Geforce Titan PCB pic. leak, Price Included-

  • 88 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by LordEC911 (9972 posts) -

Ugh... it is NOT faster than a GTX690. Current talk is of a potential 70-80% the gaming performance of a GTX690, at best.
It will not be $900. It most likely will have a ~$599-$699 MSRP.
Finally, please stop posting all this fake info. Almost everything that has been "released" so far is faked or just outright false.

FYI- On most limited run cards you cannot use the step-up program. 

#52 Posted by C_Rule (9742 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

6GB VRAM is a lot, hardly any games get near 4 let alone 6, but it's great for future proofing.

James161324

what games use 4gb, i haven't seen my vram go past 2 gb 

No vanilla game at 1080p. The most VRAM usage I've seen is 1.5GB in Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3.
#53 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

6GB VRAM is a lot, hardly any games get near 4 let alone 6, but it's great for future proofing.

C_Rule

what games use 4gb, i haven't seen my vram go past 2 gb 

No vanilla game at 1080p. The most VRAM usage I've seen is 1.5GB in Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3.

So true.

#54 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

6GB VRAM is a lot, hardly any games get near 4 let alone 6, but it's great for future proofing.

James161324

what games use 4gb, i haven't seen my vram go past 2 gb 

Well, near it was Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3, I've seen over 3.8GB on both games. Quite a bit of games go over 2GB with AA and without AA at 1200p, 1600p, custom res like 1800p and 2100p and triple monitor res like 5760x1080 and 5760x1200. This is an example of max settings at 3360x2100 and 2xAA, I tend to average 40+FPS thanks to SLI though.

ib1y9GwOfj0D4p.png

#55 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

Do you guys want me to list games that use over 2GB and 3GB VRAM?

#56 Posted by trastamad03 (4859 posts) -

Do you guys want me to list games that use over 2GB and 3GB VRAM?

mitu123
That'd actually be nice :D Might be extra work, but could you include the settings (with AA = this much VRAM used, without = This much?)
#57 Posted by Bebi_vegeta (13558 posts) -

Ugh... it is NOT faster than a GTX690. Current talk is of a potential 70-80% the gaming performance of a GTX690, at best.
It will not be $900. It most likely will have a ~$599-$699 MSRP.
Finally, please stop posting all this fake info. Almost everything that has been "released" so far is faked or just outright false.

FYI- On most limited run cards you cannot use the step-up program. 

LordEC911

 

I heard the score was made up with SLI 680.

#58 Posted by darksusperia (6918 posts) -

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]

Ugh... it is NOT faster than a GTX690. Current talk is of a potential 70-80% the gaming performance of a GTX690, at best.
It will not be $900. It most likely will have a ~$599-$699 MSRP.
Finally, please stop posting all this fake info. Almost everything that has been "released" so far is faked or just outright false.

FYI- On most limited run cards you cannot use the step-up program. 

Bebi_vegeta

 

I heard the score was made up with SLI 680.

it would appear so.
#59 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Do you guys want me to list games that use over 2GB and 3GB VRAM?

trastamad03

That'd actually be nice :D Might be extra work, but could you include the settings (with AA = this much VRAM used, without = This much?)

I will certianly use 0-max AA, but for res you want me to just use 1200p, 1600p and 5760x1200 which gamers normally game at(yes, that's a custom res that looks hilarious on one screen) or do you want to include custom res like 2880x1800 and 3360x2100?

Example of maxed BF3 shot at 5760x1200 with no AA(right click to view):

ibhK39RZRwRLW0.png

#60 Posted by AdamPA1006 (6420 posts) -

Is there any idea when these and the new AMD cards will be released? I'm on my second RMA of my HD6970 and kinda wanna switch to Nvidia after all the problems I have had with it. Powercolor.

#61 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

6GB VRAM is a lot, hardly any games get near 4 let alone 6, but it's great for future proofing.

James161324

what games use 4gb, i haven't seen my vram go past 2 gb 

Modded Skyrim on 3 monitors with 2k textures?
#62 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

6GB VRAM is a lot, hardly any games get near 4 let alone 6, but it's great for future proofing.

homeboylizard

what games use 4gb, i haven't seen my vram go past 2 gb 

Modded Skyrim on 3 monitors with 2k textures?

