Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by JThorpe, Nov 1, 2013.
Ummm, ya it actually can.
I don't know why this is hard for him to understand. The chart he showed had the gtx 780 at like 5-6% slower than the Titan (I don't understand how a 780 with a 75-125mhz overclock has no chance against a card BARELY faster than it on stock speeds.....)
As I stated, the models that are cheaper than the 290x (SC, FTW, lighting....ect) can beat a stock Titan. Why in the hell can your brain not understand this ? (of course an overclocked model can beat a card that's only 5-6% faster than it stock vs stock).
That basically summed up that you have no idea what your talking about. The 780 SC/FTW/Lighting are faster out of the box than a Titan while being cooler and cheaper than the 290x (HOW IS THAT NOT A GOOD VALUE ?).
I think your the one who needs Adderall ("buh buh what do you mean a 780 with a 75-125 MHz overclock can beat a card that's barely faster than it stock vs stock" ) The conspiracy !
The overclocked 780s do beat Titan....
What rock have you been living under? The 290x only beats the REFERENCE 780. We aren't talking about the REFERENCE 780, we are talking about the overclocked ones. You know, the ones like the EVGA classified that if you overclock can reach clock speeds of 1400hz (that's +300ish if you can't do basic math) and absolutely CRUSH the Titan. So your 290x that throttles and gets beat by a 290 because of heat issues gets beat pretty handily. Oh, and the classified is around $550 so it's the same price, is quieter, uses less power (even OCed) and it's better in dual GPU setups because SLI is superior to CF.
AND you get the better software from EVGA who are known for their stuff, the better drivers and software from nVidia AND Shadowplay and G-Sync later if you so desire. The nVidia is clearly the better card for the money right now, it's not even close. The *only* way AMD wins is with aftermarket cards and no one has seen those yet. I'll take the EVGA 780s right now with 6 games while you wait...
The problem is this all comes before the 290x is even officially launched globally, and certainly WELL before any factory OC or non reference models of it have. And you are talking post launch pricing on a rebranded chip in these new 780 versions. That EVGA 780 SC you referenced launched at a WAY higher price than than $500. It's understandable I doubted it, because it doesn't make much sense really to have so much product priced higher and performing lower. Obviously Nvidia allow the price drops since EVGA, one of their biggest cusrtomers are doing it. People say AMD have no business sense. LOL
This only tends to further prove that Nvidia's pricing and even model lineup makes no sense whatsoever. How is Nvidia going to sell all those 780s that are priced higher but performing lower than these new ones? And selling the extremely overpriced Titans becomes even tougher now.
I also question what will happen when the first batches of these new ones run out and ASIC quality goes down the drain. It's not realistic to expect such consistently high clocks from the black sheep of the yield.
You talk like AMD has done the same with pricing, but here you've shown Nvidia to exercise something, apparently out of panic, that we've yet to see any chip vendor do to this extreme. Clearly their sense of order in pricing is non existent.
The dust won't settle until AMD's 290x is out long enough to get the benefit of clock and pricing changes like this late minute switch Nvidia has pulled. The smart buyer knows Nvidia, as shrewd as they are, don't do things like this unless they KNOW AMD can counter with the 290X, and that we've yet to see in non ref models. As good as their 7000 series was at OCing, I don't think anyone can claim these new 780s king just yet.
Think about it, would Nvidia jeopardize THAT much profits in the initial 780 models and Titans still on the market if they thought AMD's 290X was no competition? This all only makes it clear that Nvdia send a lot of their product (AND initial 780 customers) to the slaughter to insist they're still top dog before the competition even has a chance to retaliate.
It's all smoke and mirrors at this point, and my point actually still applies, because it compares apples to apples, eg Nvidia's reference 780 to a reference 290X, with launch pricing on each. And again, the EVGA GTX 780 SC debuted at $659, so it's not so brand new as you imply. The smart customers wait a short while for the latest AMD product to drop in price and get new non ref models, and are typically glad they did.
The only thing Nvidia I'm interested in is their Maxwell launch. I never cared much for rebranding, it just juices more profits out of old design, and no one does that price wise more than Nvidia. After experiencing the excellent price to performance I've gotten out of my 7970 though, I will definitely see what AMD has to counter the Maxwell with.
Bottom line, early Nvidia adopters are set up for the slaughter. Think about all those whom bought the Titan and first 780s. To put this into perspective, one has to see it from their point of view. They paid WAY too high a price for what they bought, and now they'll be stuck selling it at an extreme loss or just settling with it. Live and learn.
The EVGA 780 ACX costs $525 in Newegg, cheapest 290x costs $550. We know that a 1Ghz 780 is a few percentage faster than Titan, and conveniently 290x performs similarly. So out of the box, both the 780 ACX and the 290x are price competitive against each other, and since both are not good clockers (one held back by possible chip limitation, another by stupid cooler design), we don't really need to compare overclocked speeds.
If you ignore Titan, everything makes perfect sense. Titan is made as a luxury product, I don't ever recall any luxury product being value for money even against its siblings.
I haven't seen or heard any decrease in ASIC, but will be on the lookout.
As a competitor you have to react according to the market conditions. I believe, by cutting their prices, Nvidia did exactly what is needed to stay competitive.
The current market condition doesn't reflect this fantasy scenario, we have overclocked 780 selling cheaper than the cheapest 290x, and there are no non reference 290x to be found. Come this December/January when the non ref 290x appears, we can have another talk about value for money and performance. The market changes too fast for future predictions: I bought my 660Ti despite having my eye set on a 7970 because at the time of purchase the 7970 was 50% more expensive than the 660Ti, and at 1080p, comparatively overpriced for the performance it gives (just 10% faster, I am not talking about GHz edition).
AMD does rebranding shenanigans too, yet I don't see you criticising them.
As with all early adopters. As long as you are an early adopter in anything, you will be paying a very hefty price to cover exclusivity and cost of research.
I was going to reply to the message but you pretty much hit the nail on the coffin (I have really nothing to add to what you said, your spot on).
You took much if not most of what I said out of context. I am NOT bashing anyone for rebranding, I just said I prefer not to buy rebranded product because I don't see value in it, and I didn't target one or the other in saying that. It's common knowledge that both re-brand, as evidenced by everything below the 290 in the R line. Why would I want a 280X when I already have a 7970 OC I bought for $330, which is still holding it's value dollar for performance? In fact if you check prior posts of mine after the 280X spec was revealed, I said exactly that.
Aside from that you completely ignored that the EVGA GTX 780 SC ACX in fact debuted at $659, and it even says so in that TPU article he referenced the bench from!
Like I said, I'm an apples to apples guy. Anyone can take a given moment in time and compare two cards and make one chip vendor look better than another. The only way to put things into perspective is to compare their ref models at launch price.
You guys imply I'm an AMD fanboy, but if anything I'm the only one here trying to level the playing field so as not to skew the results as far as comparing one model to another.
My comparisons of AMD to Nvidia in general as far as business models go are not exaggerated though, and the number of units sold weighed against the profits for each chip vendor speak that in volumes.
The Titan IS also a significant part of the conversation because it was implied, no said, that AMD also price gouge on the top shelf cards. Uh, not to the extreme extent that Nvidia has with the Titan. Everyone, even long time Nvidia customers, know this is a new low for them on this card, and it makes it pretty much a lemon purchase for all but the extremely rich and naive, whom are some of their favorite people to prey on.
Early adoption is also a very pertinent point because many buy as soon as the new cards hit the shelves, before these prices you're both pretending are launch prices for these so called "new" 780s. They do it more and more largely due to the probability of ASIC quality being higher too. Anyone that knows anything about current gen state of the art chip manufacturing knows that yields factor heavily into the equation. Those high launch prices pay for the black sheep of the yield that have more current leakage. Sure some say just use WC, but how realistic is it to expect most to spend what it takes to WC a GPU? Those chips aren't going to be selected for factory OC models and will likely drop in price sooner. Many imply binning is exaggerated or even a non issue, but ask EVGA and the first thing they say in defending the higher priced OC models is better chip quality. The bigger vendors that buy more chips get the pick of the litter.
So it seems you guys are giving a grace period to Nvidia on pricing and ref models, but not AMD. Hell, like I said, the 290X hasn't even officially launched globally yet. That's a big part of what I meant by smoke and mirrors. You can't throw a product under the bus on speculation and not be called out for it by at least someone.
This price dropping is clearly a move on Nvidia's part to try and convince lots of undecided customers that the 780 will be the better card to go with 1-2 years down the road or more, because obviously most keep their GPUs that long. It's a game of deceptive advertising chess Nvidia have become quite good at playing.
I don't assume you being an AMD fanboy, unless you go "omgwtf AMD da best Nvidia go to hell".
Yes, I completely ignored the fact that the ACX sold for some more money in the past, because its irrelevant as of now.
If you look from the compute point of view, Titan is actually underpriced. The same chip in a Quadro, charged multiple times more than Titan, provided to the general public. Nvidia could easily stop with GTX780 and call it a day, since that AMD has nothing close. Yet they released Titan (for whatever reason), and by doing so gives rich people the option to buy a better card for an obscene price.
