should I sell the 6950 now? how soon is this coming?
should I sell the 6950 now? how soon is this coming?
lol I'd buy another 6950 for cheap and unlock it while you wait. Imo these won't be available until mid to late Jan 2012
I'll be waiting for the 7970 to see how it performs.
No way I'm getting anything that performs at the current gen.
I hope that the 7870 is out by late December or early next year though, that can only mean the 79xx isn't far behind hopefully.
Nice. 2048 Radeon Cores equals 32 Compute Units. 32 Compute Units give you 128 TMUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3lfk1ng
Oops. :p:
hm so by that site we can expect these new cards in January? Never heard of that site before is it a reliable source?
someone make some publicity for it anyway .
Gibbo at ocuk said mid jan.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackFox
what cards not so much.
Thought the first line was some turkish language or something at first. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by flopper
I heard that 7970 will be here in January and that there could be a "surprise" launch of other cards even before that.
You think about the 7870 as surprise ... huum i will not count on it in december... Information give AMD will make the same way they do all time ( high end followed by a declinaison of low and mid range, not what have happend with the 6000 series ).Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Dont forget the 6870 was there for compet vs Nvidia offers .... and so the launch have been programmed before .... this was an obligation not volonteer. ( the only thing is Nvidia have release the 560 448 cores, and some site call about a 6930 possible for christmas ( no reason if the 7000 come in january )
AMD Radeon HD 7000 fiasco as Bulldozer - likely Yes!
AMD sent to several manufacturers info-slides about the new Radeon HD Graphics 7000. According to first estimates results in the slides, AMD-fans will be disappointed. Game performance against the current :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty-slow cards with Cayman not significantly increased, but consumption is relatively high for an advanced 28nm process. Stay tuned .... some slides will be here soon!
PS. Specs floating web in these days ARE all BS! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
obr hits again..
considering the lack of any 28nm part, its possible things could start off very bad and slow. but also lets not forget how well amd launched the 5000 series with very little news to work with.
It wouldnt surprise me. We have to keep in mind the change in architecture, with hardware schedulers, instead of a software one on VLIW. That has to account for higher sized die (compared to one in VLIW) as well as higher power consumption. However, if the upgrade in performance is little, I will also say they didnt went overboard with die size. They are following the carefull strategy of not doing big chips. To keep the die size low, they traded a big increase in performance for the scheduller, not risking doing both this generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
The key here (given the quote posted here and if this report is true) is the "consumption is relatively high" part. Since that statement is talking in relative terms, there's nothing to base the "Game performance … not significantly increased" statement. The chip they refer to could be a "7800" shrunk Cayman and the "7900" top-end GCN could be a lot faster than Cayman. But, even if they were referring to the "7900," I wouldn't consider it that unexpected.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
I hope what OBR posted is not true.
it be the next great thing since christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
with the die shrink it will allow for greatness.
My faith is unwavered.
I am xtreme.:D
Quote:
Radeon HD 6990>GeForce GTX 590> Radeon HD 7970>GeForce GTX 580>Radeon HD 7950>GeForce GTX 570>Radeon HD 6970
http://www.donanimhaber.com/ekran-ka...-bilgileri.htm
CGN won't be much better than the legacy VLIW architecture in terms of efficiency. CGN is more like the current VLIW without the clauses, but keeps a very minimalistic approach to HW scheduling. It's still way behind what Nvidia have done ever since G80 in therms of scheduling and reordering, especially considering what Fermi can do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
Would be quite dissapointing if true. But also in tune with what Nvidia did with GT200 when they put stronger focus on GPGPU and the professional segment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
I thought CUs had to be disabled in quads?Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
No way it is 7970 since Tahiti XT CU count is not divisible by 3.
I was thinking 28CUs 1792SPs.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
That's contrary to what I have been hearing, it sounds like a pretty big jump for AMD's GCN, just more moderate than what Nvidia has been doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by fellix_bg
If true...Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Maybe a bit disappointing; should've been at least on par w/ 590, but IMO I won't be expecting something like this :eek: yet(prove me wrong here AMD).XD
Don't know much about GPUs BUT...as long as it'll drive 580's price significantly soon then I'll be one happy dood. LOL.:D
without risking a big die the way to go, but 28nm should offer enough die to add for a nifty card.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
But enough to upgrade? Lower power is not enough reason if performance is lacking.
price is another good reason to upgrade. not everyone has a 6900 and so if the 7800 is the first card out, and does about the same, but for 30-40% off the price, it would be a great jump
The rumored prices are quite high though. 499$...Nvidia could counter that with some price cuts quite easily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Why? Did anyone really expect over GTX590 theoretical performance? It even does not imply if its 1% difference on 590 or 580... Basically it does not say anything other than very coarse range where it will fall.
