Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

AMD Radeon HD 7790 Review: Graphics Core Next At $150

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
a b U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 9:17:57 PM

I thought the HD 7850 1GB is good value at $150 after rebate and 2GB at $180 after rebate.
Score
19
a b U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 9:21:32 PM

Its crazy to see how much performance you can get in $150. The HD7790 performs 90% of the 6870, which menas its almost equal to a HD5870 :o  , which was the top chip a few years back.
Score
-7
Related resources
a c 112 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 9:28:07 PM

Very good performance for the price.

Its a good time to build mid end systems :) 
Score
14
March 21, 2013 9:37:13 PM

Too bad the OpenGL benches weren't implemented before Tom's did that "Gaming on workstation GPUs" article...
Score
7
March 21, 2013 10:00:24 PM

I guess I know what my next GPU will be.

6870 performance in a 85W envelope is amazing.
Score
18
a b U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 10:02:43 PM

It really strong rival for 650Ti....

Glad to see some competition at entry/budget level card.....
Score
11
a c 91 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 10:08:54 PM

wow, nice job AMD...

and perhaps they finally realized that they make crappy reference coolers at best and just let Sapphire go ahead and ship to Tom's lol. In all honesty, as an AMD exclusive partner, Sapphire should just go ahead and take over reference cooler design for AMD, they make some awesome stuff
Score
19
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 10:13:24 PM

amdfangirlI guess I know what my next GPU will be. 85W TDP... basically = to a HD 5870... I can't believe it...I'll get the 2GB and finally be able to play Skyrim 1080p w/high res textures xD.


IDK about it at that point. High-res stuff and all that can eat through poor memory bandwidth cards such as this quite easily.
Score
6
a c 91 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 10:20:41 PM

amdfangirlI guess I know what my next GPU will be. 85W TDP... basically = to a HD 5870... I can't believe it...I'll get the 2GB and finally be able to play Skyrim 1080p w/high res textures xD.


Honestly, if you put on enough high res mods, even my 7970 barely keeps up... still a gorgeous game tho, and you'll enjoy it just fine with a little tweaking and a 7790
Score
6
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 10:22:22 PM

Well, it seems to not hold up quite to the 90% of a 7850 rumors, but it's at a respectable ~80% of it on average. For $150, that is definitely a great competitor.
Score
9
March 21, 2013 10:33:20 PM

say, guys, linux gaming benchmarks perhaps? pretty please?
Score
9
March 21, 2013 10:49:59 PM

8 power states aww man thats gonna be so awesome....clock & Use what u need nothing is wasted.

Looks like I gonna drop 7770 nd get this instead. XD
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 10:56:51 PM

Lol! This is insane!!!

Btw, as long as there is low amounts of AA, amdfangirl should be fine with skyrim. Esp with some GPU tweaking.
Score
1
March 21, 2013 11:03:48 PM

amdfangirlI guess I know what my next GPU will be. 85W TDP... basically = to a HD 5870... I can't believe it...I'll get the 2GB and finally be able to play Skyrim 1080p w/high res textures xD.


Who cares about TDP, I want more FramesPerSec for the $$$.
Score
-6
a c 620 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 11:19:33 PM

Only 5 gaming benchmarks makes it difficult to obtain a generalized sense of how these cards perform. Including F1 in that preciously short list is puzzling due to its unpopularity and aberrant performance results. As 1/5th of the gaming cumulative score, F1 single-handedly raises the 7790 score by several percentage points in relative value.
Score
-3
a b U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 11:37:48 PM

First of all, thanks for the review. I thought we were going to have to wait a bit more for the review but apparently I was wrong. :) 

Is it impossible to give this card a 192-bit memory bus and a 1.5GB VRAM? :/  At this point in time, I'd feel more comfortable buying or recommending a card with more than 1GB memory because most titles have start to use more than 1GB (granted some of them uses more only with AA applied but the point stands). The other reason is because I think that if there were going to be a 2GB version of the card, it's going to be overpriced and the card starts to lose it's value in the mid-range segment.
Score
2
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 21, 2013 11:50:49 PM

EzioAs said:
First of all, thanks for the review. I thought we were going to have to wait a bit more for the review but apparently I was wrong. :) 

Is it impossible to give this card a 192-bit memory bus and a 1.5GB VRAM? :/  At this point in time, I'd feel more comfortable buying or recommending a card with more than 1GB memory because most titles have start to use more than 1GB (granted some of them uses more only with AA applied but the point stands). The other reason is because I think that if there were going to be a 2GB version of the card, it's going to be overpriced and the card starts to lose it's value in the mid-range segment.


Games only need more than 1GB on cards that are fast enough for 1GB to be an issue. The Radeon 7850 is the slowest card to have consistent issues with this and even then, 1GB is almost always sufficient for it and it's considerably faster than the Radeon 7790, especially in VRAM-heavy situations. It's unlikely that 1GB will be an issue for this card at all.

I agree that a wider bus and then more memory would have helped performance greatly, but then it'd perform too closely to the Radeon 7850. Heck, it might even beat the 7850 unless its memory frequency was brought down significantly and it's GPU frequency might need to go down too. It's cost more for AMD to make, but it'd also overclock better. However, then it'd be replacing the Radeon 7850 1GB more than being a midway between the 7850 and the 7770.
Score
4
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 12:31:29 AM

It's good to see competition at this price point. However you never see reference GTX 650 Ti in retail. Every OEM (and most buyers) know that the GTX 650 Ti can be heavily overclocked, most chips reaching 1GHz easily. I don't expect to see major price drops on the NV card because of this.
Score
0
a c 80 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 12:44:43 AM

i saw "Radeon HD 7790 Catalyst Beta Driver" in the test setups and benchmarks page. if this means that amd still doesn't have a launch driver, they should deliver one when 7790 starts selling at retail shops/website. the competitive benchmark performance and efficiency will translate to nothing if regular users don't get that.
seems that power consumption for blu-ray playback is still dismal compared to 650ti
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/HD_7790_DirectC...
so much for dynamic clockrate selection.... if this is a driver issue, amd should fix it.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 1:05:36 AM

Thanks for the writeup. I look forward to seeing the overclock potential of this card.

Also, considering that the 7850 1GB is frequently available for $150 AR (Picked up a XFX Double D for $150 AR + games in February and the 2gb core edition is currently $160 AR), does it $150 price point really make much sense? I would have liked to see the 2gb version of this card around the $150 point instead of it starting at $150
Score
2
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 1:28:33 AM

bgrt said:
It's good to see competition at this price point. However you never see reference GTX 650 Ti in retail. Every OEM (and most buyers) know that the GTX 650 Ti can be heavily overclocked, most chips reaching 1GHz easily. I don't expect to see major price drops on the NV card because of this.


We also know that those overclocks tend to not do much for performance unless they have memory overclocks too. Overclocking the GPU on the 650 Ti does next to nothing because the VRAM bandwidth bottle-neck is too big. I bet that the same is true for the Radeon 7790.
Score
2
a c 172 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 1:31:31 AM

I know you don't want to introduce cpu bottleneck when benchmarking graphics cards, but since no one actually has a 6 core i7 in their rig, why use it for benching? Would be more realistic to see an overclocked i5 3570k used in your test rig.
Score
-6
March 22, 2013 1:40:50 AM

Even though it might just be due to variations and coincidence, I love that this might mean that they managed to increase performance over the 7770 while lowering the power usage slightly. For multipurpose machines that need to be silent and/or expel as little heat as possible, this kind of evolution is ace.
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 1:52:01 AM

man, look at all that dead space at end of the card, can't wait til it's filled up with gnc goodness...
Score
2
March 22, 2013 1:53:08 AM

blazorthonGames only need more than 1GB on cards that are fast enough for 1GB to be an issue. The Radeon 7850 is the slowest card to have consistent issues with this and even then, 1GB is almost always sufficient for it and it's considerably faster than the Radeon 7790, especially in VRAM-heavy situations. It's unlikely that 1GB will be an issue for this card at all.I agree that a wider bus and then more memory would have helped performance greatly, but then it'd perform too closely to the Radeon 7850. Heck, it might even beat the 7850 unless its memory frequency was brought down significantly and it's GPU frequency might need to go down too. It's cost more for AMD to make, but it'd also overclock better. However, then it'd be replacing the Radeon 7850 1GB more than being a midway between the 7850 and the 7770.
the 1GB VRAM issue are only for situation like BF3 ultra + Skyrim with heavy mod.But these game can also be look as a reference for future games especially future console ports is going to take a lot more VRAM.

Most of the time is sufficient existing title. but I easily hit 1.25GB on my GTX570 @ 1680x1050@ Ultra BF3. I think I am really worry on my VRAM in future games. 2GB seems to be the min for todays mid range card

These cards are meant for 1600x1200 below resolution so VRAM for 1GB isnt gonna be much issue on 60% of the title.

The only interesting thing for 7790 is its 8 stage power state, and its improved tessellation. Nothing else. 6.4GHz memory are pretty sufficient for low speed card like this. 7770 @ 4.5Ghz memory is probably more bottleneck than this one.
Score
1
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 1:56:08 AM

Wow, there finally benched Far Cry 3 with HDAO for AMD and HBAO for nvidia, finally
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 2:10:45 AM

i expect the 1gb 7850 to be around for a few more months atleast. considering that, its best to avoid this card and go straight for 1gb 7850. only when the 1gb 7850 is no longer available anywhere in the market and the 7790 settles at about $120-130 then this card will be a good choice as a lower mid range card.
until then this card ain't worth $150 when at same price you can score a 256 bit 1gb 7850.
Score
0
a c 182 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 2:52:48 AM

really hd 7790 has taken place of gtx 650ti!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 4:25:09 AM

God dammit AMD and Nvidia. Lower your prices. Can't believe that after 1,5 years both companies can't provide better price/performance cards than the $140 GTX460 Hawk edition or the $159 6870...
Score
-2
a c 197 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 4:49:53 AM

Ooh, I just spotted the elephant in the room...
The GTX650Ti can't do SLI, but this can do Crossfire!
Can we get a few Crossfire benches please?
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 4:55:12 AM

Page 1 error 7850 1GB does not have a 128 memory bus it has a 256 bit memory bus.
Score
0
a c 197 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 5:11:24 AM

This card is a tempting replacement for a HD7770, it's a crying shame it wasn't given a 256bit memory buss though; like the HD6790 had compared to the HD6770. Especially if AMD means to phase out the 1GB HD7850, giving this the 256bit buss would have slotted it right in there.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 5:39:22 AM

MemnarchonGod dammit AMD and Nvidia. Lower your prices. Can't believe that after 1,5 years both companies can't provide better price/performance cards than the $140 GTX460 Hawk edition or the $159 6870...


I pad 159 no rebates for my 7850 1GB and got 3 free games, sleeping dogs, bioshock Infinite and the new tomb raider. I would say that competes nicely with the cards and prices you stated.
Score
3
March 22, 2013 5:43:28 AM

Just 10w short of not requiring a 6 pin aux connector. It's crazy how much lower power consumption is getting for the performance.
Score
-1
March 22, 2013 5:45:01 AM

spentshellsI pad 159 no rebates for my 7850 1GB and got 3 free games, sleeping dogs, bioshock Infinite and the new tomb raider. I would say that competes nicely with the cards and prices you stated.

Me too (minus sleeping dogs) and Tomb Raider was one of the better games I've played in a while.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 5:50:47 AM

spentshellsI pad 159 no rebates for my 7850 1GB and got 3 free games, sleeping dogs, bioshock Infinite and the new tomb raider. I would say that competes nicely with the cards and prices you stated.

Can you provide me a link for $159 7850?
Also, free games are nice but can't give you performance. If you manage to sell them and get sum of your money back its ok. But wouldn't it be great if the pricerange of 68xx were replaced by 78xx? Since there were supposed to be their replacement.
And to be honest I don't want to pay extra $ for something that in the previous generation I payed for far less. Same goes for Nvidia and especially for Titan. 2nd tier GF110 (GTX570) $330, 2nd tier GK110 (Titan something) Nvidia says MSRP $899.
I don't think that there are a lot of people that they don't think that this generation is overpriced...
Score
-3
March 22, 2013 6:04:10 AM

I will definitely count nvidia out. Both next gen consoles will use AMD GCN architecture and games will be more optimized and error free on AMD hardware.
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 6:40:44 AM

Memnarchon said:
spentshellsI pad 159 no rebates for my 7850 1GB and got 3 free games, sleeping dogs, bioshock Infinite and the new tomb raider. I would say that competes nicely with the cards and prices you stated.

Can you provide me a link for $159 7850?
Also, free games are nice but can't give you performance. If you manage to sell them and get sum of your money back its ok. But wouldn't it be great if the pricerange of 68xx were replaced by 78xx? Since there were supposed to be their replacement.
And to be honest I don't want to pay extra $ for something that in the previous generation I payed for far less. Same goes for Nvidia and especially for Titan. 2nd tier GF110 (GTX570) $330, 2nd tier GK110 (Titan something) Nvidia says MSRP $899.
I don't think that there are a lot of people that they don't think that this generation is overpriced...


Heh heh heh no I kept the games I want to play them. Maybe not sleeping dogs but still pretty good.
Im in canada though....and it went up 10 dollars
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 7:26:57 AM

Memnarchon said:
God dammit AMD and Nvidia. Lower your prices. Can't believe that after 1,5 years both companies can't provide better price/performance cards than the $140 GTX460 Hawk edition or the $159 6870...


Memnarchon said:
spentshellsI pad 159 no rebates for my 7850 1GB and got 3 free games, sleeping dogs, bioshock Infinite and the new tomb raider. I would say that competes nicely with the cards and prices you stated.

Can you provide me a link for $159 7850?
Also, free games are nice but can't give you performance. If you manage to sell them and get sum of your money back its ok. But wouldn't it be great if the pricerange of 68xx were replaced by 78xx? Since there were supposed to be their replacement.
And to be honest I don't want to pay extra $ for something that in the previous generation I payed for far less. Same goes for Nvidia and especially for Titan. 2nd tier GF110 (GTX570) $330, 2nd tier GK110 (Titan something) Nvidia says MSRP $899.
I don't think that there are a lot of people that they don't think that this generation is overpriced...


That GTX 460 launched at $240 according to several sources I found in a Google search with nothing saying otherwise. The Radeon 7790 is at least as fast as it on average, if not faster, and is launching at $150. Also, although free games do not add performance, they most certainly add value too. That's a big improvement going from launch price to launch price between these two cards.

Radeon 7850 pricing has been fluctuating a lot. I've seen them as cheap as $150. I don't see any far below $180 (at least before MIR) right now, but that can change quite quickly.

No, this generation is not overpriced except for the GK110 cards, at least not by too much. AMD's pricing is great overall for the Radeon 7750 and above and Nvidia's isn't too much worse, again, except for their GK110 cards. A great example is how the GTX 580 used to have a price ranging from the mid $400s to the upper $500s, yet the GTX 670, a much faster gaming card, can be found as cheap as the lower to upper $300s.

That's a big improvement. Next, we can look at the Cayman cards. The Radeon 7850 2GB, which is now faster than the Radeon 6970, can be found cheaper than even the Radeon 6950 1GB was when it was similarly old. There's a similar situation going on with the GTX 570 being beaten in performance by the GTX 660 even more than the 6970 is beaten by the 7850 and the 660 can be found around the GTX 560 Ti's price range.

If your complaint has to do with the comparable card and/or GPU model numbers being in higher price brackets than the previous generation, then you're complaining for no good reason other than to complain. Neither Nvidia nor AMD have kept to any such cross-generation coherent naming system in a long time now, if ever. You can refuse to accept that price for performance and other value has greatly improved if you want to, but that's refusing to accept something that should be obviously true.

I'll even give examples (tl;dr warning for anyone whom doesn't care). Let's compare Radeon 4000, Radeon 5000, Radeon 6000, and Radeon 7000 for the the last four Ati/AMD generations.

Radeon 4000's 48xx cards were the top cards of their generation. There were no Radeon 49xx cards and the dual GPU cards of the generation just put an X2 after the model number of the card that there were two of mashed together in a single card. Radeon 5000's 57xx cards had more or less comparable performance to the 48xx cards, the 58xx cards have a huge improvement over them, and the 5970 was now a dual-GPU card that was nowhere near the performance of the two top single GPU cards in Crossfire.

Radeon 67xx and below were pretty much just copies of the previous generation cards, sometimes with a few minor differences, but still the same architecture and such. Radeon 68xx was slightly inferior to the Radeon 58xx cards overall and Radeon 69xx now had three single GPU cards and one dual GPU card. The top single GPU card had an otherwise identical model number to the dual GPU Radeon 5970 which also had better performance and the dual-GPU Radeon 6990, like the Radeon 48xxX2 cards, was pretty much just two of the top single GPU cards of its generation mashed into one card instead of a nerfed version like the 5970.

Then we have Radeon 7000, which with current drivers, has it's Radeon 76xx cards and below basically, yet again, copies of the previous generation's cards, granted Radeon 77xx was new. The first of the 77xx cards, the 7750, performed similarly to the 5770/6770 whereas the second and last one, the 7770, was comparable to the 6850. The 78xx cards has their first model, the 7850, performing similarly, but now somewhat better than, the 6970 and the second, the 7870, performing similarly to the dual-GPU 5970.

Then we have a new version of the 7870 (which should have been called the 7930 IMO) which is a cut-down 7950 and the 7950 also now has two versions, both of which exceed the 5970, as does the new 7870 based on the 7950, granted they each do so to varying amounts. The new 7870 and the first version of the 7950 are more or less comparable to the unofficial 6870X2 that uses the same naming scheme as the dual-GPU Radeon 48xx cards while the new version of the 7950 performs right between those other three cards and the first version of the 7970. Then there's the two 7970 versions which are more comparable to the 6990.

I can make a similar comparison for Nvidia's last few generations too. There is not any total coherency in Ati/AMD naming schemes nor in Nvidia naming schemes across generations and I see no reason for anyone to complain about current price/performance just because Nvidia or AMD didn't maintain any such coherency between this generation and the previous generation that you wanted them to.

Nvidia and AMD both managed to make GPUs smaller than Cayman (especially Nvidia in the case of GK104) that got somewhere around the previous generation dual-GPU cards in performance. Nvidia's GTX 680 and GTX 670 are only a little below the GTX 590 on average and the Radeon 7970 is a little below the Radeon 6990 with the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition being closer to it, maybe a little faster.

