AMD: R7xx Speculation

[v_rr]

If you just search for 9800 GTX in price grabber, you can find several eVGA 9800GTX's selling for $269 without rebate, so it's already pretty close to the $250 price point, and I'm sure it will come down even more when the new Radeon's are released.

First was 200, now is 250$ and more

9800GTX can´t lower more it´s price then those prices while HD 4850 can.
Just look at the cooler. It´s much more simple an cheaper in HD 4850. The core is smaller, memories are slower, and so on.
The 9800GTX is one high-end card shipping for low prices hurting bad Nvidia margins.

What you are telling is impossible. The 9800GTX can never but never compete in price with HD 4850. Only if they selll them losing money. Is just a matter of loking to both cards:

Just looking to them you see that clearly the 9800GTX can never compete with HD 4850 in price. Only if ATI want´s to gain big money and overprice the card, and Nvidia cut price urting badly the income.
HD 4850 natural competitor is 8800GT/9800GT.

 

[BRiT]

What about G92b based 9800GTX ? Certainly those can indeed go lower in price.

 

[v_rr]

What about G92b based 9800GTX ? Certainly those can indeed go lower in price.

There is no G92b 9800GTX
Only 9800GT G92b and still there will be 9800GT in 65 and 55nm. Nvidia is taking carrefuly the 55nm.

On the other side ATI have all new lineup of IGP, GPU´s in 55nm. They are in a very good shape in that.

 

[willardjuice]

What about G92b based 9800GTX ? Certainly those can indeed go lower in price.

But do we know when those will materialize (also wasn't the G92b supposed to be like a 9800 GT)? And even then the best Nvidia could do is match AMD (ie: the G92b might be a decent answer to the 4850, but if AMD lowers the price of the 4870 we're right back to square one). I just don't think Nvidia will have a good answer to the 4870.

 

[trinibwoy]

AMD looks very well positioned at this point. Nvidia doesn't seem to have anything to compete with the 4800 series at the price points they're targeting. G92b won't cut it and GT200 can't get down into those price ranges that easily.

 

[Slyne]

More (4850) slides, didn't see these posted

I am not sure I like these bargraphs much: for instance in CoD4, the new card is beating the 9800GTX in min and avg frame rates, but losing to it for max framerates. To me, the unknown card is the obvious winner, and it's actually better if avg and max rates are not too different (makes for smoother gameplay), yet at first glance the longer overall bar would make one think that the 9800GTX is the best card.

Edit: They should use a logarithmic scale, I think it would be closer to how we perceive framerate. And discard extreme, infrequent values so as to not tip the balance toward a lone frame drop too much.

 

[itsmydamnation]

just following on from AMD good posistion in relations to process node and die size. Assuming performace is good for 4870/80 i wonder if AMD will do a refresh for r700, i dont really see much to be gained, the gpu's are already quite small. might as well focus on a 40nm r800 and try and beat nvidia to the market for once.

 

[Rangers]

AMD looks very well positioned at this point. Nvidia doesn't seem to have anything to compete with the 4800 series at the price points they're targeting. G92b won't cut it and GT200 can't get down into those price ranges that easily.

Perhaps Nvidia should have engineered some 3/4 GT200 part. With an intrinsically smaller die. Much like they did with 9600GT related to G92.

As it is they've sort of got a G92 and a 2X G92 (basically what GT200 is) and that's why they're kind of trapped, depending on how it shakes out.

 

[Karoshi]

I am not sure I like these bargraphs much: for instance in CoD4, the new card is beating the 9800GTX in min and avg frame rates, but losing to it for max framerates. To me, the unknown card is the obvious winner, and it's actually better if avg and max rates are not too different (makes for smoother gameplay), yet at first glance the longer overall bar would make one think that the 9800GTX is the best card.

Edit: They should use a logarithmic scale, I think it would be closer to how we perceive framerate. And discard extreme, infrequent values so as to not tip the balance toward a lone frame drop too much.

The charts irked me, too. Hell, they forgot to add power consumption (idle&load) and sound (both db and sone) to the same single bar. That way we can holistically compare the cards with a single bar chart. Brilliant.

 

[Slyne]

Perhaps Nvidia should have engineered some 3/4 GT200 part. With an intrinsically smaller die. Much like they did with 9600GT related to G92.

As it is they've sort of got a G92 and a 2X G92 (basically what GT200 is) and that's why they're kind of trapped, depending on how it shakes out.

At some conference last month, which I am to lazy to find and link to, they announced that G92b was gonna be it for the 6-9 months to come.

 

[Wirmish]

What about G92b based 9800GTX ? Certainly those can indeed go lower in price.

Die size: AMD RV770 = nVidia G92b
Production cost: HD 4870 = 9800 GT (9900 GT/9900 GTS/9900 GTX ?)
Selling price: Same

 

[Arty]

I want to play Call of Duty: Modern Wharf. Sorry for being a sore thumb and pointing out funny typos.

Die size: AMD RV770 = nVidia G92b
Production cost: HD 4870 = 9800 GT (9900 GT/9900 GTS/9900 GTX ?)
Selling price: Same

Performance?

 

[Wirmish]

Performance?

Hum... not easy... well G92b > HD 4870 ! ... no way !

 

[Headstone]

Yield?

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm more inclined to believe the 256mm die size rumor (for rv770), than an estimate based on a photo.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Hum... not easy... well G92b > HD 4870 ! ... no way !

Were you afraid to use white color?

 

[Jawed]

Also, isn't that G80 known to be efficient architecture on using bandwidth?
If so, may this be possible that this round RV770 has got higher efficiency
design comparison to that of R600

I think the combination of fp16 and 8xMSAA is what hurts G80 - but that's just an impression. int8 render targets with 8xMSAA don't seem to have a problem.

Jawed

 

[Shtal]

I still wonder why AMD holding off on a secret by not telling how many TMU's RV770 has ??

What would it change? Or will Nvidia suddenly make GT200 faster - if we know the truth about RV770.

 

[Shtal]

It seems that NVIDIA believed that RV770 would only have 480 shader processors, and only be a modest upgrade of the RV670 core. This is suppose to be one of the reasons for the rather high prices of the GeForce GTX cards, that and the ridiculous manufacturing costs. Now that it has been unveiled that RV770 does not have 480 shader processors, but rather 800, it seems NVIDIA might lower the price of the GeForce GTX 260 to make it a bit more appealing in comparison to Radeon HD 4870. We're hearing $399 from more than one source, but we're also hearing that Radeon HD 4870 might not come as cheap as hoped, $349. The GeForce GTX prices are expected to stay put for a long time, but AMD has every possibility to lower the prices of its new graphics cards, if sales are slow, without losing much money. http://www.nordichardware.com/forum/nvidia-shakened-by-radeon-hd-4800-lowers-prices-vt10339.html

HD4870 @ $350 ??????

 

[Wirmish]

I'm more inclined to believe the 256mm die size rumor (for rv770), than an estimate based on a photo.

Perhaps an estimation based on some photo is not perfect, but for me it's better that a vague rumour.

"A picture is worth a thousand words." - Fred R. Barnard