Something I noticed about graphics card performance improvements

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Everyone knows the 8800GTX was a big performance jump at the time and hope Kepler is great too. I hope so too as it will lead to a price war of sorts.

However,the fact is that I am just too cynical with all the hype when it comes to GPUs in the last few years.

So I had a quick look on techPowerUp at the graphics cards released over the last few years. The comparison is not scientific as it is based on the results of one website,but still are interesting.

Fastest single GPU cards since late 2006.

2006

8800GTX review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...8800GTX/6.html

50% faster at 2560X1600 than previous fastest single GPU card,the X1950XTX. 70% faster than the 7900GTX. X1950XTX around 15% to 20% faster than the 7900GTX.

2008

If we take techPowerUp's review of the GTX280:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/P...TX_280/25.html

The GTX280 was around 40% faster than a 8800GTX but if the Ultra was used it would have been less. 8800Ultra was the previous fastest single GPU card and the GTX280 was its heir. Released 17 months after 8800GTX and 11 months after 8800Ultra.

2009

GTX285 review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/L...TX_285/26.html

10% faster than the GTX280 and was the worlds fastest single GPU card. Released 7 months after GTX280. Second generation GTX285 card(shrink).

2009

HD5870 1GB review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...D_5870/30.html

20% faster than GTX285 and hence fastest single GPU card in the world and first DX11 card. Released 21 months after the GTX285. 40% faster than the HD4890(second generation HD4000 series card optimised for clockspeeds) which was the previous fastest AMD single GPU card.Released nearly 18 months after HD4890.

2010

GTX480 review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N..._Fermi/32.html

10% to 20% faster than the HD5870 1GB and fastest single GPU card in the world. 40% faster than the GTX285 which was the previous fastest Nvidia card.First DX11 Nvidia card. Released 15 months after GTX285.

2010

GTX580 review:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...TX_580/27.html

20% faster than the GTX480. Fastest single GPU card in the world. Released 7 to 8 months after GTX480. Second generation card optimised for higher power efficiency.

2011

HD7970 review:

20% faster than GTX580:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/28.html

Fastest single GPU card in the world and first DX11.1 graphics card. 40% faster than HD6970. Released 12 to 13 months after HD6970.

2012??

Kepler??

Probably fastest single GPU card. Release date around 18 months after GTX580.

I expect it to be 40% faster than a GTX580 if it is line with recent generations. Of course it could be much more if it is an 8800GTX level jump.

It seems if we look at the techPowerUp reviews after the 8800GTX there has been on average a 40% increase in performance, from one new generation to another for each company. This is going from the refined second edition cards of the previous generation to the "raw" first edition cards of the new generation. However,in many cases greater performance from both companies might have been possible,but many cards from AMD and Nvidia have been underclocked to keep to TDPs.

[MSIC]

A good piece of digging there, thanks. It kind of confirmed what i'd been thinking for a while too... however that all said (i dont mean this as a criticism of you CAT), you also have to factor in Wattage / Power Draw / TDPs too for a truly meaningful comparison.
Personally, i'll take something that is 20% better along with a power cut than a 40% increase with a power hike.

[Ross1]

The HD7970 was very clearly brought in with room to play with. It was like amd purposely didnt want to make the previous generation cards look too bad yet (again, I sense the delay in releasing the lower price point cards is for similar reasons).

Just take a look at the numbers, including price, power and that important hexus bang for buck. It slotted in far too smoothly to be an accident.

[abaxas]

There is no point developing something people dont want/need/or is too expensive for market.

That is business.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It kind of confirmed what i'd been thinking for a while too... however that all said (i dont mean this as a criticism of you CAT), you also have to factor in Wattage / Power Draw / TDPs too for a truly meaningful comparison.

I understand - as I mentioned in the last part,there might have been even bigger performance increases,but TDPs have been limited in many cases.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its also hilarious people complaining about the HD7970 being a poor performance increase too and expensive for what it offers. It seems in line with what BOTH companies have been doing for years. The only difference is that AMD charged the same amount as Nvidia for its 40% performance increase this time.

[scaryjim]

I wish someone would do a retrospective, putting some new mid-range cards (6750/70, 6850, GTS450, GTX550 Ti, GTX460 etc.) up against the 8800GTX / 3870 X2 etc. I have a feeling that spending ~ £100 a new graphics card wouldn't give much performance boost for people with the 8800GTX / Ultra, but it'd be nice to have that confirmed...