If 7950 is below or on par with GTX580, then a 7970 will only be 20-25% faster - otherwise they would put an additional model there. So IF that arrangement is true, Tahiti XT won't exceed GTX580+25%. And that would surely be dissapointing.
Lol, Nvidia fanboys are going out of the forest ?
I for one, am just hoping it leave my 5870 in the dust. I want a new card, and if they impress, the 7970 will be it. I had another 5870 in the system for crossfire, but man, it was nothing but headaches and crashes. I guess crossfire just doesn't agree with me? Lol.
Fanboy is an insult. Please refrain from that in the future. People are just speculating here.
One thing to remember is that NVIDIA did their "big move" towards a true ground up DX11 architecture with Fermi and paid the price. If AMD does the same thing, then they will pay the same price and learn the same (very hard) lessons.
AMD has essentially been using the same basic architecture since the DX10 days and has gradually added modules for DX11 compatibility. So, the move to a ground up DX11 architecture may be a tough one.
@Soultaker52
Could have also been your meager 750watt PSU. Two 5870's in Crossfire consume 670watts using this setup.
I concur with you Mr Rodent.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
7950? Oh that brings back memories...
GX2.
@3lfk1ng
Hmm.. I was thinking that could have been related. Though I've seen people running such setups fine with lesser PSU's. The crashing happened when clock speeds changed though. When I forced it to stay at my OC'd speeds constantly, it wouldn't crash. The performance just didn't feel amazing though. Maybe I'm expecting too much?
One more way AMD is going to also pay a monster price is driver performance. If GCN is much more different, much of the driver optimizations for their old architecture will not come about. Considering how long it took for the 3870 to get performance up to snuff with the 8800gt, it might be a year before we see good driver performance from AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
A 40 percent jump or say 25 percent faster than a gtx 580 wouldn't be that bad, with immature drivers it could go to 40% in half a year. Expecting 80-100 percent is too much considering the driver team from AMD and the new architecture. No one gets it right the first time anymore and I think AMD is taking risks, expect to see some eratic performance jumps.
i doubt thats the problemQuote:
Originally Posted by 3lfk1ng
two 5870 in cf only use ~300w while gaming or up to ~400w with fur + other components
i was running two gtx480 @875mhz 1138mv stable 940mhz 1150mv benchmarking with a 2600k at 4.4 1.3v 24\7 stable 5ghz 1.45v benchmarking also on a tx750w psu for several months power draw at gaming clocks was ~500-600w at the wall and peaked at ~740w benching although being on 240v may have helped
the psu was working a bit when overclcoked its fan would become rather loud but at stock clocks the psu fan stayed quiet
two gtx480 at stock use ~470w gaming ~610w max fur
my mate had two 5850 in cf and had nothing but problems with them while at the same time my 4870x2 was fine (oh also tried two 4870x2 on this psu for a quick bench...)
from what i have seen around the net it looks like the 5000 cards just had a lot more driver problems in cf than most cards from ati
it will be nice to finally see some real data would love to buy two or three hd7000 cards myself to replace these 480
Fixed that for you. It's likely that AMD's big push into compute will come up with some of the issues Fermi had, but as a reviewer who I'm assuming hasn't gotten his hands on hardware yet, I wouldn't be talking in such absolutes about unreleased parts. Kind of looks bad, and preconceived notions can be a dangerous thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
There are multiple sets of performance numbers out... I wouldn't read too much into that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
Or maybe it has the opposite effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Without any pressure from Nvidia I would expect AMD to release the 7xxx series at a price in line with their current offerings just like they did with the 5xxx series. Thats the best way to win marketshare.Quote:
Originally Posted by trans am
I've never seen any huge performance boosts across the board with drivers. With 6950 I can't think of any games that saw some serious gains with just driver updates and thats not a bad thing. That card did really well out of the gate and that includes crossfire performance. New games is one thing but not in older titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
No absolutes were discussed in my post. I was just mentioning that from an architectural standpoint, there are many hurdles for AMD to overcome in order for their theoretical DX11 to reach NVIDIA's current levels, particularly with AA enabled. I never said they couldn't do it. Quite the contrary actually since the amount of engineering intelligence housed in AMD's GPU division is mind boggling.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
SKYMTL is probably the most honest reviewer I have yet to see. With that said, though, he has his own opinion...as we all do, and as long he isn't under NDA he is as free as we are to discuss the rumours we keep getting :DQuote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
I agree but I think amd will have less wafer issues to deal with than nvidia did with the big original fermi chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
look at the driver progression of the gtx 480 it definetly got better with age like a good wine. Drivers updates helped it a lot more so than a lot of other architectures.
