The first "proper" Kepler news Fri 17th Feb?

[Mal X]

ok the GTX 590 is expensive, but on 1080p it's a full 35 FPS faster than the 7970.....and that's not OC either..this gap in performance is massive !

this isn't good news.... uum, i'm not sure what to think, but i'd be far happier with a 590, but i think it might be too much money, unless of course this drops in price by july.... but i bet it doesn't

 

[dave_beast]

ok the GTX 590 is expensive, but on 1080p it's a full 35 FPS faster than the 7970.....and that's not OC either..this gap in performance is massive !

this isn't good news.... uum, i'm not sure what to think, but i'd be far happier with a 590, but i think it might be too much money, unless of course this drops in price by july

Or get 2 7950's and destroy and 590? Also, when overclocked, the 7970 is approaching 590 performance for a fraction of the power/heat.

 

[Havana_UK]

ok the GTX 590 is expensive, but on 1080p it's a full 35 FPS faster than the 7970.....and that's not OC either..this gap in performance is massive !

this isn't good news.... uum, i'm not sure what to think, but i'd be far happier with a 590, but i think it might be too much money, unless of course this drops in price by july

You may find that the price drops, but I wouldn't count on it.

The 7970 is a decent bet as they DO OC well, but not all to the 1200MHz+ that certain people would like you to believe is the norm.

On the other hand if you're prepared to wait a few days then Kepler will be out. It will be at least as fast as the 7970, but might not OC quite as well, this remains to be seen. Then of course, you need to decide if you're happy paying premium money for something that was supposed to be mainstream performance.

 

[TAC4U]

well why are you lot telling me to get this 7970 card then and posting in how great it is ... i want the GTX 590.... these other cards are much too slow in comparison

they're 40 to 50 FPS slower, sorry guys i didn't realise this... i had no idea at all, even the 6990 is interesting, this means i have to save 600 quid..... bloody hell..... this is a bit of a shock, i only thought that they were a few frames slower, not 45% !

The GTX590 is VRAM limited, as it's 1.5GB per GPU. Battlefield 3 can already exceed that at 1080p, so modern games are likely to exacerbate the problem. It also has the problems associated with dual-GPU setups, such as being reliant upon driver updates and possible micro-stutter.

It's far better to go for a 7970 and then add a second down the road if you really crave the extra performance (or if you're gaming at 1440p/1600p). Plus it has decent overclocking, while dual-GPUs are a) much more limited, and b) make dramatically more noise when pushed. People aren't recommending the 7970 as part of a giant practical joke played upon all forum goers - it's because it is genuinely a better choice.

 

[thenewoc]

7970 lot cheaper than 590 too.

 

[Owenb]

Because this is what we SHOULD expect from generational changes, that the new generation's top-end single-chip GPU should match (or nearly match) the performance of the previous generation's dual-chip solution.

People are more than happy to pay Intel £200-300 for CPU's that have been offering 5-20% performance increases... If you want a top of the range CPU then you need to pay insane money for chips that are smaller than top end GPU's and don't have the added cost of having to source fabs, board partners and large amounts of expensive GDDR5.

 

[PGdude]

VR-Zone takes a BRIEF look at GTX680 SLI Performance

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-sli-performance-preview/15273.html

"Disclaimer: Test results might or might not be indicative of final retail performance, and is not supported or sanctioned by NVIDIA and their partners. As such, we will refrain from making judgements or opinions."


Edit: Hark, some actual Kepler news. Sort of.

 

[rare]

You would have to be mental to spend 600 odd on a 590. AMD will launch the 7990 or whatever it's going to be called soon enough.

 

[BaDBoY_uK]

7950 vs 590? Wow, that's a fair fight! Single vs. Dual GPU? Epic skills bruv

 

[Rusty0611]

You would have to be mental to spend 600 odd on a 590. AMD will launch the 7990 or whatever it's going to be called soon enough.

This.

Mal X - if you're going to make a purchase based on a graph line then at least look further. As has been said a 7950 crossfire set up is far more ideal than a 590.

Also to suggest the 79** series is mediocre by comparing a single 79** card against a dual GPU 590 card is just downright daft.

7950 vs 590? Wow, that's a fair fight! Single vs. Dual GPU? Epic skills bruv

Also this.

 

[straxusii]

It's not daft, typically the new high end of a die shrink release does ~equal the dual GPU of the last gen. It doesn't this time around because for some reason AMD didn't release the 7970 at it's true potential.

5870 had roughly equal performance to GTX295/4870X2

 

[stulid]

 

[Rusty0611]

It's not daft, typically the new high end of a die shrink release does ~equal the dual GPU of the last gen. It doesn't this time around because for some reason AMD didn't release the 7970 at it's true potential.

5870 had roughly equal performance to GTX295/4870X2

Thing is now you're comparing what the 79** should have been vs 590 whereas we're comparing what it actually is. You're slightly missing the point. What it should/could have been is tangential to this particular thread of discussion.

Also, the 58** series were a one off all you can give release from AMD so if I look back historically I don't see all that much precedent for the new generations card being roughly equal to the previous generations dual GPU card.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

i doubt it, the 7970 is too far behind for an OC to get close and i'm not keen on OC like crazy anyway..

i'm going to have to think about this..

Actually with an OC the 7970 gets VERY close. Bit Tech has shown it nearly up to speed with a 6990 in BF3, for example.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

Thing is now you're comparing what the 79** should have been vs 590 whereas we're comparing what it actually is. You're slightly missing the point. What it should/could have been is tangential to this particular thread of discussion.

Also, the 58** series were a one off all you can give release from AMD so if I look back historically I don't see all that much precedent for the new generations card being roughly equal to the previous generations dual GPU card.

What about the 4800 series over the 3800 series? What about the X1900 series over the X800?

 

[thezakarum]

Seems like NDA ends on the 23rd instead of the 22nd.

 

[thenewoc]

Some 7800's have now been listed http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=701&catid=56&subid=411

 

[MichaelM]

SNIP

Is it just me or was the BF3 video choppy at some points when moving?

 

[andybird123]

looks like the price drops are already starting - ** No competitor price hinting ****

 

[straxusii]

Thing is now you're comparing what the 79** should have been vs 590 whereas we're comparing what it actually is. You're slightly missing the point. What it should/could have been is tangential to this particular thread of discussion.

Also, the 58** series were a one off all you can give release from AMD so if I look back historically I don't see all that much precedent for the new generations card being roughly equal to the previous generations dual GPU card.

It wasn't a one off, both Nvidia and ATI with few historic exceptions tend to beat the previous gen by 50-70% when it comes to a die shrink first release.

Just off the top of my head compare 5870 to 4870x2, GTX480 to GTX295, GTX280 to 9800GX2 and I'm sure you will find plenty more examples, all within roughly 10% say.