• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

RDNA 3 rumours Q3/4 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
Calin Banc said:
A beast that was beaten by the mid range card of the competition - the same mid range card that was sold as high end at the time, all thanks to that "beast".:)
Click to expand...

Ah revisionist history at it’s finest.

On release the 7970 was priced between the GTX 580 1.5GB and the GTX 580 3GB and was about 25% faster than both.

So in matter off fact the price hikes were as usual driven by Nvidia greed on the GTX 580 pricing. That was a GPU that was about 25% - 30% faster the 5870 and was 50% more expensive. Yet I don’t recall a massive outcry on its pricing.
 
ICDP said:
Ah revisionist history at it’s finest.

On release the 7970 was priced between the GTX 580 1.5GB and the GTX 580 3GB and was about 25% faster than both.

So in matter off fact the price hikes were as usual driven by Nvidia greed on the GTX 580 pricing. That was a GPU that was about 25% - 30% faster the 5870 and was 50% more expensive. Yet I don’t recall a massive outcry on its pricing.
Click to expand...

Well AMD did jack up the price relative to the HD6970 which was part of the problem,but Nvidia was also to blame too. I remember Nvidia stubbornly not decreasing the price of the GTX580,so AMD had an easy win in terms of price/performance(more VRAM and being faster) but the HD7950/HD7970 were not aggressively priced as the HD4870,HD4890,HD5870 or HD6970 were. But it didn't help AMD was conservative with clockspeeds as the HD7950/HD7970 were very good for overclocking.

However,even the HD7950 3GB was still priced $51 lower than the GTX580 1.5GB and hence it was also massively cheaper than the GTX580 3GB. Plus there was a leaked picture,IIRC,showing that the GTX680 was originally meant to be called a GTX670. But what Nvidia did is push up the GTX670 to a GTX680 and than rebranded the GTX680 as the Titan,and hence doubling the RRP of the top Nvidia dGPU from $500 to $1000.

Also,there was something else people didn't cotton onto(but I did) at launch. The GTX670/GTX680 used non-deterministic core boost,ie,there was no upper defined boost limit. AMD used fixed boost mechanisms(defined upper limit) with the HD7950GE and HD7970GE. So there was no real upper limit,so the reviewers with open test benches using their short test sequences had the cards boost very high. But after the launch reviewers noticed the boost clocks were not held,so had to change their testing methodologies - places such as Hexus for example ended up warming up the cards with some game loops to make sure the cards were warm before testing. TPU ended up trying to cap clockspeeds.

Nvidia must have known something was up,because they did some revisions to the boost mechanism to make it more consistent a few months later(IIRC). But the issue is that the launch reviews were not changed. So this is why the HD7970 and HD7950 caught up with the GTX680 and GTX670 in newer tests IMHO.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Well AMD did jack up the price relative to the HD6970 which was part of the problem,but Nvidia was also to blame too. I remember Nvidia stubbornly not decreasing the price of the GTX580,so AMD had an easy win in terms of price/performance(more VRAM and being faster) but the HD7950/HD7970 were not aggressively priced as the HD4870,HD4890,HD5870 or HD6970 were. But it didn't help AMD was conservative with clockspeeds as the HD7950/HD7970 were very good for overclocking.

However,even the HD7950 3GB was still priced $51 lower than the GTX580 1.5GB and hence it was also massively cheaper than the GTX580 3GB. Plus there was a leaked picture,IIRC,showing that the GTX680 was originally meant to be called a GTX670. But what Nvidia did is push up the GTX670 to a GTX680 and than rebranded the GTX680 as the Titan,and hence doubling the RRP of the top Nvidia dGPU from $500 to $1000.

Also,there was something else people didn't cotton onto(but I did) at launch. The GTX670/GTX680 used non-deterministic core boost,ie,there was no upper defined boost limit. AMD used fixed boost mechanisms(defined upper limit) with the HD7950GE and HD7970GE. So there was no real upper limit,so the reviewers with open test benches using their short test sequences had the cards boost very high. But after the launch reviewers noticed the boost clocks were not held,so had to change their testing methodologies - places such as Hexus for example ended up warming up the cards with some game loops to make sure the cards were warm before testing. TPU ended up trying to cap clockspeeds.

Nvidia must have known something was up,because they did some revisions to the boost mechanism to make it more consistent a few months later(IIRC). But the issue is that the launch reviews were not changed. So this is why the HD7970 and HD7950 caught up with the GTX680 and GTX670 in newer tests IMHO.
Click to expand...

Very much this. I had a 6970 and when the 7970 was released the 7970 cost a fair chunk more but still less than the going UK rate for massively overpriced 1.5GB GTX 580. I could not get my head around the fact the 580 was only about 10% faster than the 6970, yet was priced ~50% more than a 6970. That is why I roll my eyes out loud, when people post that AMD need to undercut Nvidia massively to win marketshare. They tried this in the past with a GPU that was marginally slower, more VRAM and a lot cheaper. Yet AMD still lost marketshare. When I read those "but AMD need to be cheaper to gain marketshare", I replace the gain market share with, "so I can get my Nvidia GPU cheaper".

Back then I was still working building gaming PCs and clock for clock the 7970 (and even the 7950) simply were better than the GTX 680. The problem was that the GTX680 could power/clock throttle after prolonged gaming.

I bought a 7970 and that thing clocked 15% more than stock, even more perplexing was the 7950 which was 800MHz stock. I had one that clocked to 1325 on the core and was about 50% faster than stock. I also bought a 680 Lightning to test and it could not match that 7950 it for pure performance.

AMD should have had the 7970 at 1100 core and the 7950 at 1GHz from the get go. They left so much performance on the table.
 
