Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric
I suppose it is irrelevant that the $200 480 uses less than half the power and will likely OC way more than the 290 (not to mention just being an overall more powerful card to begin with)?
Number one: I'm not comparing it directly to a 290. I think it's safe to say that it's probably beyond 290 performance which is why I am proposing it's performance is closer to a 290X or a 980.
Power usage isn't really relevant to everyone. I'm not saying that's it's an invalid metric, it absolutely is to a lot of people, people with small power supplies, HTPC's ect. Though I will maintain that the actual effect which is seen on a power bill for the average Joe gamer isn't really notable but that's a completely different discussion.
I'm also not saying that this card isn't going to be a great card, GCN 4.0 will have some much needed features.
Also, what was the 290 price on release? Its not relevant what the card goes for now, 3 years after release... Also, what was the 290 price on release? Its not relevant what the card goes for now, 3 years after release...
It is relevant if it's technology is still relevant and useful and if it falls within the same price to performance segment (which it does). It's a silly to think that AMD has offered (what should be) comparable performance to the 480 for a little around $75 more for over a year and a half. Forget what NVIDIA offers...
You flew by my main point, the 480 is on time and on price.Edited by pengs - 6/22/16 at 8:25am