we will see ;-)
I personally am thinking about getting an NV card next round purely because of drivers. CCC crashes on me way too much for my likingQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Actually, that is what I was referring to. A true DX11 rendering pipeline + additional compute resources takes up a ton of die space. That's what NV had to find out the hard way. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
AMD Radeon HD 7000 fiasco as Bulldozer - likely Yes!
Quote:
AMD sent to several manufacturers info-slides about the new Radeon HD Graphics 7000. According to first estimates results in the slides, AMD-fans will be disappointed. Game performance against the current ty-slow cards with Cayman not significantly increased, but consumption is relatively high for an advanced 28nm process. Stay tuned .... some slides will be here soon!
I just don't see it though. The more powerful these things cards get, the more driver work needs to come into play. Most games, can't close to come to utilize all the power of a card, especially because most of them are console ports, and driver's must be specifically written to take advantage of these things. All games that are out of the moment for PC, are written to take advantage of current technology, not future technology like 7xxx. As a result, the driver team is really responsible for getting performance up, because they are doing all the work for scraping out performance, rather than the software companies making the games who mostly cater to the lowest common denominator and barely care for new hardware. Unless a game is sponsored by a hardware company, there is little purposes for them to code for new hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
AMD current driver set is so focused on vliw architecture that they are going to have to start from the ground up. In addition, it just seems hard for AMD to put out a good product as of late, Bulldozer and cayman were both let downs. Considering how much markets they are trying to get into, I have a feeling is AMD is spreading itself too thin. I have a feeling, GCN, is going to have a lot of growing pains, it won't get it completely right this generation and it will get alot better with generation 2. It is amazing that AMD has this much of a headstart over NV. I have a feeling things were rushed to get there and AMD just has to be 15-25% performance jump over a gtx 580 to justify an above $450-550 price tag. The 5870 atleast according to techpowerup, was 25% faster than a gtx 280. And look how well the sales of that card were. This is the optimal pricepoint for the highend because we are in a recessions and people don't want to pay 600+ for cards anymore.
AMD doesn't need crazy performance to sell and it doesn't need a completely polished product to sell. What is more important is getting a headstart on the competition, as AMD probably learned from the 58xx generation or on the opposite end during the 88xx NV generation. In addition, Nvidia is no intel when it comes to branding strength, people won't wait for NV, as they would for an Intel product. It in there best interest to leave room for performance if they face no competition for 5-8 months before NV drops there product, that way, when they release 8xxx, they have a product(a quick refresh) that looks great as well without sinking a huge amount of money into R and D and time into it. If southern islands is too good off the bat, unless it is fundamentally broken, it will be hard to have 8xxx look good if they are stuck at 28nm. Also considering it is second generation, it would likely beat nvidia's first generation of keplar. Intel has products that could at the moment grind AMD into dust, but they don't release them to get as much return on investment on their current research and their own products would become competition(as well as anti-trust issues).
OBR, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
HD7400-7600M just rebrands?
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22120
I thought these were supposed to be 28nm chips.
I remember how people were laughing at his posts about bulldozer until bulldozer launch day... :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
he's adding too much hate into his articles to be taken seriously; it doesn't matter what or where his sources are:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Not saying anything regarding its performance but I rather doubt OBR has a 7970 sample as he did with Bulldozer.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
I have a friend who is a programmer in the games industry who allways gets 'beta' graphics cards - development chips with broken drivers. He always says that performance on these is poor, and much slower than what appears in stores later on.
No way anyone can tell what the final performance would be. Only ballpark figures.