That and more.

#63 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -

Is there any idea when these and the new AMD cards will be released? I'm on my second RMA of my HD6970 and kinda wanna switch to Nvidia after all the problems I have had with it. Powercolor.

AdamPA1006
AMD said that they won't release 8000 series cards soon, in an interview they said that their main focus is on 7000 and improving the drivers. I'd say nothing sooner than Q4 2013, Q1 2014. Not to mention the rebranding of some 7000M to 8000M??? If I got that wrong correct me!
#64 Posted by abuabed (6606 posts) -
If it's true then that's too costly for a single GPU. I guess I'll have to go with Titan 770 :P
#65 Posted by Elann2008 (32991 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="trastamad03"] Definitely interested... Price is a bit high, then again, it's like buying 2 GPUs (2x GTX 670 FTW 4GBs)... It's definitely in my scope though. I also wanna see what AMD brings with the 8970-8990... but still playing games at 2560x1440 @ 120fps ona  single card so no more overheating GPUs... :Q I wannnnnttttttttrastamad03
Let's shake on it then. If it ends up being $749 or less, we're buying one each. :D lol

Deal. :D

*shakes hand, Prince of Bel-Air style* *followed by a sinister laugh* :twisted:

#67 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6061 posts) -

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

#68 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -
Yeah, the GTX 680 now goes for ~450$? But it seems Nvidia is braking the limit. Maybe good, maybe bad....buy for that kind of power I'll pay ~750$ in a heartbeat. P.S. The 7970 isn't the fastest card, 7970 GHz IS!
#69 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

blaznwiipspman1

 

You haven't been around the game for that long, have you?  Both 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra were well over that at launch.  The GTX was bringing $600+ and the Ultra over $800.  

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222

#70 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6061 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

hartsickdiscipl

 

You haven't been around the game for that long, have you?  Both 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra were well over that at launch.  The GTX was bringing $600+ and the Ultra over $800.  

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222

 

I never really paid attention to hardware from 2004-~2010.  It was only after that I needed to upgrade my computer so that I could get ready for starcraft 2. I doubt nvidia will make their hardware that expensive, otherwise AMD will just undercut them.

#71 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

hartsickdiscipl

 

You haven't been around the game for that long, have you?  Both 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra were well over that at launch.  The GTX was bringing $600+ and the Ultra over $800.  

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222

Whoa!!!! Never knew Nvidia had such prices before 690. Let's hope it's not the same story again.
#72 Posted by 04dcarraher (19685 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

blaznwiipspman1

 

You haven't been around the game for that long, have you?  Both 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra were well over that at launch.  The GTX was bringing $600+ and the Ultra over $800.  

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222

 

I never really paid attention to hardware from 2004-~2010.  It was only after that I needed to upgrade my computer so that I could get ready for starcraft 2. I doubt nvidia will make their hardware that expensive, otherwise AMD will just undercut them.

Well I hope you know that AMD does not plan on releasing their next line of gpu's until next year and also ATI back in 2006 didnt have anything close to match the 8800GTS or GTX, let alone in 2007. If Nvidia releases a single gpu that performs better then any current dual gpu based card or medium to high tier sli/crossfire setups. Then the price to a degree is justified for the performance gains, but lets not forget the other models what will come along with it too.
#73 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -
[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

You haven't been around the game for that long, have you?  Both 8800 GTX and 8800 Ultra were well over that at launch.  The GTX was bringing $600+ and the Ultra over $800.  

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2222

04dcarraher

 

I never really paid attention to hardware from 2004-~2010.  It was only after that I needed to upgrade my computer so that I could get ready for starcraft 2. I doubt nvidia will make their hardware that expensive, otherwise AMD will just undercut them.