ICDP said:
Very much this. I had a 6970 and when the 7970 was released the 7970 cost a fair chunk more but still less than the going UK rate for massively overpriced 1.5GB GTX 580. I could not get my head around the fact the 580 was only about 10% faster than the 6970, yet was priced ~50% more than a 6970. That is why I roll my eyes out loud, when people post that AMD need to undercut Nvidia massively to win marketshare. They tried this in the past with a GPU that was marginally slower, more VRAM and a lot cheaper. Yet AMD still lost marketshare. When I read those "but AMD need to be cheaper to gain marketshare", I replace the gain market share with, "so I can get my Nvidia GPU cheaper".

Back then I was still working building gaming PCs and clock for clock the 7970 (and even the 7950) simply were better than the GTX 680. The problem was that the GTX680 could power/clock throttle after prolonged gaming.

I bought a 7970 and that thing clocked 15% more than stock, even more perplexing was the 7950 which was 800MHz stock. I had one that clocked to 1325 on the core and was about 50% faster than stock. I also bought a 680 Lightning to test and it could not match that 7950 it for pure performance.

AMD should have had the 7970 at 1100 core and the 7950 at 1GHz from the get go. They left so much performance on the table.
Click to expand...

They conservative clocked the HD7950 and HD7970,because it apparently it was the first 28NM dGPU and went the safe route. But it appeared 28NM could clock much higher.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
They conservative clocked the HD7950 and HD7970,because it apparently it was the first 28NM dGPU and went the safe route. But it appeared 28NM could clock much higher.
Click to expand...

They eventually released the 7970 GHz model and at 1600p it was ~10% faster than the 680 stock for stock. When the 7970 and 680 were both pverclocked to the max, the 7970 was consistently faster. The longer you gamed the wider the gap became, as the GTX 680 would throttle with the dynamic boost.

Apologies for going off topic. But it is pertinent because so many posts on here seem to be based on some phantasy/revisionist history, where AMD have never been better than Nvidia, and always reveal exactly what to expec from their upcomgin GPU release.
 
ICDP said:
Ah revisionist history at it’s finest.

On release the 7970 was priced between the GTX 580 1.5GB and the GTX 580 3GB and was about 25% faster than both.

So in matter off fact the price hikes were as usual driven by Nvidia greed on the GTX 580 pricing. That was a GPU that was about 25% - 30% faster the 5870 and was 50% more expensive. Yet I don’t recall a massive outcry on its pricing.
Click to expand...
Lol, did I say nVIDIA was a saint? It wasn't and it isn't.

In the review I've gave you from thechpowerup it was about 10% more expensive than the 580 and about 10% better overall. Basically nothing new. Don't know how the prices were in Uk at the time, just your situation doesn't matter much as a whole.

That 7xxx series took a huge step back compared to their previous gen, at least for the launch SKUs with the launch drivers. Yes, later on the drivers got better and better options were available - my 7950 that I've eventually bought gave up to around 23% better performance through overclock alone while still being cool and with the new drivers represented a compelling pieces of hardware.

Imagine that AMD would have launched first this gen, with 7900xt being 30% better than 6950xt, but costing about $1600 - just like gtx4090. Would that be a great success? nVIDIA would have launched the rtx4080 16GB as high end,charging the same for practically mid end GPU (which should have been a 4070), be perhaps better and call it a win.


Anyway, the past is the past. If AMD's next "low end" card for "merely" $300+ comes again with x8 pic-e slot, will be a nice "in your face!" towards its clients with older gen MB. Personally I've gave up hope for both that will present good options for the end user no matter how much some fans try to justify the increase in prices over the years.

Have a good one! :)

perfrel.gif
 
Those TPU results for all resolutions includes the results for 1024x768 with no AA. Even in 2011 that was not a common resolution with most people using 1680x1050, or 1920x1200. I was using 2560x1600 and at that resolution it was a lot faster than a GTX 580. Even if your 10% faster for 10% more cost claim was accurate (it isn't), you are forgetting it had double the VRAM of the GTX 580 1.5GB.

Hexus net for example had the 7970 ahead by an average of around 23% over the GTX 580 at 1600p.
Computerbase.de had it around 33% faster at 1600p with 4x AA enabled.

if you want to revise history by posting links to cherry picked results we could do this all night. The point really is that your original claim it is all AMDs fault we have such high prices due to the 7970, is just BS revisionism that ignores the highly overpriced GTX 580.
 
Last edited:
I remember the 7970 ghz edition which raised clocks 50mhz, there was some weird video with amd on ryan shrouts PCPer youtube page where they were proclaiming it to be the cards "half birthday"....which was odd to say the least.

 
Last OT for me... HD7970 served me for 6 years with nary a struggle at 1080p, only to be replaced by an RX590 in 2019 and my wife kept it until a few months ago, only replacing it because it was starting to fail and 4GB RAM were starting to become mandatory.
For less than 100€ per year I cannot call it a bad card for the price for sure!
 
I was one of the first here to push the 7970 hard under EK liquid and it threw everything else under the bus. Launch drivers did not suck, it was the next major revision *after* the launch drivers that were awful.

I swapped them out for 4xGTX980s and they were good but the 1080tis were the hero cards that were the true replacement for the 7970s.

Back to the RDNA3 stuff and in 2022, its not just about performance, corporate responsibility is an issue for Nvidia and although I can see some people feel differently, its worth buying an AMD GPU just to avoid feeling dirty. Nvidias corporate image has fallen a long way in a short space of time.
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Any tldr? Can't watch video atm
Click to expand...

Straight up no lie, I fell asleep on sofa its really long. Lasted to about 13 mins then zZzZ

andy_mk3 said:
I skipped through most of it and couldn’t really decipher a point to the video.
Click to expand...

Yep I think he compiled most of the 'leaks' he shared over past 3 months, so there's barely anything new in it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom