It is still priced too high relative to its performance I think.
Though of course the low power consumption, and quiet operation is probably whats going to sell it more, but you cant feel a bit cheated that it performs worse than their similarly priced previous generation.
I actually bought a MSi cyclone 6850 OC for $154.99. I had the choice between that and a 7770 for $169.99 and clearly it made no sense to pick the 7770 since the 6850 also has low power consumption and outperforms it in more games.
I think once the 7770 comes down back to earth maybe even at $149 will it actually be worth it.
I totally understand that at this starting price it seem strong, but it's unfair to consider to existing cards today when 5770/6850 MSRP at $160 and $240 respectively back in the day. You need to look at the current price on 6850/6870 are both from matured and long standing process. While it sure doesn't have any merit comparing to AMD's own products... they get the sale either way.
We know going to this 28Nm shrink didn't absolutely provide an improved per chip cost, the ability to provide ample production to AMD has been suspect, so AMD has to juggle the price against those aspects. Sure if they got the price improvement normally provide by previous possess shrinks, and knew positively that the process yields a production supply was going to be assured from day one they might have had a better feeling of being aggressive but that would be basically against themselves.
For the argument a 6850 ($135) is like 3% less Fps for 12% less money, while 6870 (don't see $155, more like $165-170) is 17% better Fps for 5% more dollars right today. W1zzard's chart has them as about 15% better $/Fps, that competing with themselve's. What's it matter AMD want to move 6870's it make sense!
Against Nvidia current offerings 550ti or GTX560 (non-Ti) it's not dire. Those MSRP started "theoretically" for $160/200; but that was for a reference models. We all know the chance of "reference" cards at those prices in the market at release was a near impossibility, a more normal starting prices was $170/220 respectively... although that means little in the present tense. Today the Nvidia "competition" is running closer to $110 for 550's and $175 for GTX560. A GTX560 which is something like 8-12% better performance than this OC’d 7770 at $160; so add 10% that's $176. Price to performance is not at all "out of line" with most GTX560 (non-Ti) deals. As for the 550 it's right at 22% less performance @1680x; so 22% off $160 is $125. That's a little better as about 30% less cash when playing $110. Although in the 7770 verse a GTX550ti, you're really jumping up in the "class" of cards, it's competitor is the 7750, which is priced aggressively. Looking at W1zzard's chart again has a 550 a 4% better proposition (but less of a card); while a GTX560 would appear maybe worse by 8% and why it's suspect to not include it.
Now, the last piece to this... What can/will Nvidia respond with? AMD has to figure what Nvidia's mainstream Kepler can bring. Will they get a smaller chip than GF116 or GF114 to cover these AMD offering, can Nvidia work a better per chip price, will they see any better yield production from their architecture, while will there be any great Fps bump over either the 550/560’s? Those are the real marketing factors/reasons for setting proper MSRP and a tough call months before the competition is in the picture.
I don't believe AMD set it too high... while as process and production (hopefully) is getting squared away at TMSC. That works in Nvidia's favor, coming late brings clarity to Nvidia setting of their pricing. So, before we say this is "bad" we need to see how Nvidia counters. If they have a 25% Fps increase, but sets an MSRP of $200... while then all you can get are OC’d factory specials for $225... will W1zzard say "Price too high to be competitive"? No now it's competitive to the comparable market offering and why it's not a "con" until we see Nvidia's prices. So we wait!