[shaithis]

Its also hilarious people complaining about the HD7970 being a poor performance increase too and expensive for what it offers. It seems in line with what BOTH companies have been doing for years. The only difference is that AMD charged the same amount as Nvidia for its 40% performance increase this time.

Hmm, many are looking at BF3 numbers first and foremost....it's so demanding and has to be one of the main reasons anyone is looking to upgrade gfx atm.....

And the 7970 (relatively) stinks in BF3.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Hmm, many are looking at BF3 numbers first and foremost....it's so demanding and has to be one of the main reasons anyone is looking to upgrade gfx atm.....

And the 7970 (relatively) stinks in BF3.

BF3 is around 40% to 50% faster than the HD6970 on Ultra which is a large increase for an AMD card. However,if you want to look at other demanding games like Metro2033,Lost Planet 2 and Crysis 2 which are quite tessellation heavy the increases are just as big or even bigger.

It also is the first AMD architecture which is quite compute heavy too(massive change over previous AMD cards in compute and tessellation performance). The noise is that the GK104 is actually the more gamer orientated card with degraded compute abilities and hence will be smaller than an HD7970 GPU - the larger less efficient compute orientated Kepler chip will be launched at the end of the year. Hence this is the "true" sucessor to the GTX580.

It also does not change the fact that the HD7970 is the fastest single GPU card in the world for such games.

The GTX285 was the worlds fastest DX11 card although in many games it was not a huge upgrade over a GTX280. People accepted it.

The HD5870 1GB was the worlds fastest card although in many games it was not a huge upgrade over a GTX285 but it had DX11. People accepted it.

The GTX480 was the worlds fastest DX11 card although in many games it was not a huge upgrade over an HD5870 1GB. People accepted it.

The GTX580 was the worlds fastest DX11 card although in many games it was not a huge upgrade over a GTX480 . People accepted it.


People are saying that the HD7970 is "only" 40% faster on average than an HD6970.

Yet,the performance increase which both Nvidia and AMD have are around that level on average according to TPU.

The GTX285 was 10% faster than the GTX280 at launch, HD5870 was only 20% faster than a GTX285 at launch,the GTX480 was 20% faster than a HD5870 1GB at launch,the GTX580 was 20% faster than the GTX480 1GB at launch and the HD7970 3GB was 20% faster than a GTX580 3GB at launch.

So why is it that everyone is moaning at AMD now, when for the last three years we have had barely 20% increases from the fastest single GPU card to the next fastest single GPU card.

Is AMD now not "allowed" the same performance increases as Nvidia??

Is it because AMD have taken a page out of the Nvidia high end GPU pricing manual?? Probably!! I don't like the price either especially with the price gouging either.

However,it does not affect the fact it is the fastest single GPU card until Kepler is released.

People should be moaning about every high end graphics card release in the last three years using the yard stick they are measuring the HD7970 3GB. I am trying to be objective here. Even the price arguments seem somewhat weird as plenty of people were prepared to pay good money for GTX480 and GTX580 cards.

Now will Kepler be massively faster?? Looking at the generational increase for around 4 years,you would expect it to be around 40% faster than a GTX580 if TDP is ignored.

Anymore at launch would indicate an 8800GTX level increase which has not happened for over 5 years so would be an uncommon increase in absolute performance.

[shaithis]

All that is fine.....most accept it....

BUT if you are buying a card and BF3 is your primary concern, the 7970 is not value for money....no matter how you try and look at it....it sucks compared to any other high-end card you look at on price/performance.

Hopefully that will change but until it does expect a lot of people to be unhappy about the card....and rightly so imo!

Imagine if the 8800GTX had performance issues in Crysis when it was released. It would also have had a much harder time getting accepted and would have had a lot of people questioning it's price tag.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

All that is fine.....most accept it....

BUT if you are buying a card and BF3 is your primary concern, the 7970 is not value for money....no matter how you try and look at it....it sucks compared to any other high-end card you look at on price/performance.

???Sucks?? Many people don't play BF3 and more importantly it is still faster than a GTX580 3GB(not 1.5GB) which means the GTX580 3GB is the worse card.

