iMacmatician
Regular
On the first page of the Anandtech review there's a diagram showing the 4/3/3 asymmetrical grouping (not sure if the diagram is originally from AMD though).
AMD: Southern Islands (7*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
- Thread starter UniversalTruth
- Start date
We do work with him and give him the relevant register spec to read in order to determine the SIMD/CU counts etc.
The last few OpenCL drivers from NV are performance crippled up to 50%, so I wouldn't keep my breath on those results.
Yes, it is, and yes the layout is intentional.
why? pricing is variable. People want AMD to make money and be successful, yet they complain when they do.........
We all want AMD to be successful, but there are different rates at which they can rake in money.
So far in the 7000 series, they have turned the rake in knob to : suck the suckers dry. This is a very unfortunate thing to see AMD doing. I strongly believe they will lose much more mindshare (which will cost them money in the long run), than the extra money they will gain right now.
The 5870 cost 40% more than the 4870 512MB (having in mind launch prices in euros), while delivering 60% more performance. Keep in mind that it brought 100% more video framebuffer size, support for a completely new API (DX11) and a new process to boot. It had no competition whatsoever. It was still expensive compared to a 5850, but still...
Today, the 7970 is 40% faster than its predecessor, it costs 60% more, it brings 50% more video framebuffer size, it does not support a completely new API, but thankfully it's manufactured on a new process. It also has no competition.
So, if the above comparison does not show how far AMD has strayed from their pricing schemes of recent years, I don't know what does.
As an X AMD fan, I honestly hope Nvidia decides to play the good cop this time around and teach AMD a lesson. Especially now that AMD needs the gpu money, after the Bulldozer clusterfuck.
Well, the 7950 was going for the same price (and not some fire sale, either) as the 8600 when it came out, which has been Dr Evil's conversation point regarding 7700 compared to 6850. To your point about the 8600 being crap? Did that stop NV from selling a hojillion units over several years? Nope, it surely didn't. You can rightfully retort that 8600 unit sales were primarily driven by OEM channel and nobody with a brain actually bought the 8600 of their own volition -- but OEM sales are an epic factor in revenue. The fact that so many 8600's sold means it made NV a ton of money for a "crap" product.
The 8600 also had features that the 7950 didn't.
Therefore, I've still made my point. I never said the 7700 is a world beater, hell I never said it was even interesting for my purchasing interests. Even further, I mentioned that I'm not buying anything from AMD until NV releases their hardware.
I did say that the 7700 comes with features that the 6xxx series does not. I did say that it rightfully exceeds the performance of the card that it truly replaces (which is the 5770.) I never disagreed that the 6850 performs much faster for a similar (or lesser) pricetag. I did say that the 6850 isn't the same market line as the 7700, and I'm still correct in that.
Does that mean the 7700 is never going to sell and nobody is going to buy it and it's a crap product? No, no, and maybe is the correct answer to those three questions.
So what is an acceptable rate? They have:
- No competition except themselves
- No visible competition for probably three months
- Undeniable ownership of single-GPU performance halo
- A well yielding product
- A product that sets new benchmarks for perf/watt
- A product that delivers functionality that current devices cannot
If you think that high prices turn customers away, then you'll have to explain why NV has the market share they do. Anyone who has the upper performance hand gets to charge the premium prices -- just ask Intel and AMD. Back when the X2 was top dog, AMD could get away with charging $1000 for a processor -- just like Intel had been doing. Now that Intel is back in control, they're the ones charging $1000.
Every time NV has the upper hand, cards are $500+. Every time that ATI got the upper hand, cards were generally not AS high but weren't that far off. You'd have to show me some empirical data that shows profit actually dips from customers refusing to buy ANY product because the competition isn't there. Intel says "hI', and says "Yeah, no, we charge a ton because people are still upgrading despite how much more expensive we are than AMD."
I'm still not sure why you're using the poorly received 8600 GTS to support your argument. Of course the 77xx series will still sell well, its < $200 and is new and shiny.
Why will prices not find their logical / proper waterline? Are you saying that customers will somehow feel "burnt" at AMD's price gouging, but similarly never feel burnt when NVIDIA does it?
Please articulate your response; I feel that I addressed this question already. Let me summarize in a different way.
I perceive the complaints against 7700 as follows:
- The performance of 7700 is less than the prior higher-tier designs (68xx)
- The 7700 MSRP is more than the current retail price of the prior higher-tier designs (68xx)
- The 7700 doesn't provide a "good" (quantifiable?) price to performance ratio versus the prior designs at their currently reduced prices
- The 7700 doesn't provide any specific features that make it worth the money
- AMD is charging "too much" for it
- Nobody is going to buy it for all of the above reasons
- The performance argument against a prior-generation, higher-tiered part? Bogus. It's not meant to replace the prior higher-tier part, it's meant to replace the prior mid-tier part.
- The MSRP question? It isn't intended to replace a higher tier part from a prior generation, it's meant to replace the mid-tier part from a prior generation. Thus, the MSRP is "in line with expectation" regardless of whether a higher tiered, prior generation part is currently selling for less.
- The price to performance ratio? When compared to the parts it is intended to replace, they both did just fine (ie better than their predecessor)
- Doesn't provide any new features that matter? The argument might be that you don't find those interesting, but that doesn't mean they don't exist - because there ARE features in the newer variant of both cards that didn't exist in ANY of the prior cards, regardless of 'tier'
- The 8600 and 7700 are too expensive? Based on what? Your opinion and nothing else? Because if they're truly too expensive to sell, the prices will drop for all the obvious reasons.
