Yes, it would be interesting to see Nvidia and AMD on a level playing field if the rumors about GK104 end up true. GK104 according to estimates would be 50% larger than GF110. Tahiti is 65% larger than Cayman according to the OBR architecture slide. All in all they should be fairly even considering GF110 is around 15% faster on avarage compared to Cayman. Especially if AMD improves tessellation performance and Nvidia has more even improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
This 7970 will be a bust if it's not at least 50% faster than the GTX 580.
In my eyes this is probably the most exciting pre-release build up since the G80 and R600 (before we found out about all the delays, when we expected it on time) because it's the first time both teams have brought new architectures to the table since that generation. As such, even though we know the rumored specifications, we have no idea about each teams architectural efficiency per unit in all honesty. We can make guesses based off that fact--but, until the release of each we can only make a slightly educated hypothesis on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
I really wish the CPU battlefront was as competitive as the gpu side of things.
What would you base a 75% performance increase (against 6970) on, if ALU count goes from 1536 to 2048, bandwidth increases 50% and ROPs apparently stay the same? You expect a Christmas miracle perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by ichime
Better not, or we will change 6 sockets a year with intel :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
GF114 is 30% faster than GT200b.. i would assume that GK104 should end up the same..
What will DX 11.1 bring?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspxQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Mostly stuff for developers, no new gimmicks like tessellation for end users.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by ichime
All AMD has to do is price their next generation cards accordingly if they can't compete against the top bin NVIDIA offerings. As they have proven time and again: marketing success may lie in the high end but the real sales take place in the $150 - $300 price brackets. Even if NVIDIA's next gen cards blow AMD out of the water, there is still plenty of room for competitive products at lower price points.
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Seriously, that's the one thing people don't get. AMD haven't really been trying to compete with NVidia's top bin for awhile now. Why do people keep expecting them to have the fastest performing single gpu out there? The ATi glory days of the x1950xtx and prior are done and over with, AMD have found it to be a better tactic to aim a bit lower with cheaper to produce parts, plain and simple.
My post was a reaction to the post above me, putting GK100 at Q4 2012, or Q1 2013. If Nvidia comes that late, AMD will be ready for them. Even GK104 is only Q2, how do you think GK100 will be Q1?Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
You make it sound like AMD has been competing with cheap half arsed chips for a long while, it's not really like that at all, it's simply a different strategy of efficiency and most importantly, timely release.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
A lot of people prefer single core solutions, but there is a lot of glory to be had by having the fastest single card on the market, whether dual chip or not...
I don't think AMD's strategy is about targeting low-end and mainstream, but rather providing a scale-able product that covers all price and performance brackets. I think this isn't too far off NVIDIAs tactics, but their monolithic approach makes it more difficult.
Good point. It always seems like people forget that. This is just my opinion, the 5870 wasn't a bad card, but it was overpriced for what you got (compared to 4800 series not Fermi). The 4870 was released at like $300 and was almost as fast as the nvidia single high end GTX 280. The 5870 released at like $370+ or something. The DX 11 felt rushed; especially tessellation performance. The DX9/10 was obviously faster, but not as much as I expected given twice the shaders. I remember the 4890 going for like $150 or something a few months after release while the 5870 was selling for over $300 just about a year ago. Those 5870 cards took forever to drop below $300 and most inventory was gone before you could get one for under $200 new. I wasn't happy with the 5800 series pricing at all. Of course, you have to factor the market overall. I'll sure have fond memories of the 4800 series, but the 5800 series just doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion. AMD has been increasing prices with newer releases. We need more competition. I sure would love to get a 7970 for $300 or lower.......Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
yah GCN will be interesting for sure. and im sure the CAT driver updates for the 7000 series will bring significant performance upgrades as they mature.
7990 idle power will be <6w muahaha! ;)
Well, if it is a 75% performance increase over the 6970, then it should be about 50% over the GTX 580. I don't expect a christmas miracle, but I also don't expect just a modest increase in performance over its predecessor given that bandwidth has increased 50% along with a 30% dieshrink while having a max TDP of around 250-300w...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
Actually, what he was saying is that AMD is concentrating upon what they are good at: making small, versatile chips that can maximize yields on a per wafer basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
High yields and more cores per wafer can equate a lower pricing structure through higher volume while still retaining profit margins.
