Why not ??? its going to be faster than 2x GTX980ti at the same price but at a single card configuration AND LOWER POWER.
Sorry there's no way they are gonna sell many at that price.
$999 or go home.
I told ya, CF 2x Nano (175W TDP each) will be 40-50% faster than NVIDIAs $1000 Titan-X.
Im expecting Gemini at $1500 and it will be the undisputed champion (single card) in performance for the entire 2016 as well.
Why not ??? its going to be faster than 2x GTX980ti at the same price but at a single card configuration AND LOWER POWER.
Because its AMD.
BREAKING NEWS, I've found images of the dual-GPU* Fury!
*Well technically it doesn't have hardware Transform & Lighting, so it doesn't really count as a GPU according to NVidia.
Everyone already compares GK104 to GM204 but that's not the reason why your post is flat out wrong. How many times does this need to be repeated? It's not about Kepler -> Maxwell. It's about 20 years of GPU development and NV's history prior to Kepler. You are using 2 wrong generations to prove a point -- the two generations that are responsible for the change in NV's strategy and pricing. This is like saying if apples were genetically modified in 2012 and their prices increased (Kepler) and then oranges were genetically modified in 2014 (Maxwell) and prices increased even more, then all fruit for decades prior to 2012 must have also been genetically modified and cost a lot and the small price increases we are seeing are just inflation and accounting for the cost of new modified fruit to come in 2016, etc. No, you need to analyze a longer series of history to have a proper assessment of reality and dive deep into the earnings/gross margins of companies that sell fruit. If you do all of that, everything many of us have been telling you will become crystal clear.
So obviously you used two generations that incorporated the new NV strategy to prove a point that nothing has changed. You have to use generations prior to the new change of strategy. What generations are those? Don't have to go too far. Fermi is already a good start.
$199-239 GTX560/560Ti are spiritual predecessors to $399 GTX670/$499 GTX680
GTX560/560Ti are spiritual predecessors to $330 GTX970/ $550 980.
$349 GTX470/570 & $499 480/580 are spiritual successors to $650 GTX780/ $699 780Ti.
980Ti is not a fully unlocked flagship chip so that's the current generation's GTX570. The Titan X is the old gen's GTX580 3GB that cost $549.
What's the Fury X? Well it's simple. HD6970. HD6970 (Fury X) competed well against NV's 2nd best GTX570 (980Ti today), while it lost to the fully unlocked flagship GTX580 (Titan X).
So yes, absolutely, both AMD and NV raised prices. AMD raised prices to ATI's historical levels but NV went even further.
You realize that 6800GT cost $399 and X850 Pro cost $399? In the NV/ATi line-up, those cards were at least as fast as a GTX980 relative to today's 980Ti/Fury X. Guess how much GTX980 cost when it launched? $550.
What about even further? 9700Pro cost $399 - that's the flagship ATI card. What about 9800Pro and 5900U? $499. Those were not $649 Fury X or $699 GTX780Ti or $649 980Ti.
Like how many examples of the past do we have to show you to get the point?
Since this thread is about Fury X2, let's focus on AMD/ATI. I'll use ATI's/AMD's historical dual-chip flagship cards to prove it to you that prices skyrocketed and that your assertion that GPU prices have always been this high and it's normal is flat out wrong.
HD3870X2 = $449
HD4870X2 = $549
HD5970 = $599
HD6990 = $699
HD7990 = $999
R9 295X2 = $1499
Fury X2 = $449 like the HD3870X2? $599 like the HD5970? $699 like the HD6990 flagship? Sure thing! :whiste:
Dude, just admit it, GPU prices have increased 50-100%. If you are new to PC hardware in relative ters, that's OK. However, don't try to obfuscate the reality of what has happened in GPUs in the last 3-3.5 years. We've never had this type of pricing before.
Right now a 980Ti isn't at all like the 6800Ultra/UE, or the GTX285 or the GeForce 4 Ti 4600/4800 or the 5950U. It's not even a full chip, similar to a GTX570, a chip that cost $349.