Crap yields seemed to have plagued AMD and especially Nvidia for quite a while, so that they didn't make huge GPUs in the main gaming lines, especially since they managed adequate performance gains anyway, shouldn't come as a surprise. That the GTX 670, for example, nearly doubled the price/performance of the GTX 580 (comparing launch prices between them) seems like a very good improvement to me.

Again, Nvidia's GK110 cards are really all that is truly overpriced this generation and even then, again, that is likely not without at least some reason due to the yield issues and besides, Titan has other price-intensive things going for it such as a whole 6GB of GDDR5 memory. That's not important for gaming, at least not nowadays, but it still has to be factored into the price.
Score
4
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 7:28:07 AM

Sigh. I just got a GTX 650 Ti for my Phenom II x4 965 BE rig. I was quite happy with the performance until I saw this review. Then again, I also got mine on Newegg for $129.99 with a $20 MIR. Can't argue with that.
Score
1
March 22, 2013 7:54:32 AM

blazorthon said:
Memnarchon said:
God dammit AMD and Nvidia. Lower your prices. Can't believe that after 1,5 years both companies can't provide better price/performance cards than the $140 GTX460 Hawk edition or the $159 6870...


Memnarchon said:
spentshellsI pad 159 no rebates for my 7850 1GB and got 3 free games, sleeping dogs, bioshock Infinite and the new tomb raider. I would say that competes nicely with the cards and prices you stated.

Can you provide me a link for $159 7850?
Also, free games are nice but can't give you performance. If you manage to sell them and get sum of your money back its ok. But wouldn't it be great if the pricerange of 68xx were replaced by 78xx? Since there were supposed to be their replacement.
And to be honest I don't want to pay extra $ for something that in the previous generation I payed for far less. Same goes for Nvidia and especially for Titan. 2nd tier GF110 (GTX570) $330, 2nd tier GK110 (Titan something) Nvidia says MSRP $899.
I don't think that there are a lot of people that they don't think that this generation is overpriced...


That GTX 460 launched at $240 according to several sources I found in a Google search with nothing saying otherwise. The Radeon 7790 is at least as fast as it on average, if not faster, and is launching at $150. Also, although free games do not add performance, they most certainly add value too. That's a big improvement going from launch price to launch price between these two cards.

Radeon 7850 pricing has been fluctuating a lot. I've seen them as cheap as $150. I don't see any far below $180 (at least before MIR) right now, but that can change quite quickly.

No, this generation is not overpriced except for the GK110 cards, at least not by too much. AMD's pricing is great overall for the Radeon 7750 and above and Nvidia's isn't too much worse, again, except for their GK110 cards. A great example is how the GTX 580 used to have a price ranging from the mid $400s to the upper $500s, yet the GTX 670, a much faster gaming card, can be found as cheap as the lower to upper $300s.

That's a big improvement. Next, we can look at the Cayman cards. The Radeon 7850 2GB, which is now faster than the Radeon 6970, can be found cheaper than even the Radeon 6950 1GB was when it was similarly old. There's a similar situation going on with the GTX 570 being beaten in performance by the GTX 660 even more than the 6970 is beaten by the 7850 and the 660 can be found around the GTX 560 Ti's price range.

If your complaint has to do with the comparable card and/or GPU model numbers being in higher price brackets than the previous generation, then you're complaining for no good reason other than to complain. Neither Nvidia nor AMD have kept to any such cross-generation coherent naming system in a long time now, if ever. You can refuse to accept that price for performance and other value has greatly improved if you want to, but that's refusing to accept something that should be obviously true.

I'll even give examples (tl;dr warning for anyone whom doesn't care). Let's compare Radeon 4000, Radeon 5000, Radeon 6000, and Radeon 7000 for the the last four Ati/AMD generations.

Radeon 4000's 48xx cards were the top cards of their generation. There were no Radeon 49xx cards and the dual GPU cards of the generation just put an X2 after the model number of the card that there were two of mashed together in a single card. Radeon 5000's 57xx cards had more or less comparable performance to the 48xx cards, the 58xx cards have a huge improvement over them, and the 5970 was now a dual-GPU card that was nowhere near the performance of the two top single GPU cards in Crossfire.

Radeon 67xx and below were pretty much just copies of the previous generation cards, sometimes with a few minor differences, but still the same architecture and such. Radeon 68xx was slightly inferior to the Radeon 58xx cards overall and Radeon 69xx now had three single GPU cards and one dual GPU card. The top single GPU card had an otherwise identical model number to the dual GPU Radeon 5970 which also had better performance and the dual-GPU Radeon 6990, like the Radeon 48xxX2 cards, was pretty much just two of the top single GPU cards of its generation mashed into one card instead of a nerfed version like the 5970.