Not OBR again... hope his blog isn't true like Bulldozer, lets hope that 7xxx is not a failure because if it is, I'm giving up all hope for AMD.
ive been looking through this thread and im disappointed in the hate and expectations.
this gen is a 1st gen on a new arch so the drivers will suck, its on a new process affter skipping a gen and having very little test hardware if at all, and it was supposed to be out last year showing up the 5870 and since there were none of thees out they did not get the time to make a hardware changes based on performance needs. so its going to be alot like the 4890 v 5870, with that fight u had a fully working driver with a high clocked reworked core to maximize overclocking vs a heavy change in the GPU on a new process. this will be the same and at launch it wont do much better as the hd6 is the perfected hd5.
so as i see it, if amd gets better than the hd6 at launch it will be a success since if they can keep xfire scaling up, it will let amd keep the performance crown
Nvidia faced a load of issues with the compute stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
still does.
if amd took the more conservative approach and want to add upon the compute later on dosnt matter much since it has its own limitations in design.
However, faster than 580 is good for me, OC and watercooled should cover my needs.
dont need Godlike performance.
I think AMD will remain competitive in the desktop segment simply because all evidence point to Kepler being at least one quarter later than Tahiti. So even if Tahiti only bests Fermi by a small margin it will still sell well.
What AMD really needs is to be competitive in the workstation segment with their professional cards, and I think this is what they are likely aiming for with GCN.
To be a Bulldozer type fiasco the new cards should lose to Cayman in quite a few cases which I don't think it's likely to happen.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;) :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
In all seriousness, he's been around for a long time, way before Bulldozer, he used to be on here. I don't trust much of his predictions or inside info. There is reason for that.
S/A has details of the launch of the 7k low end mobile parts covered here:
http://semiaccurate.com/2011/12/07/a...-hd7000m-gpus/
http://semiaccurate.com/assets/uploa..._7000_GPUs.png
Basically a 100% rebrand, which Charlie believes is entirely OEM`s choice/fault.
that's kinda :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty, having basically a 28nm 4870 for the hd 7670 would have been really nice for the mobile gaming industry
So when do the 28 nm parts come out? [skipped to this page]
I have been waiting to buy trinity for quite awhile now.
Because when they get cards it isn't about the performance it is about the architecture and figuring out how to utilize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
Yes, we have known about this since August...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Ummm... then wait for the 77x0m.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
28nm cards are expected Q1 from AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klarko
Trinity is still 32nm...
Pricing. The price range for the 7670 would definitely be preferable, that and its irritating the that the 5770, 6770 and 7770 will roughly be the same card. By having it be the 7670, it forces AMD to not just rename the low end and have a real new productQuote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
so i dont understand? i thought there was a press thing in London on monday? where is the press release/info? seriously hope it wasn't just for re-badged 7600m chips.
Charlie's bias is a bit ridiculous at times. When NV does it, he craps on them like crazy, when AMD does it, it is the OEM fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
I remember Nvidia saying the exact same thing saying it was the OEM's that wanted the rebrand and not them. Charlie needs to clear up some of his bias or hatred.
4870 is roughly a 5770... only the 5770, due to it's die size, has a 128bit bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
77x0m will be on 28nm.
Why would you expect AMD to waste resources on making new 28nm lowend GPUs when they are being limited by the diesize needed for a 128bit bus, especially if you want them to increase lowend performance?
When you drop to 64bit, even with GDDR5, you will be right within the range of their APUs.
You want them to waste their 28nm wafers on small, <100mm2, 28nm GPUs with a 64bit bus to market to the <$100 market?
Yay so technically my MBP has a 7600m inside rather than a 6750m hehe :P
The sad part is that people are moving away from laptop graphics which i support to an extend i mean 6990m is just stupid but a mid-high end mobile GPU like the 7600m-7700m would be great in the long run.
edit 12-10-2011 : Post deleted on demand
it looks like there are 10 memory chips so must be 320 bit 7950 ?.. 2x8 pin on board but one is 6pin connected
I see 11 module, weird ...
Should be 12. In regards to the picture orientation: 2 to the left, 4 on the lower side, 1 lower right (diagonally), 3 to the right, 1 upper right (diagonally) and 1 between GPU and PCIe interface.
Interesting to see a Xfire soloution under an 850 watt power supply. Could be a good sign?
Also is that a 10 phase PWM i spot? Correction looks like a 6+1
and boxleitnerb takes the pie :DQuote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread...=59176&page=46Quote:
Originally Posted by Jawed
850W is overpowered for 2 cards. I don't think that says anything. I am worried, AMD will do the same thing Nvidia did with their TDP...lie.
Im still looking forward to the release of this cards , bang for bucks HD7950 its what im looking at.