Sure thing, like GTX970 for $330 was a fantasy 10 months after NV milked us with a $699 780Ti - on the same node? That's why NV/AMD are struggling selling $500 Fury, $570 Fury X, and $550-580 980Ti cards / sarcasm. Why don't you go and study the financials of NV from 2009 until today and come back with better facts. The only person living in fantasy that GPUs have to cost $700-1000 and mid-range cards were like GTX680/980 at $500-550 at launch of a new generation is YOU. You have bought into the AMD/NV marketing and the entire costs are skyrocketing so we must increase prices 50-100% to survive PR. That's exactly what they want you to believe so that for 2016 Pascal, NV can release 980's successor for $599-649 and you won't even blink cuz you'll defend it as the 'new' flagship as it will beat 980Ti by 20-30%.
No, you won't even remember how NV's next gen mid-range card whipped the last gen's flagship, for instance, how a $199 6600GT beat $499 9800XT / 5950U. Instead, you'll just accept it as the normal status quo that mid-range Pascal should cost $500-600 just because it's "better" value than the last gen's Fury X and 980Ti. Congrats, NV/AMD have won.
Everyone already compares GK104 to GM204 but that's not the reason why your post is flat out wrong. How many times does this need to be repeated? It's not about Kepler -> Maxwell. It's about 20 years of GPU development and NV's history prior to Kepler. You are using 2 wrong generations to prove a point -- the two generations that are responsible for the change in NV's strategy and pricing. This is like saying if apples were genetically modified in 2012 and their prices increased (Kepler) and then oranges were genetically modified in 2014 (Maxwell) and prices increased even more, then all fruit for decades prior to 2012 must have also been genetically modified and cost a lot and the small price increases we are seeing are just inflation and accounting for the cost of new modified fruit to come in 2016, etc. No, you need to analyze a longer series of history to have a proper assessment of reality and dive deep into the earnings/gross margins of companies that sell fruit. If you do all of that, everything many of us have been telling you will become crystal clear.
So obviously you used two generations that incorporated the new NV strategy to prove a point that nothing has changed. You have to use generations prior to the new change of strategy. What generations are those? Don't have to go too far. Fermi is already a good start.
$199-239 GTX560/560Ti are spiritual predecessors to $399 GTX670/$499 GTX680
GTX560/560Ti are spiritual predecessors to $330 GTX970/ $550 980.
$349 GTX470/570 & $499 480/580 are spiritual successors to $650 GTX780/ $699 780Ti.
980Ti is not a fully unlocked flagship chip so that's the current generation's GTX570. The Titan X is the old gen's GTX580 3GB that cost $549.
What's the Fury X? Well it's simple. HD6970. HD6970 (Fury X) competed well against NV's 2nd best GTX570 (980Ti today), while it lost to the fully unlocked flagship GTX580 (Titan X).
So yes, absolutely, both AMD and NV raised prices. AMD raised prices to ATI's historical levels but NV went even further.
You realize that 6800GT cost $399 and X850 Pro cost $399? In the NV/ATi line-up, those cards were at least as fast as a GTX980 relative to today's 980Ti/Fury X. Guess how much GTX980 cost when it launched? $550.
What about even further? 9700Pro cost $399 - that's the flagship ATI card. What about 9800Pro and 5900U? $499. Those were not $649 Fury X or $699 GTX780Ti or $649 980Ti.
Like how many examples of the past do we have to show you to get the point?
Since this thread is about Fury X2, let's focus on AMD/ATI. I'll use ATI's/AMD's historical dual-chip flagship cards to prove it to you that prices skyrocketed and that your assertion that GPU prices have always been this high and it's normal is flat out wrong.
HD3870X2 = $449
HD4870X2 = $549
HD5970 = $599
HD6990 = $699
HD7990 = $999
R9 295X2 = $1499
Fury X2 = $449 like the HD3870X2? $599 like the HD5970? $699 like the HD6990 flagship? Sure thing! :whiste:
Dude, just admit it, GPU prices have increased 50-100%. If you are new to PC hardware in relative ters, that's OK. However, don't try to obfuscate the reality of what has happened in GPUs in the last 3-3.5 years. We've never had this type of pricing before.
Right now a 980Ti isn't at all like the 6800Ultra/UE, or the GTX285 or the GeForce 4 Ti 4600/4800 or the 5950U. It's not even a full chip, similar to a GTX570, a chip that cost $349.
