candle_86
im slightly confused in what world is the 7870 faster than a 680

Scroll up to my post #17.

seronx

candle_86im slightly confused in what world is the 7870 faster than a 680

This one.
7870 is faster at games, compute, and general necessities for much less.($299)

 
I'll give you that the 7870 is much cheaper than the 680. But not a single one of those graphs shows that it's faster than the 680. The recent AMD cards are much better at certain kinds of compute (bitcoin mining being the biggest example I can think of) but not everybody will use it for those purposes.

seronx

Different type of faster...

BWAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The GTX 600 cards are absent from most of those graphics.  Just look at reviews, and more than two games.  The GTX 680 competes with and overall beats the 7970 in gaming performance, and the 7870 is not quite there.  It's still an excellent card for the money, no doubt.

seronix it doesnt matter if its 50% faster or 5% faster. The 680 is Faster. And people will pay a heavy premium to get that last 5% bonus
 
Price/performace, 7870 wins no doubt, but price/performance =/= capabilties. 
For someone who is as smart as you, I would have thought you would have realized that. 
 
GPUs compete within price brackets, the 7870 and 680 dont really compete, They are targeted to different markets

I like compute in geforce. it makes for nice folding or bionic rigs.
The 7870 isnt that great at compute compared to the 680 either, but I will agree that the 7970 smashes it. 
You can see the compute benchmarks on that anandtech page

lehpron

seronx: I'm not questioning your loyalities or anything, just giving candle_86 a different thought to chew on; but if you react as if I was, then it is your problem.

candle_86
I smell an AMD fanboy running around

No, he was just showing that GTX680 is not faster by the same scale as price to anything slower, which is also how AMD varies with Intel on processors.  Just because many justified getting GTX680 and price wasn't as issue for them doesn't mean he had no logic.  He just doesn't know how to argue objectively or address the proper crowd.  He should also have included HD79x0 in the argument and slam all of high-end graphics as not worth the premium, but he didn't do it so it comes off as a heavy bias towards AMD. 

But seronx missed the existence of a dual-Tahiti proves that he isn't up-to-date on everything his supposed favorite brandname does.  It isn't far-fetched that the dual-Tahiti could still become the long-awated HD7990, we'll have to see; but I doubt it won't show for the reason seronx says so.  A real fan would be aware and interested in what their favorite company does regardless of who the product was aimed at, thus not a fanboy. 

 
problem though he also compares an OC'd card in a game no one plays anymore to a stock card. People could OC cards and have been for a very long time. The way he's putting it is the 7850 is the 2nd comming of the Ti 4200, which IMO will never happen again for a simple reason. The Ti 4200 could be OC'd to Ti 4600 speeds and had the excat same features, and the Ti 4600 didn't OC much more than 5-6mhz on average.
 
Now we take a 7850 highly OC'd throw it agasint a 680/670 and then say you wasted your cash. Well what happens when the 670/680 are pushed to there limits, that gap gets just as wide as both at stock, something he failed to address, and sitting here promoting a card that in gaming terms is inferior and calling the rest of us morons for getting them, that is the same attitude of all fanboys before. I used to be a massive Nvidia fanboy I know what they sound like.

cisco0623

All i know is AMD must not be doing so great because Intel and NVidia are starting to charge whatever the hell they want for chips again lol The lack of competition sucks.

+1 , And that is not going to change until AMD steps it up and begins pushing high end gpu's and cpu's to the market that are going to directly compete with Intel/Nvidia, if AMD announced a better or equal performing CPU to say the 3960X (just an example) AMD could get away with charging $1,000+ and they would sell the hell out of them. They just are not competing at that very high end, that most of us are looking for. Not to say that they do not offer products that are affordable and good for the money, I'm just saying that they are not competing with Intel/Nvidia at the very high end at this point, nor have they for the past few generations.

whitnasty1
 

cisco0623
 All i know is AMD must not be doing so great because Intel and NVidia are starting to charge whatever the hell they want for chips again lol The lack of competition sucks.

+1 , And that is not going to change until AMD steps it up and begins pushing high end gpu's and cpu's to the market that are going to directly compete with Intel/Nvidia...

Blaming either company is just a cop-out; this is our fault.   We are the ones letting nVidia and Intel take lead with no challenge, we're the ones deciding AMD isn't competitive.
 