Well I hope you know that AMD does not plan on releasing their next line of gpu's until next year and also ATI back in 2006 didnt have anything close to match the 8800GTS or GTX, let alone in 2007. If Nvidia releases a single gpu that performs better then any current dual gpu based card or medium to high tier sli/crossfire setups. Then the price to a degree is justified for the performance gains, but lets not forget the other models what will come along with it too.

The market dictates the price, not the actual worth of the product. Best example is oil, and that principle applies to everything. Meaning if people won't buy it for a 1000$ they will have to cut the prices down, or they are at loss.
#74 Posted by 04dcarraher (19685 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

I never really paid attention to hardware from 2004-~2010.  It was only after that I needed to upgrade my computer so that I could get ready for starcraft 2. I doubt nvidia will make their hardware that expensive, otherwise AMD will just undercut them.

homeboylizard
Well I hope you know that AMD does not plan on releasing their next line of gpu's until next year and also ATI back in 2006 didnt have anything close to match the 8800GTS or GTX, let alone in 2007. If Nvidia releases a single gpu that performs better then any current dual gpu based card or medium to high tier sli/crossfire setups. Then the price to a degree is justified for the performance gains, but lets not forget the other models what will come along with it too.

The market dictates the price, not the actual worth of the product. Best example is oil, and that principle applies to everything. Meaning if people won't buy it for a 1000$ they will have to cut the prices down, or they are at loss.

Key world competition, 8800GTX's sold like crazy when they came out so did the the 8800GT's.
#75 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

I never really paid attention to hardware from 2004-~2010.  It was only after that I needed to upgrade my computer so that I could get ready for starcraft 2. I doubt nvidia will make their hardware that expensive, otherwise AMD will just undercut them.

homeboylizard

Well I hope you know that AMD does not plan on releasing their next line of gpu's until next year and also ATI back in 2006 didnt have anything close to match the 8800GTS or GTX, let alone in 2007. If Nvidia releases a single gpu that performs better then any current dual gpu based card or medium to high tier sli/crossfire setups. Then the price to a degree is justified for the performance gains, but lets not forget the other models what will come along with it too.

The market dictates the price, not the actual worth of the product. Best example is oil, and that principle applies to everything. Meaning if people won't buy it for a 1000$ they will have to cut the prices down, or they are at loss.

 

Sometimes big, rich companies like Nvidia and Intel will stick to their guns on high prices.  They can afford to take losses for awhile.  

#76 Posted by C_Rule (9742 posts) -

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

blaznwiipspman1
Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?
#77 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

C_Rule

Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?

So true!

The new AMD Radeon HD 7970 launching today, is going to sport a MSRP of $549.

#78 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6061 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

C_Rule

Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition.  AMD dropped the price in like what...less than a month after 6xx series launched lol.  Also, for the most part AMD has been about bang for the buck.  If I had to compare to cars, the 7970 would be like the Nissan GTR -r spec, it does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds yet can be purchased for $100k.  Doesn't get alot of respect from the noobs and casuals, but gets respect from street racers aka hardcore pc gamers.  The geforce 690 is like the buggati veyron, it is ridiculously overpriced but is designed for people who want the most horsepower.  Most people respect it sinces its the cream of the crop.  The 680 is like a bmw m3.  It is fast but ridiculously over rated and over priced.  It is respected by only casuals and noobs.

#79 Posted by C_Rule (9742 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

blaznwiipspman1

Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition

Yes, now you're getting the idea.

 

 

#80 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

blaznwiipspman1

Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition.  AMD dropped the price in like what...less than a month after 6xx series launched lol.  Also, for the most part AMD has been about bang for the buck.  If I had to compare to cars, the 7970 would be like the Nissan GTR -r spec, it does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds yet can be purchased for $100k.  Doesn't get alot of respect from the noobs and casuals, but gets respect from street racers aka hardcore pc gamers.  The geforce 690 is like the buggati veyron, it is ridiculously overpriced but is designed for people who want the most horsepower.  Most people respect it sinces its the cream of the crop.  The 680 is like a bmw m3.  It is fast but ridiculously over rated and over priced.  It is respected by only casuals and noobs.