Then we have Radeon 7000, which with current drivers, has it's Radeon 76xx cards and below basically, yet again, copies of the previous generation's cards, granted Radeon 77xx was new. The first of the 77xx cards, the 7750, performed similarly to the 5770/6770 whereas the second and last one, the 7770, was comparable to the 6850. The 78xx cards has their first model, the 7850, performing similarly, but now somewhat better than, the 6970 and the second, the 7870, performing similarly to the dual-GPU 5970.

Then we have a new version of the 7870 (which should have been called the 7930 IMO) which is a cut-down 7950 and the 7950 also now has two versions, both of which exceed the 5970, as does the new 7870 based on the 7950, granted they each do so to varying amounts. The new 7870 and the first version of the 7950 are more or less comparable to the unofficial 6870X2 that uses the same naming scheme as the dual-GPU Radeon 48xx cards while the new version of the 7950 performs right between those other three cards and the first version of the 7970. Then there's the two 7970 versions which are more comparable to the 6990.

I can make a similar comparison for Nvidia's last few generations too. There is not any total coherency in Ati/AMD naming schemes nor in Nvidia naming schemes across generations and I see no reason for anyone to complain about current price/performance just because Nvidia or AMD didn't maintain any such coherency between this generation and the previous generation that you wanted them to.

Nvidia and AMD both managed to make GPUs smaller than Cayman (especially Nvidia in the case of GK104) that got somewhere around the previous generation dual-GPU cards in performance. Nvidia's GTX 680 and GTX 670 are only a little below the GTX 590 on average and the Radeon 7970 is a little below the Radeon 6990 with the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition being closer to it, maybe a little faster.

Crap yields seemed to have plagued AMD and especially Nvidia for quite a while, so that they didn't make huge GPUs in the main gaming lines, especially since they managed adequate performance gains anyway, shouldn't come as a surprise. That the GTX 670, for example, nearly doubled the price/performance of the GTX 580 (comparing launch prices between them) seems like a very good improvement to me.

Again, Nvidia's GK110 cards are really all that is truly overpriced this generation and even then, again, that is likely not without at least some reason due to the yield issues and besides, Titan has other price-intensive things going for it such as a whole 6GB of GDDR5 memory. That's not important for gaming, at least not nowadays, but it still has to be factored into the price.

+1 Although, I still feel the 680's are still a hair overpriced.
Score
-4
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 8:05:03 AM

blazorthon said:
That GTX 460 launched at $240 according to several sources I found in a Google search with nothing saying otherwise. The Radeon 7790 is at least as fast as it on average, if not faster, and is launching at $150. Also, although free games do not add performance, they most certainly add value too. That's a big improvement going from launch price to launch price between these two cards.

I disagree that the games add value. They add value under certain circumstances. Not all the people want to try selling the games nor all the people want to play these games. And I was refering on the price of GTX460 HAWK edition after the competition (6870/6850) came to the game.
blazorthon said:
Radeon 7850 pricing has been fluctuating a lot. I've seen them as cheap as $150. I don't see any far below $180 (at least before MIR) right now, but that can change quite quickly.


No, this generation is not overpriced except for the GK110 cards, at least not by too much. AMD's pricing is great overall for the Radeon 7750 and above and Nvidia's isn't too much worse, again, except for their GK110 cards. A great example is how the GTX 580 used to have a price ranging from the mid $400s to the upper $500s, yet the GTX 670, a much faster gaming card, can be found as cheap as the lower to upper $300s.

That's a big improvement. Next, we can look at the Cayman cards. The Radeon 7850 2GB, which is now faster than the Radeon 6970, can be found cheaper than even the Radeon 6950 1GB was when it was similarly old. There's a similar situation going on with the GTX 570 being beaten in performance by the GTX 660 even more than the 6970 is beaten by the 7850 and the 660 can be found around the GTX 560 Ti's price range.

Oh, I love how you used google to see the MSRP of GTX460 and you didnt check the MSRP of 6970. Let me enlight you. 6970 MSRP: $370. 7970 MSRP: $550. Yeah clearly not overpriced... And you are checking a GPU from the last generation (2,5years old) to compare it with a new gpu??? It isn't so much a surprise that the new GPU is able to provide a few fps more...

blazorthon said:
If your complaint has to do with the comparable card and/or GPU model numbers being in higher price brackets than the previous generation, then you're complaining for no good reason other than to complain. Neither Nvidia nor AMD have kept to any such cross-generation coherent naming system in a long time now, if ever. You can refuse to accept that price for performance and other value has greatly improved if you want to, but that's refusing to accept something that should be obviously true.

I'll even give examples (tl;dr warning for anyone whom doesn't care). Let's compare Radeon 4000, Radeon 5000, Radeon 6000, and Radeon 7000 for the the last four Ati/AMD generations.