I give a grace period to any company with pricing (is there even such a thing?). If I am going to buy a card now, I consider the pricing as of now. AMD dropped their prices quite aggressively and provided games to compete against Nvidia's 7xx series, I don't see why Nvidia cannot do that now (minus game bundle).
Irrelevant my arse! You stepped in obviously defending mastershake's point of view, who's first post only talk's of AMD's launch prices.
And even if you don't look at that, it's still relevant because comparing not just product, but VALUE of product, on a level playing field is the only way to do it fairly. Even with the example he mentioned for the 7000 launch, that was while both had their product ON the market. Here Nvidia is dropping prices before the 290X even globally launches let alone has a grace period for non ref and price drops. It's ALL relevant.
All you've done there is substantiate my point! Nvidia really aren't into focusing on giving the mainstream gamer best price to performance ratio. They're elitist by comparison.
Except this conversation has been more than just about prices, it's been about comparing one model of card to another, and you don't do that fairly unless the playing field is level. Launch prices and build versions matter a lot. In fact the two most crucial factors after a gamer narrows down his choices are build version of said GPU, and the timing of the purchase. We've all seen it mentioned here numerous times when people ask advice. And I already mentioned that the price drops AMD has done are typically AFTER Nvidia releases product and there's enough time for real world feedback, vs this ad ploy price drop to sway the public before they consider getting a 290X instead. Big difference.
Yeah, I get that everyone speaks for their own personal concerns, but clearly a lot of Nvidia customers have this blind confidence, or maybe impatience, or maybe gullibility, that somehow their purchase a few months down the road is still going to be best bang for buck, even though they know time and again AMD have outdone them on value.
I didn't read whay mastershake wrote, just replying to your points.
Good to hear we can actually agree on things.
I try to level the field by considering current pricing.
Nvidia said they are cutting the price of 780 from whatever to $500, and here I am, able to buy the said card at $500. In comparison, AMD suggested RRP of $500 for their 290x, and I can't find any 290x at $500. Whether its an ad ploy or something more nefarious, as of now I can get better value for money by buying 780 instead of 290x. I take this move as smart marketing instead of ad ploy: why wait when you can attack now?
But we are going out of topic, so I'll allow you one more response before we go back to the matter at hand, which is, the best GPU at $500 now. In my opinion, its easily 780, at least until we can find 290x at $500 (or a stock overclocked version at $550 against overclocked 780).
Actually the topic if you look at the thread title is "GPU Choice for a Long Term Build (4-5 Years), which is a big part of the reason WHY I'm advocating a fair grace period for each to see how they REALLY compare after each has been out a while. 4-5 years is a LONG time to nit pick and claim Nvidia's 780 is best just due to current info, which is dodgy at best considering the 290x hasn't even globally launched or been thoroughly tested by consumers yet. You mentioned it more than once and it's clear that you are only seeing this from YOUR own personal perspective, so how you can call ME off topic when you aren't even stating the topic correctly or unselfishly in a long term investment scenario is rather absurd.
I'm also unaware of AMD ever claiming a release price of $500. Where did you even get that from?
Whoops, it was $550, making it even more unpalatable. 780 has been around for more than 5 months, I think it has more than enough time to prove its worth. In comparison 290(x) is still suffering from teething issues. It is really hard to recommend people to buy cards which already sound like vacuum cleaners when they are new, let alone drying paste or fins lightly coated with dust. Come back this December/January when we have competent coolers for 290(x), as long as they maintain current pricing structure, I will easily recommend people to ignore Nvidia's products in favour of AMD's stuff. As for the best graphics card in long term, I think we will not be able to see more than 3 years in advance, let alone 5. GTX295/AMD equivalent was the undisputed king 5 years ago, a mid range graphics card today can run circles around it (that's before DX11).
You are more than welcome to buy R9 290 non-x right now, its very powerful for the money. Tradeoff needed is the noise, and the potential cooler change in the future when the cooler and chip degrades.
I think all GPU manufactures have one rule, Confuse and Conquer
Actually most initial reports had the 290x at $600, though that was not an official AMD announcement. The point is launch prices are always higher, as was this EVGA 780 ACX at a whopping $659. It's only when they're exorbitantly high and stay such that it becomes outlandish, enter the Titan, which we both seem to agree on.
Your point of Dec/Jan pricing, or even sooner perhaps, more significantly after non ref models of the 290x become available, is what I'VE been saying, not you. That is the long term scenario asked for here, and to the point, not current pricing, gotta-have-it-now talk.
I agree that seeking a 4-5 yr solution is unrealistic though. You just can't be sure you'll be happy with a card that long, or even compatible given how DirectX can change.
Separate names with a comma.