 

The 680 can't be like the M3.  The M3 is a lot cheaper than a GT-R and nowhere near it in performance.  However, the M3 is a more luxurious car.  In terms of luxury AND speed, the M3 isn't that bad a deal.  It's just a bad deal in terms of raw performance for the dollar when compared to some other cars.  The GTX 680 is more like any number of Ferraris that are in the same league of performance as the GT-R or slightly slower, but cost more.  

IMO the worst thing about an E92 M3 is that it gets terrible gas mileage for the amount of power it has, relative to other cars.  Sure, you're getting over 400hp out of a 4-liter V8, but at what cost?  Ford's 5.0 puts out slightly more power, much more torque, and has much better fuel economy.  Plus you don't have to rev the nuts off it to make power.  Sorry for the rant.. get me going on cars and this happens.  :P

#81 Posted by C_Rule (9742 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition.  AMD dropped the price in like what...less than a month after 6xx series launched lol.  Also, for the most part AMD has been about bang for the buck.  If I had to compare to cars, the 7970 would be like the Nissan GTR -r spec, it does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds yet can be purchased for $100k.  Doesn't get alot of respect from the noobs and casuals, but gets respect from street racers aka hardcore pc gamers.  The geforce 690 is like the buggati veyron, it is ridiculously overpriced but is designed for people who want the most horsepower.  Most people respect it sinces its the cream of the crop.  The 680 is like a bmw m3.  It is fast but ridiculously over rated and over priced.  It is respected by only casuals and noobs.

hartsickdiscipl

  

IMO the worst thing about an E92 M3 is that it gets terrible gas mileage for the amount of power it has, relative to other cars. 

So the 7970 is more like the M3?

 

 

 

 

Oh snap.

#82 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition.  AMD dropped the price in like what...less than a month after 6xx series launched lol.  Also, for the most part AMD has been about bang for the buck.  If I had to compare to cars, the 7970 would be like the Nissan GTR -r spec, it does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds yet can be purchased for $100k.  Doesn't get alot of respect from the noobs and casuals, but gets respect from street racers aka hardcore pc gamers.  The geforce 690 is like the buggati veyron, it is ridiculously overpriced but is designed for people who want the most horsepower.  Most people respect it sinces its the cream of the crop.  The 680 is like a bmw m3.  It is fast but ridiculously over rated and over priced.  It is respected by only casuals and noobs.

C_Rule

  

IMO the worst thing about an E92 M3 is that it gets terrible gas mileage for the amount of power it has, relative to other cars. 

So the 7970 is more like the M3?

 

 

 

 

Oh snap.

 

LOL.. you said it.  I think the GTX 465 might have been the M3.  Nicely featured, fast, but horribly inefficient.  

#83 Posted by C_Rule (9742 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

  

IMO the worst thing about an E92 M3 is that it gets terrible gas mileage for the amount of power it has, relative to other cars. 

hartsickdiscipl

So the 7970 is more like the M3?

 

 

 

 

Oh snap.

 

LOL.. you said it.  I think the GTX 465 might have been the M3.  Nicely featured, fast, but horribly inefficient.  

465 was a bit of an odd card, to say the least...
#84 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

meh, AMD has never been about performance at all costs.  They always go for the best bang for buck, and this gen, it happened so that AMD also had the strongest card with the 7970.  I wouldn't buy a card for that much $$....I always though $500 was the maximum for single gpu cards...but I guess I was wrong.

mitu123

Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?

So true!

The new AMD Radeon HD 7970 launching today, is going to sport a MSRP of $549.

Yeah, a lot of people forgot that 7970 came out before the 680. And that's why AMD could boost the price like that. Luckily, they slashed it to give competition to Nvidia. Still, nowhere near the supposed 900$ price of Titan.
#85 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6061 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] Wasn't the 7970, the card crafted by the hands of Odin himself, $550 at launch?hartsickdiscipl

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition.  AMD dropped the price in like what...less than a month after 6xx series launched lol.  Also, for the most part AMD has been about bang for the buck.  If I had to compare to cars, the 7970 would be like the Nissan GTR -r spec, it does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds yet can be purchased for $100k.  Doesn't get alot of respect from the noobs and casuals, but gets respect from street racers aka hardcore pc gamers.  The geforce 690 is like the buggati veyron, it is ridiculously overpriced but is designed for people who want the most horsepower.  Most people respect it sinces its the cream of the crop.  The 680 is like a bmw m3.  It is fast but ridiculously over rated and over priced.  It is respected by only casuals and noobs.