Radeon 4000's 48xx cards were the top cards of their generation. There were no Radeon 49xx cards and the dual GPU cards of the generation just put an X2 after the model number of the card that there were two of mashed together in a single card. Radeon 5000's 57xx cards had more or less comparable performance to the 48xx cards, the 58xx cards have a huge improvement over them, and the 5970 was now a dual-GPU card that was nowhere near the performance of the two top single GPU cards in Crossfire.

Radeon 67xx and below were pretty much just copies of the previous generation cards, sometimes with a few minor differences, but still the same architecture and such. Radeon 68xx was slightly inferior to the Radeon 58xx cards overall and Radeon 69xx now had three single GPU cards and one dual GPU card. The top single GPU card had an otherwise identical model number to the dual GPU Radeon 5970 which also had better performance and the dual-GPU Radeon 6990, like the Radeon 48xxX2 cards, was pretty much just two of the top single GPU cards of its generation mashed into one card instead of a nerfed version like the 5970.

Then we have Radeon 7000, which with current drivers, has it's Radeon 76xx cards and below basically, yet again, copies of the previous generation's cards, granted Radeon 77xx was new. The first of the 77xx cards, the 7750, performed similarly to the 5770/6770 whereas the second and last one, the 7770, was comparable to the 6850. The 78xx cards has their first model, the 7850, performing similarly, but now somewhat better than, the 6970 and the second, the 7870, performing similarly to the dual-GPU 5970.

Then we have a new version of the 7870 (which should have been called the 7930 IMO) which is a cut-down 7950 and the 7950 also now has two versions, both of which exceed the 5970, as does the new 7870 based on the 7950, granted they each do so to varying amounts. The new 7870 and the first version of the 7950 are more or less comparable to the unofficial 6870X2 that uses the same naming scheme as the dual-GPU Radeon 48xx cards while the new version of the 7950 performs right between those other three cards and the first version of the 7970. Then there's the two 7970 versions which are more comparable to the 6990.

I can make a similar comparison for Nvidia's last few generations too. There is not any total coherency in Ati/AMD naming schemes nor in Nvidia naming schemes across generations and I see no reason for anyone to complain about current price/performance just because Nvidia or AMD didn't maintain any such coherency between this generation and the previous generation that you wanted them to.

I think that you are the one that you are giving a lot of unnecessary attention to the model numbers. I am refering to the chips each side (AMD/Nvidia) provide and not to the model numbers that giving to their products. Just for a second forget about model numbers. Check the signle chip flagship card of each generation, their price. We can all see I believe the difference in price.

blazorthon said:
Nvidia and AMD both managed to make GPUs smaller than Cayman (especially Nvidia in the case of GK104) that got somewhere around the previous generation dual-GPU cards in performance. Nvidia's GTX 680 and GTX 670 are only a little below the GTX 590 on average and the Radeon 7970 is a little below the Radeon 6990 with the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition being closer to it, maybe a little faster.


I agree here except to one part. GK104 is not the flagship chip. GK110 is. Gk104 was to compete the 78xx card till Nvidia saw that they can make more money by selling them as tesla cards. And (unfortunately for us) for a multinational company, money is everything:( .
Score
-5
a c 80 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 8:05:15 AM

There's an error on the first page: The Radeon HD 7850 has a 256-bit memory interface, not 128-bit. That also explains why it has so much more memory bandwidth than the cards with a 128-bit memory interface.
Score
0
March 22, 2013 8:23:43 AM

Ummm... I think I paid $165 (after rebate) for my MSI Factory OC 2GB 7850...
the 7790 might be a good deal but I'd rather pay the extra for the 7850. Especially since mine had factory OC and 2GB...
Score
0
March 22, 2013 8:30:33 AM

spentshellsPage 1 error 7850 1GB does not have a 128 memory bus it has a 256 bit memory bus.


Fixed! Thx. :) 
Score
1
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 8:56:18 AM

Memnarchon
I disagree that the games add value. They add value under certain circumstances. Not all the people want to try selling the games nor all the people want to play these games. And I was refering on the price of GTX460 HAWK edition after the competition (6870/6850) came to the game.


Anyone who would neither play nor sell the games nor even do anything else with them is being ridiculous. When someone hands me a $140 gift card, I sure as hell don't just let it rot.

Memnarchon
Oh, I love how you used google to see the MSRP of GTX460 and you didnt check the MSRP of 6970. Let me enlight you. 6970 MSRP: $370. 7970 MSRP: $550. Yeah clearly not overpriced... And you are checking a GPU from the last generation (2,5years old) to compare it with a new gpu??? It isn't so much a surprise that the new GPU is able to provide a few fps more...