Sure thing, like GTX970 for $330 was a fantasy 10 months after NV milked us with a $699 780Ti - on the same node? That's why NV/AMD are struggling selling $500 Fury, $570 Fury X, and $550-580 980Ti cards / sarcasm. Why don't you go and study the financials of NV from 2009 until today and come back with better facts. The only person living in fantasy that GPUs have to cost $700-1000 and mid-range cards were like GTX680/980 at $500-550 at launch of a new generation is YOU. You have bought into the AMD/NV marketing and the entire costs are skyrocketing so we must increase prices 50-100% to survive PR. That's exactly what they want you to believe so that for 2016 Pascal, NV can release 980's successor for $599-649 and you won't even blink cuz you'll defend it as the 'new' flagship as it will beat 980Ti by 20-30%.
No, you won't even remember how NV's next gen mid-range card whipped the last gen's flagship, for instance, how a $199 6600GT beat $499 9800XT / 5950U. Instead, you'll just accept it as the normal status quo that mid-range Pascal should cost $500-600 just because it's "better" value than the last gen's Fury X and 980Ti. Congrats, NV/AMD have won.
Advertising a busted cooling loop? Probably not the best way to introduce speculation into an unreleased GPU.
I'm excited for the release because when arctic islands releases this card will be around $500-600 similar to the R9 295x2. But it'll use a lot less power, and be smaller.
When AMD gets beaten by nVidia, just go for a dual GPU card that only guys with the right mainboard can go along with. OH and don't forget to buy a 1200 W PSU too!
AMD is pathetic at this point. No wonder the GTX 680 GTX to 980 TI went from 500 to 700. The last good AMD was the 7970 GHZ edition. The Fury X gets completely destroyed by the 980 TI.
How did that happened? Custom R290s for dirt cheap for months before the 390 debuted... but they sold very poorly, but the 390 manage to sell well? Even JP Morgan has the last quarter, AMD gaining back some dGPU marketshare, which is not what we were expecting.
No you're right but if anything this only strengthens RS' point about the irrationality of the masses.
For those of us who know the numbers, the difference between the 200-series and 300-series is there, but it's fairly small. Yet what accounts for the fact that the 300-series sell great and the 200-series doesn't? In many cases, getting a new 290 is a far better value play than getting a new 390.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it: most people are not informed in their buying decisions and are swayed by perception and brand psychology in general.
It's kind of depressing, you want to believe people are informed citizens but over and over again, they prove that they are shockingly easy to manipulate and are swayed by fickle impulses rather than rational thought.
Great post as usual. Some people seem to have selective memory or something. My GTX590 cost 609 EUROs in 2011. Titan Z´s price was 3000 last year.
Yes, but Tonga which isn't simply a clocked up Tahiti, but a new chip, people think should cost less or the same.
Titan Z is a terrible example, though. That GPU was a flop before it was even released. Secondly, dual-GPUs are a niche within a niche. If you look at single dGPUs and compare arch to arch, the price rise is there - I'm not denying that - but it's also far more gradual than the numbers being thrown around($500 to $549).
I'm also saying it has to put into the context of the slowmotion death of Moore's law.
People who ignore that development can be fairly accused of having selective memory.
Which Tonga, though? I was vocal before the 380X was even released that anything above $199 is simply too much when you compare it to the 280X. I think the benchmarks validate that viewpoint.
Maybe it's unfair to the 380X simply because the 7970 Ghz was/is a legendary GPU, but the market realities are what they are. I don't believe people will buy a $30 more expensive GPU that performs identically simply because it has a lower wattage. But again, maybe I'm wrong. I didn't believe the 300-series would sell well either, because I looked at the numbers. But boy was I wrong on that one.
Maybe I should look less at the numbers and read more psychology books. I'm only half-joking.
For Amd to sell cards well, it doesn't just take making the best product possible. It also takes Nvidia making the worst product possible at the same time. When this happens, Amd will sell half as many units as they should meanwhile still being outsold by the green giant.
Titan Z is a terrible example, though. That GPU was a flop before it was even released. Secondly, dual-GPUs are a niche within a niche. If you look at single dGPUs and compare arch to arch, the price rise is there - I'm not denying that - but it's also far more gradual than the numbers being thrown around($500 to $549).
I'm also saying it has to put into the context of the slowmotion death of Moore's law.
People who ignore that development can be fairly accused of having selective memory.
Benchlife says it will be paper launched in december. And first around march hitting the retail channel.
https://benchlife.info/amd-r9-fury-...launch-in-dec-mp-will-be-march-2016-12012015/