 

The 680 can't be like the M3.  The M3 is a lot cheaper than a GT-R and nowhere near it in performance.  However, the M3 is a more luxurious car.  In terms of luxury AND speed, the M3 isn't that bad a deal.  It's just a bad deal in terms of raw performance for the dollar when compared to some other cars.  The GTX 680 is more like any number of Ferraris that are in the same league of performance as the GT-R or slightly slower, but cost more.  

IMO the worst thing about an E92 M3 is that it gets terrible gas mileage for the amount of power it has, relative to other cars.  Sure, you're getting over 400hp out of a 4-liter V8, but at what cost?  Ford's 5.0 puts out slightly more power, much more torque, and has much better fuel economy.  Plus you don't have to rev the nuts off it to make power.  Sorry for the rant.. get me going on cars and this happens.  :P

yeah...420 hp at 6500rpm.  The mustang is an awesome car.  I don't know how they made it so fuel efficient with that much power.

#86 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

I guess your right, though when the 7970 launched it blew all other cards away and didn't have any competition.  AMD dropped the price in like what...less than a month after 6xx series launched lol.  Also, for the most part AMD has been about bang for the buck.  If I had to compare to cars, the 7970 would be like the Nissan GTR -r spec, it does 0-60 in 2.9 seconds yet can be purchased for $100k.  Doesn't get alot of respect from the noobs and casuals, but gets respect from street racers aka hardcore pc gamers.  The geforce 690 is like the buggati veyron, it is ridiculously overpriced but is designed for people who want the most horsepower.  Most people respect it sinces its the cream of the crop.  The 680 is like a bmw m3.  It is fast but ridiculously over rated and over priced.  It is respected by only casuals and noobs.

blaznwiipspman1

 

The 680 can't be like the M3.  The M3 is a lot cheaper than a GT-R and nowhere near it in performance.  However, the M3 is a more luxurious car.  In terms of luxury AND speed, the M3 isn't that bad a deal.  It's just a bad deal in terms of raw performance for the dollar when compared to some other cars.  The GTX 680 is more like any number of Ferraris that are in the same league of performance as the GT-R or slightly slower, but cost more.  

IMO the worst thing about an E92 M3 is that it gets terrible gas mileage for the amount of power it has, relative to other cars.  Sure, you're getting over 400hp out of a 4-liter V8, but at what cost?  Ford's 5.0 puts out slightly more power, much more torque, and has much better fuel economy.  Plus you don't have to rev the nuts off it to make power.  Sorry for the rant.. get me going on cars and this happens.  :P

yeah...420 hp at 6500rpm.  The mustang is an awesome car.  I don't know how they made it so fuel efficient with that much power.

 

TiVCT

#87 Posted by ronvalencia (15130 posts) -
[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

Is there any idea when these and the new AMD cards will be released? I'm on my second RMA of my HD6970 and kinda wanna switch to Nvidia after all the problems I have had with it. Powercolor.

homeboylizard
AMD said that they won't release 8000 series cards soon, in an interview they said that their main focus is on 7000 and improving the drivers. I'd say nothing sooner than Q4 2013, Q1 2014. Not to mention the rebranding of some 7000M to 8000M??? If I got that wrong correct me!

On mobile, AMD is replacing low-mid VLIW5 type Radeon HDs to GCN types.
#88 Posted by homeboylizard (1289 posts) -

Edited first post-

Wow, if the clocks are true then this card is going to be a beast! The first roumors of being severly underclocked (Base: 732Mhz) now seem so untrue!

Also, on the last source link you can also see that Titan scores only few hundred points lower in 3Dmark that Gtx 690! And if it costs ~750$ this is going to be a dream come true.