AMD needs revenue to pay for research and labor and whatnot; but few are buying, so it won't change.  Same deal with nVidia and Intel and their apparent slow progress, it is solely because their revenue is secure with us not going elsewhere, thus no need to push boundaries or at regular periods.  This is less about either company involved and more about the choices customers make.  But as long as we don't see it that way, there isn't a competition issue at all since we're comfortable putting up with the prices and waiting for lack of options. 
 
Can you say for certain if enough people went for a slower AMD CPU/GPU that they won't have enough revenue and research to beat Intel on another generation?  Or maybe they'll adopt Intel's logic and not improve thinking they have a loyal enough customer base, like pre-Core 2?  I personally think you guys need to quit being stubborn about your preferences, try bouncing back and forth between all companies, and ditch the loyalty FTW BS because it is overrated and will only destroy you in the end. 

candle_86

I smell an AMD fanboy running around

 
Agreed. 
 
Yes Price v.s Performances is against the 680, but its the best of the best. Its not made to be money saving. 
 
Try comparing the GTX 670 vs 7870 and its a wee closer. And when the 660 comes out, which is the 7870 counter part, which is going to be around $200-$300 dollar range, AMD might have a run for its money i the 78x0 range. 
 
Yes AMD 7870 can beat Nvidia in a few things, but remember its like AMDs CPUs. More cores might run over a i3 3100, but in 1 core programs, the i3 wins (Example).
AMD is better at some things, and Nvidia is better at others.
 
Now that we have Derailed the thread. I wonder what the release date is for the GTX 660? Saw the leaked photo, so assuming soon. (August 1st hopefully).
 
Edit-

whitnasty1 
 And that is not going to change until AMD steps it up and begins pushing high end gpu's and cpu's to the market that are going to directly compete with Intel/Nvidia, if AMD announced a better or equal performing CPU to say the 3960X (just an example) AMD could get away with charging $1,000+ and they would sell the hell out of them. They just are not competing at that very high end, that most of us are looking for. Not to say that they do not offer products that are affordable and good for the money, I'm just saying that they are not competing with Intel/Nvidia at the very high end at this point, nor have they for the past few generations. 

 
 
Actually, AMD gave up the high end CPU market. They officially announced it.
(Insert news that i can't find).
 
As for Graphics, AMD is still strong in that area. Yes they can't hold top tier in most programs, but they have the price/performances in the bag. The the 600 series is giving that "Bag" its first run for its money tho.

Not to go too off topic, but guru3D is passing along multiple rumored midrange and mainstream debuts in the coming month, four SKU's will fill the gap between the GTX670's 1344-cores and GT640's-384 cores.
 
As for the next nVidia high-end, I've been doing some thinking.  Since I suspect GK112 (2304 CUDA cores) is the next card, if it were clocked at 1244MHz then it would be as fast as GTX690 without having as many cores (just a matter of multiplying cores by shader freq and comparing the two).  But, in order to have the same scale as the GTX580-680 transisition (justifying how much faster HD8970 is to HD7970), it can be set as low as 825MHz and position itself between GTX680 and GTX690.  Therefore, probable cause for it to be called either "GTX685" or "GTX780"-- without needing the GK110.  I suspect the Tesla card using GK110 is running all 2880-cores at a low frequency, like 700MHz.  It would keep the power down while maintaining a phenomenal performance advantage ahead of competition, provided drivers are the reason why Kepler isn't best for compute.
 

whitnasty1 
 If AMD had a competitive option to a high end Intel product then I would be all for purchasing AMD products...

No, I'm not suggesting you wait for AMD to match/beat Intel high-end, I'm suggesting you swallow pride and ditch Intel now, or at least for your next system.  
 
Reason is simple: Invest in AMD's future so they have a chance at going after Intel, right now they don't have a prayer and their current lines only keep them afloat all while they loose key staff.  But if you all refuse to see that far ahead and don't let go of your "best desires" for a future gain of cheaper Intel processors, well that's the problem-- and the point I'm getting at which you've missed again by expecting AMD to impress you first when they can't afford to.  
 
The problem is us: If you guys can't let go of Intel, then don't expect so much from AMD.  But I already know most of you will not let Intel go no matter how much they castrate options.

Afterburner

seronx

Different type of faster...

BWAHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 
Best response on EVGA ever...