Having the highest performance single core graphics card allows for bragging rights and not much else if a company is struggling to cope with low yields.
Personally, I'd love to see AMD compete one on one with NVIDIA's best. BUT....I would MUCH rather see their GPU division stay afloat and that means avoiding huge and expensive monolithic dies.
Btw are there numbers what marging/profit AMDs GPU division is making? I read somewhere they barely make any profit in regard to revenue, so their margin is quite low. If true, why is that?
With AMD, I would rather them spend efficiently on their GPU research and development and stick to smaller efficient chips(not small but not monolithic). AMD research money is better spent on making their CPU's better because they are freakishly behind. AMD has a massive lead over intel in the GPU department and needs to catch up badly with the CPU market. Making their CPU good again, will do wonders for AMD image. I think AMD removing the ATI moniker for their graphic side was a mistake because the general public have a rather negative opinion of AMD chips. The only way for them to do this is to make good CPU's.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
AMD seems unable to make much money in their graphic division which I think is why it is not the best to spend it money here. I think there best quarter in the last few years, AMD's graphic division made 33 million net profit, and this was with the 5xxx series competing against not very competitive products. I consider this a best case scenario. A 33 million dollar net profits(especially with the hundreds of millions lost during less competitive years) are not going to bail AMD out.
The only way to make AMD much more profitable into the graphic segment is to make their professional products better. The problem with this is AMD has been weak into marketing to the professional crowd and driver support is key with the pro market. The basis of professional cards and the reason for their high cost is the driver support(and continued at that), AMD doesn't have the manpower to keep this up. The only numbers I have heard put AMD driver team at a third the size of Nvidia's. Their recent problems with recent games such as skyrim and batman attest to this.
With AMD spending more money on low power APU, SoC. Something has to give and I hope AMD does it to their graphic department, rather their desktop chip side. The rumors of AMD conceding the high end desktop market is scary.
pcinlifeQuote:
4.3b vs 2.64b
Measured a total of 12 games, including a sub-run software, but can not play 3, a mapping error.
Name of the game is not being said, the resolution is 1920x1200 all max
12%
35%
20%
n / a
n / a
-8%
17%
31% (mapping error)
19%
-5%
33%
n / a
As 4.3b vs 3b we can estimate their own
http://www.bouweenpc.nl/wp-content/u...ds-575x298.png
bouweenpc.nlQuote:
Originally Posted by Googlish
Quote:
Power Tune parts:
the introduction of a more a more granular power control, based entirely on digital technology (Status Register?), independent of the driver and configuration files.
In the "black" state or PC into idle mode, GPU core state into the 0 watts, the fan will turn off, CFX configuration, when this technology is very attractive 7970 TDP is about 210 watts, 7950 is ... to be determined.
7970 frequency is 925 MHz (2048 Core/32 CU), the memory is 384-bit@5.5 GT / s..
7950 core frequency specifications to be determined, but the core is 1792 to determine the number of / 28 CU, memory bus is still 384-bit, but the rate of reduction for the 5GT / s (AMD's own not fully determined) level.
Quote:
HD3D parts:
7900 to achieve the single-GPU multi-screen, multi-track orientation of the output stream
will be launched in February next year, a custom resolution (yeah!), pre-configuration management, the task of cross-screen technology
i hope custom resolution is something about downsamplingQuote:
Video part:
UVD 3.0 generation still remains the same.
Focus here, is called VCE 7900 with the hardware video stream encoder and more, to achieve more than 1080p60 h.264 video encoding hardware to support full hardware encoding and fixed-function GPU shader supporting hybrid coding mode.
Compressed 4:2:0 color space encoding
quality to choose from a variety of compression
previously mentioned QSAD to achieve stability of steady video screen technology video acceleration, the new steady video 2.0 also supports interlaced video, and provide contrast mode about new features.
pcinlife
i feel like doing monologue
ASUS 7970 696€
http://www.abload.de/img/desktop_2011_12_17_19pp2ny.png
http://www.salland.eu/product/108271...7970-3gd5.html
That's a steep price, let's hope it will come down after launch quickly to 350-450 region.
Ideally this card should take GTX580 price spot over and push competing products down, not create new higher price tag.