650....and not shocked if I see it at $700 either.
Click to expand...

I'm optimistic myself, but this is just hilarious. Non-canned I would estimate 20-25%, not more.
 
boxleitnerb said:
I'm optimistic myself, but this is just hilarious. Non-canned I would estimate 20-25%, not more.
Click to expand...

Yea....Also dont forget about the physx chip being on the card itself or some bullshit i read? For all we know that canned benchmark was 3dmark with physx to help Nvidia, would which make the score HUGE....just because of physx.

Of course this is all speculation.
 
If NVIDIA has an ounce of competitiveness in them the GK104 will be priced to break AMD's neck and everyone is going to buy NVIDIA. Kepler is the head shot
 
Forceman said:
Comparing it to the 3GB GTX 580 is kind of pointless though, since that card has no performance benefit over the 1.5GB GTX 580.
Click to expand...

It does at high resolutions.

Forceman said:
If someone makes a $800 6GB version of the 7970 does that then become a valid card to use for price comparisons? No one is going to argue that the GTX 580 was in any way a good value, or well-priced, so using that as justification for 7970 pricing is questionable at best.
Click to expand...

I'm not using the GTX 580 prices to justify the 7970 prices. I was using the GTX 570 and HD 6970 prices and the relatively small performance delta to prove the GTX 580, and by extension the HD 7970 are too expensive.

Forceman said:
The GTX 480 about par with the GTX 285 is price/performance (~30% more expensive for ~30% performance gain), the GTX 580 was 10-15% faster than the GTX 480 at the same price.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the GTX 285 was way overpriced also, so using it as a baseline price comapred to GTX 480 and 580 skews the results.

Forceman said:
and the HD7970 is ~40% faster than the 6970 while costing ~55% more. Compared to the 6970, the 7970 is a terrible value.
Click to expand...

I agree, this combined with price gouging have made the HD 7970 horrible value for money.

Forceman said:
Isn't it interesting how every discussion of the 7970 invariably ends up in a pricing justification argument? Doesn't that fact alone indicate that there is some problem with the 7970 pricing?
Click to expand...

I have not tried to justify the price of the 7970, I have tried to show that ALL topend cards tend to be very overpriced. My apologies if my post did not convey this intention properly.
 
DASHlT said:
Yea....Also dont forget about the physx chip being on the card itself or some bullshit i read? For all we know that canned benchmark was 3dmark with physx to help Nvidia, would which make the score HUGE....just because of physx.

Of course this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

This is bullshit with the extra physx chip. I'm pretty sure Charlie has no idea what he is writing there. But maybe physx will be so fast because of the raw computing power of GK104. Should be in the range of 3 TF compared to only 1.6 for the GTX580.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top