- Nobody is going to buy a 7700 for the same reason nobody was going to buy an 8600 -- it was "expensive", it didn't have "value", faster older parts could be had cheaper, it sucked blah blah blah. Which couldn't be further from the truth, as evidenced by the massive installed base of 8600's in the wild
In conclusion, it's incredibly likely that the 7700 series of cards are going to be very popular, because they share a name AND an architecture with the current cream of the crop of video cards -- just like people stupidly bought 8600's because they shared a name with the Halo 8800 product. That doesn't mean the purchasers of 7700's or 8600's are well informed or are actually making a logically correct decision, because their decision likely wasn't based on logic -- it will be based on whatever Dell or HP or Sony or whoever else sells them.
It will make AMD a big pile of money, despite your cries of the opposite, and is going to be their breadwinner likely for even the next generation (rebranding, YAY! )
I don't see a single person in this thread claiming the 77xx series won't sell well or make money. You're arguing with yourself there...
You seem to be championing it in the face of intense criticism from all sides and using another lackluster part (8600GTS) to help your cause. That's the bit I don't follow. I simply found your choice of 8600 GTS strange and not beneficial to your argument, that's all.
You seem to be championing it in the face of intense criticism from all sides and using another lackluster part (8600GTS) to help your cause. That's the bit I don't follow. I simply found your choice of 8600 GTS strange and not beneficial to your argument, that's all.
I didn't argue the 7700 was good, did I? I stated my points. Please refute the ones that you find incorrect, and I will gladly have that discussion
No I'm saying that nVidia parts do better in the market when on equal footing. AMD isn't in a position yet to play the price premium game.
They are, I dont see any worthwhile competitor to the 7700 series from Nvidia anytime soon yet.
Well, Arty beat me to it -- so I'm here to agree with that.
I responded to the 7770/7750 review thread with basically this: we have no information on Kepler to make a good basis for assumption. The reality is that NV might come in with a world-beater that spanks GCN in every way imaginable, or they might come in with the next evolutionary step of Fermi which roughly equals or perhaps even slightly loses to GCN.
If Kepler beats GCN, then AMD prices will lower and NV will be skimming the price premium crop. If GCN can beat out Kepler, then AMD isn't going anywhere and you can decide with your wallet if you want a lower performing part for a lower price. If they're equal, that's when it gets curious
I don't see why AMD is getting the hate for charging what the market will bear. If the market isn't going to buy it, then the prices will come down and people will buy it. A few butt-hurt fanboys may not, but they probably are the ones who were going to hate on AMD anyway simply because they weren't NV.
I'm not one of those people.
I responded to the 7770/7750 review thread with basically this: we have no information on Kepler to make a good basis for assumption. The reality is that NV might come in with a world-beater that spanks GCN in every way imaginable, or they might come in with the next evolutionary step of Fermi which roughly equals or perhaps even slightly loses to GCN.
If Kepler beats GCN, then AMD prices will lower and NV will be skimming the price premium crop. If GCN can beat out Kepler, then AMD isn't going anywhere and you can decide with your wallet if you want a lower performing part for a lower price. If they're equal, that's when it gets curious
I don't see why AMD is getting the hate for charging what the market will bear. If the market isn't going to buy it, then the prices will come down and people will buy it. A few butt-hurt fanboys may not, but they probably are the ones who were going to hate on AMD anyway simply because they weren't NV.
I'm not one of those people.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
He used that, because it was the only "somewhat proper" example for his claim, that this sort of higher price lower performance happens all the time with new gen cards. His example has some merit, but it's not exactly comparable. Apparently 7950 GT was at 199$ when the 8600 gts came out with a similar price point and the former was better. 7950 gt launched much higher compared to the 8600 gts, than what we are looking at here today. Doesn't change the fact that both of them were pretty bad for the price, more like proves that something like this doesn't happen often and when it does it's ugly.
I wan't to add that I think the GCN cards and the tech in them is good, I have nothing against them, it's just AMD's marketing I have a beef with. Even if I think that the 79xx are too expensive, they at least can back that up a bit with the performance. 7770 brought a lollipop to a gun fight.
Well the GTX560 and GTX550Ti do quite well, as you can get them for about the same money as the 7770 and 7750 (looking at Europe prices so no rebate deals). And that's competition the 7700 can't possibly win (not on the performance metric at least), though the 7750 is quite close (I still think it's a pity it couldn't be tuned to be as fast "on average" as a 5770, something like 50Mhz more core clock or one more CU would probably be enough). IMHO the 7770 has the bigger problem as not only does it have to deal with the GTX560 at current prices, but the 6850 is both faster and cheaper, and so are the 256bit GTX 460 still in the market.
Though I guess we'll see lower-than-MSRP prices soon enough.
Isnt the biggest market for these ASICs through the big three PC makers, which is where I think they have the biggest impact, even with the current pricing levels.
And I counted 20 CUs for Pitcairn?http://i.imgur.com/ycxci.png
http://i.imgur.com/Z8KLR.png
I can count 32 symmetrical structures on the Tahiti die and 10 for Cape Verde.
No cookie monster here.
Similar threads