You aren't making any sense in your 6970 to 7970 comparison. The 7970 is about as fast as Radeon 6970 Crossfire. It launched at less than the cost of two Radeon 6970s of the time, let alone their launch price. That's a decent bargain, especially since the 7970 was much faster than the similarly priced GTX 580 3GB that it competed with until the GTX 680 and GTX 670 finally got decent availability. Just because the 7970 uses the top single GPU of its generation doesn't mean that there should be any price correlation between it and the top single GPU card of the previous generation, especially when Nvidia doesn't even have proper competition for it until about three months after it launched.

So, no, even at launch, the Radeon 7970 wasn't overpriced. It was priced to compete with the cards of the time. When Nvidia finally joined the next generation properly, AMD started to adjust pricing to continue competing with Nvidia. That yields were much better at that point, allowing supply to improve, was probably also a major factor in the price drops.

Memnarchon
I think that you are the one that you are giving a lot of unnecessary attention to the model numbers. I am refering to the chips each side (AMD/Nvidia) provide and not to the model numbers that giving to their products. Just for a second forget about model numbers. Check the signle chip flagship card of each generation, their price. We can all see I believe the difference in price.


Whether you're giving unnecessary attention to the model numbers or the GPU numbers doesn't matter. Even if we go by GPU numbers, what I said still holds true while what you are saying doesn't make sense. GK110 had inadequate yields (still does) and there was no way that Nvidia could price it like the previous big GPUs. Furthermore, Nvidia specifically designed Kepler so that they could stop selling ridiculously huge GPUs as the flagship GPUs. GK104 is the flagship GPU of the GTX 600 series and it was not intended to be anything other other than that. That GK110 has a model number of a different generation should make that quite clear.

Memnarchon
I agree here except to one part. GK104 is not the flagship chip. GK110 is. Gk104 was to compete the 78xx card till Nvidia saw that they can make more money by selling them as tesla cards. And (unfortunately for us) for a multinational company, money is everything:( .


GK104 is the flagship GTX 600 GPU. GK104 had nothing to do with Radeon 78xx. How could it? Nobody even knew what AMD's cards would truly be like until the paper launch of the Radeon 7970 and 7950. Even then, the Radeon 78xx cards were mostly a mystery for a while after that until we saw some of the engineering sample benchmarks. Again, even then, we didn't know exactly how they worked (especially with how buggy the 7850 engineering samples were) until around their launch time.

Comparing flagship GPU prices or even what you want to be the flagship GPUs and their prices is like comparing flagship CPU prices. It means absolutely nothing without considering performance. Power consumption can also be important, among other things. Nvidia specifically designed Kepler to allow for smaller and cheaper GPUs and they also specifically designed the graphics cards to be cheap to manufacture with slim memory buses, weak VRM, etc. GTX 600 was all about reducing BOM. The GTX 680 (and ironically, also the GTX 670) perform right where they should, aka near Nvidia's previous generation dual-GPU card. They have prices that make sense based on their performance. The same is true for the rest of Nvidia's cards as well as for AMD's cards.

Price/performance is what matters, not some nonsensical belief that because Nvidia and AMD priced their current generation cards according to performance rather than matching pricing with the cards with similar GPUs for their generation, the cards are overpriced. Again, for example, the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition and the GTX 680 as well as their slightly slower counterparts in the Radeon 7970 and GTX 670 have vastly superior performance for the money than graphics cards had last generation.
Score
2
March 22, 2013 9:02:37 AM

I have been waiting for this as i have a 650ti, The 7790 has comparable performance but a little to late considering the 650 Ti has been selling for less than 130 before rebate and is able to clock up both core and memory nicely . One last thing regarding the 7850 it will only go up for a short time until nvida releases the gtx 650 TI with a 192 bit interface then it will be discounted again

http://wccftech.com/msi-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-gaming...
Score
0
March 22, 2013 9:07:55 AM

if u guys talk about pricing, I think AMD GPU have better value across the whole line up, together with the free games. There is simply no reason to buy Nvidia card right now unless u are the following.

1. U owned a GTX660 & above, u are stuck with them for SLI
2. U want CUDA/Physx
3. U want a more power efficient card but thats got just beaten by 7790.
4. U still think AMD driver are suck. (which isnt)
5. U want the fastest single GPU card and willing to pay everything u got.
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
March 22, 2013 9:12:11 AM

tourist said:
I have been waiting for this as i have a 650ti, The 7790 has comparable performance but a little to late considering the 650 Ti has been selling for less than 130 before rebate and is able to clock up both core and memory nicely . One last thing regarding the 7850 it will only go up for a short time until nvida releases the gtx 650 TI with a 192 bit interface then it will be discounted again

http://wccftech.com/msi-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-gaming...


The specs imply comparable performance to the Radeon 7850, so somewhat better than the Radeon 7790. However, the reported price is a little vague, merely stating sub-$200.
Score
0
!