So does the GTX580 3GB suck?? Its slower and costs about the same it seems. It even cannot do surround gaming unless you pay for a special version.

It is over £400 at every retailer I can see. There is one Palit card on pre-order for around £400 and you get the HD7970 3GB for around £420 on pre-order.

Using your biased metrics,the GTX285,GTX480 and GTX580 all were entirely rubbish,overpriced tat and the only card which was worth the money was the HD5870 1GB which could be had for £300 to £350.

So do you think the GTX480 and GTX580 sucks compared to other high-end cards you looked at on price/performance AT LAUNCH?? BTW,remember how much cheaper the HD5870 1GB was. Please remember that.

Hopefully that will change but until it does expect a lot of people to be unhappy about the card....and rightly so imo!

Imagine if the 8800GTX had performance issues in Crysis when it was released. It would also have had a much harder time getting accepted and would have had a lot of people questioning it's price tag.

What about the GTX285,GTX480 and GTX580?? Try to be objective. You had to go back 5 years it seems. Why not the other Nvidia high end releases?? Whats wrong with them??

All rubbish increases using your metrics.

[shaithis]

Wow CAT, I think you've lost it.

In BF3
7970 (£480) = 55fps
GTX580 (£350) = 50fps

If you cannot see why the 7970 sucks for VFM for a BF3 player...then I do not know what to say.

I think you are forgetting the key point.....what games need this level of power? That's right...BF3 plus a couple of others.

If the fix for BF3 takes any longer, people will be saying "Wait for Kepler". They only have so long to resolve this before they miss the boat. Calling it the "Fastest single GPU card in the world" doesn't make it run my BF3 any faster....

[Terbinator]

I'm more concerned about what people with 7970's are playing if it isn't BF3.

[ajones]

Am I missing something when it comes to the 7970 with BF3? From the reviews I've read (let's take the Hexus one) it beats the 580GTX.

OK, comparing cheapest to cheapest, you're paying 100 quid more (£350 versus £450 today on Scan), but the top end is a different story (£700 versus £530).

[shaithis]

It's marginally beats it is the issue.....while completely out-classing it in other benchmarks.

For whatever reason (and there is still no definitive reason given anywhere that I can find) the card really under-performs on the Frostbite engine.

So, anyone who is a BF3 player and is looking for more FPS, your not going to get the theoretical performance you've paid for......not by some way.

All previous architectures perform pretty much as expected. So your getting your moneys worth in BF3 with them.

Of course, if money is no object and absolute framerate is key........paying an extra £130 for an extra 5fps may be worth it to you. I am sure most people would not find that value for money though.....of course you can pay your money now and pray for an update that resolves the issue........but then your card is going to de-value while your waiting.....and as Keplers release date looms, those prices will drop faster.

I really feel AMD are not doing enough to correct this issue and it's going to cost them.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wow CAT, I think you've lost it.

In BF3
7970 (£480) = 55fps
GTX580 (£350) = 50fps

If you cannot see why the 7970 sucks for VFM for a BF3 player...then I do not know what to say.

I think you are forgetting the key point.....what games need this level of power? That's right...BF3 plus a couple of others.

If the fix for BF3 takes any longer, people will be saying "Wait for Kepler". They only have so long to resolve this before they miss the boat. Calling it the "Fastest single GPU card in the world" doesn't make it run my BF3 any faster....

Just like the GTX480 didn't run many games much faster than an HD5870 1GB or the GTX580 did not run many games much faster than the GTX480?? So again,did these suck??

It does not change the fact that your GTX580 is slower. Your argument has changed from its not a fast enough to its poor value for money. Yet the very card you have was expensive at launch too considering the competition. You don't seem to be questioning this one bit. Why??

You seem unable to criticise the launch performance of Nvidia cards and launch pricing even once. Nvidia has had poor high end performance increases ever since the GTX285 and so had AMD and just as high pricing too as what we see today. Why no criticism of this?

You cannot even ADMIT the GTX580 3GB is slower and worse value for money. That is the highest end Nvidia single GPU card.

That is after I had a quick scout around and found one for £394 on pre-order which is like £40 to £50 cheaper than other cards.

I find it hilarious you cannot criticise the high pricing of the GTX480 or GTX580 AT LAUNCH either despite the minimal performance increase.