Yes sir, you have a good point about it.

The price of the GTX 670 is BETTER than all of the rest of cards of "new generation" (all 28nm). The problem is about that the prices of all these cards is HIGH, doesn´t matter anything if the PCB is cheaper or more expensive.

The PCB of a GTX 260 was very complex, but the card prize was very low. Any of the PCBs of the "new generations" is "better" than the PCB of a GTX 280 (as a example), so the prices are all about the performance, not the "PCB/electronic quality".

The gtx280 came out at $499, not sure what planet of amnesia you flew in from

The author is somewhat right though. The flagship Kepler is GK110 and NV is going to sell it to the Tesla markets for > $3,000. Instead, for the first time ever, they are shoving us a mid-range Kepler GK104 chip as high-end when it really isn't. Most of us have accepted GK104 as high-end since NV has no interest in selling us a true GTX480/580 successor for $600. I don't blame them as a business since they are going to sell the same chip for $3k+ until demand drops off. Wouldn't you do the same?

However, that doesn't change the fact that psychophysically this generation is a rip-off. When was the last time NV's next generation high-end chip was just 30% faster than its previous high-end (GTX580 vs. 680)? It never happened.

Also, your point that HD7850 and 7870's pricing structure has increased from 6850/6870 is true. Higher 28nm wafer costs and lack of GTX600 competition are to blame imo.

I think 2 cards have emerged in this gen: $259 7850 and $399 GTX670. Little else makes sense at current prices. Problem is HD7850 is hardly better than GTX570/HD6950 OCed/unlocked. Therefore, in 1.5 years the performance has not really improved by a significant amount in any of the price segments < $300. There is still nothing as good as an HD6870-6950 for <$200. For anyone still using a GTX570/HD6950 OCed, the cheapest card worth upgrading to is the $400 GTX670. Not sure if that's good progress.

For those still running much slower or older cards, an HD7850/7870 may be attractive but it is not a good upgrade for HD6950/570 owners.

Can't argue with 670 based on other cards. For $400 it's the high-end bang for the buck, but it is a GF104 successor, which wasn't a $400 GPU.

The GTX580 was $499 solid until the 7000 series, there is no room for a bog kepler and the rest of the card tiers.
The 580 was a big leap so everyone is crying the 680 is not as big a leap, yet the very same will DIE to defend the 7970 and 3 fps in 2 games.

It's the biggest joke I've ever seen.

I hope nVidia NEVER releases big kepler as a gaming card so all you quackers can quack right to your graves. Yes, seriously.

I've never seen such a pile of garbage in my entire life spread so far from semi accurate's charlie D the biggest liar amd has on hire.

Since you all have believed his rumor from the day he launched it, the $299 GTX 680 as he said wins at everything... you people are so self deceived it's really unbelievable.

In what world does the GTX680 fit anywhere near that price point, what planet are you people on ?

All of you have forgotten the worldwide inflation rate as well. I am so sick of hearing it, because it's a big pile of lies.

$299 for the GTX680.... give us the rest of the line up then, one of you sour gurus, and of you... oh nevermind you'd never do it, none of you have ... not it's time for all of you to start TWADDLING your lips and saying GTX680 would be a "good secondary at $xxx " blah blah blah.

Meanwhile amd has "NOTHING" in the works at all - since you're all so BRAINWASHED and can't really pay attention at all, that is LITERALLY TRUE for all of you, even though it's absolutely incorrect. AMD is holding back "NOTHING" because they have nothing. LOL

You people are sad.

Why? Do you have some problem with the standard clocks of DIFFERENTS cards?

I don´t get your "argument".

The 670 runs smoothly with 1200 MHz with turbo in almost everycard in the market, too.

What about a 670 with 1200 MHz vs a 7950 with 900-1000 MHz?

If the 7950 "needs" cocaine for the test, then the "cocaine" for all of them.

Ok then, screw the clock speeds and compare equally priced cards..

Ok, but the "scene" wouldn´t change much. And with the OC equation inside, we can´t get a precise image of the relative performance of each card (only a especulation about some OC results in particular units, the OC is variable in each unit, the standard clocks isn´t variable at all).

Your proposal is only useful for the OC users, as a guide (with a lot of "ifs" there).

Fair enough friend. I agree that the comparison of stock clocks might be best for a relative comparison if you leave price out of the picture. Tho for the kicks and curiosity we could include an "factory OC vs 670" that cost the same as a factory 670? Just to see the bang/buck.

The nVidia cards had lower core clocks for like the past 4 generations in a row, and had some mighty overclock gains, and we NEVER heard this amd fan line from the other side then.

Chalk it up to amd fans SEVERE LOSS this time around - every metric has STOMPED THEM INTO THE GROUND - now they're 7 features of drivers behind nVidia - and some of those are AWESOME, besides losing the framerate contest, the only contest that ever matters for those people - unless of course they can scream eyefinity while they own just a single low rez monitor and don't have the hundred dollar dongle for 2 years...

It's really, really sad. I'm amd fan boys all go to heaven though - they probably won't ever die they will just float up because they hated evil and supported good and Jesus will smile and wave them by as St Peter hands them their Radeon Gaming Evolved Worship Lamp.

What's next? Let's compare a Bulldozer at 4.8ghz against a stock i5 3570K?

The point of comparing cards at stock clocks is because that's how every user will get the card out of the box. GTX670 also has overclocking headroom. Not many people are going to pay nearly $400 for a 7950 and play the overclocking lottery when GTX670 delivers that level of performance guaranteed out of the box for $400.

Remember GTX460? It was clocked at 675mhz but many overclocked to 900mhz+. Would it be fair to compare a 900mhz+ GTX460 against a stock HD6870?

In BF3, one of the most popular shooters right now, GTX670 is 40-50% faster than an HD7950:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5818/46437.png

No one in their right mind who plays this game would get a 7950.

None of that matters they are fighting evil while they lap up underdogs every nook and crannie.

I like the HD7970, but its price is against its market niche. If AMD decides to stop dreaming and put the prices that apply to its product, It might have more customers that are dissatisfied or dislikes the cheap appearance of the GTX 670.

The GTX 670 is a great card, but the reference card has a very "dirty" design for a 400$ card (all of its design are reasonable, but not fashionable).

If you can buy a HD7970 for the same prize that the GTX 670, you have a card with extras as 3GB of VRAM, better GPGPU capabilities, and a lot of bandwith for some "sensible" aplications (and best or more "fashionable" design).

And AMD needs these extras, they don´t have the nvidia extras as PhysX, CUDA, or a better brand/drivers image.

That's really great. You put the card in a closed in case, you almost never look at it, no one ever sees it, and how you think it achieves a "look" as if it's a tiny black party dress is very important.

I thought I've heard every amd stretch in the book the past month or so but that's a new one.
Congratulations I'm dialing Richard Huddy right now so you can be ushered into amd's PR campaign wealthbook.