12 module, 384-bit is more logical ^^
Good eyes Jawed and boxleitnerb :D
Hmm, 384 bit Tahiti, this certainly won't be any smaller chip than Cypress, though perhaps not up to Cayman's size.
if all you have is hate for a brand, you're gonna be right some of the time. You don't really think that just because he was right about bulldozer means that he'll be right about Southern Islands do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Wasn't the 8800GTX on a new architecture? That thing turned out to be amazing. Of course, that wasn't AMD...Quote:
ive been looking through this thread and im disappointed in the hate and expectations.
this gen is a 1st gen on a new arch so the drivers will suck, its on a new process affter skipping a gen and having very little test hardware if at all, and it was supposed to be out last year showing up the 5870 and since there were none of thees out they did not get the time to make a hardware changes based on performance needs. so its going to be alot like the 4890 v 5870, with that fight u had a fully working driver with a high clocked reworked core to maximize overclocking vs a heavy change in the GPU on a new process. this will be the same and at launch it wont do much better as the hd6 is the perfected hd5.
so as i see it, if amd gets better than the hd6 at launch it will be a success since if they can keep xfire scaling up, it will let amd keep the performance crown
Anyway I'm just throwing out ideas here.
The reason the gtx 580 was amazing at the time was there was also such a huge increase in the amount of shaders compared to the old architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craftyman.
From 24 and 8 pixel and vertex shaders respectively to 128 unified at much higher clocks too. These were real shaders too. The r600 was so disappointing because it relied on only 64, 5 way shaders and relied on a new AA scheme which relied on more shaders to do the work.
The 8800GTX was also in the hands of more than a few companies before the 7800GTX 256 hit the market. I still remember the arguments on this very site because I had already had hands on time with the thing when sites like xbitlabs were claiming it'd be a hybrid chip. Granted, the original G80 chip wasn't the 384-bit monster that released to the public (it was 256bit, actually closer to matching the 8800GT than the 8800GTX), but NVidia spent a LOT more time perfecting that card than anyone on here would believe. After all, it was actually in the design phase before we even saw the NV40 (G80 was titled the NV50 at that time, IIRC) and had received mention a few times during that time frame. NVidia spent YEARS on that design, and it paid off big time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
NVidia actually puts a lot more time into the design and testing phase than most people on here would believe could be even remotely profitable (a part of the reason their cards are a bit higher in the price range), just to make sure they never have another FX mistake. Late is one thing, but late AND extremely under-performing isn't going to happen again.
AMD/ATi have had issues when it comes to full scale brand new designs the past few attempts, and they usually fix it the next time around. HD 2900 was fixed with the HD 4800 (the 3870 was a step in the right direction, but it still wasn't without issue). The X1800 was fixed with the X1900, although the X1800 performance wasn't "bad" per-say either.
That said, I'm actually seriously hoping AMD show up with a serious competitor. I'd prefer we don't see stagnation in the gpu market like we have in the CPU market. These 30-40% jumps just don't catch me like we use to see. Remember the jump from the 9800xt to the x800xt? What about the 7900GTX to the 8800GTX? Speed jumps have dwindled, and games taking advantage have dwindled along with it. On a positive note though, you can buy a solid card and actually have it perform admirably for a longer time-frame now, which is definitely a positive note.
Those pixel shaders had two sets VEC3+1 Scalar per pixel shader (however texture unit address calculation were done by the pixel shader units) while the vertex Shaders had 1 VEC4+1 unit per shader. So it was 192 + 40 versus 128.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Not really... what you should have said is G80 could handle 128 threads per clock while R600 could only do 64 threads per clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2231/4
or if you want Derek's comparison...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2231/6
I hope these are a big step above the 6000 series. I'm still going to wait for nVidia's response before i buy a new card. AMD's drivers just arent that good.
Ive run gtx 580 SLI on the corsair AX 750, with a 2600K @ 4.8ghz and GTX 580s overclocked. No problems at all :)
Yeah I agree, ATI might have a better hardware model at the moment, but I'm fed up with the instability of their drivers. If the Nvidia product is at a similar performance level and runs at reasonable temps/power consumption I'm going to go with them next round simply because I trust their software guys a lot moreQuote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
The Jist of what I wanted to say was, first generation, r600. It was shaders starved. That why it did so bad at the time with AA, since it used shader power for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Another thing I wanted to clarify if any people didn't know is I was talking about the gtx 8800. I read the anandtech article a long time ago. The thing with AMD 5 way shaders is in a best case scenario they have the ability to process 5 threads or 320. But in a worst case it is 64. Increase the clock or adding more shaders, removed this bottleneck and AMD had fantastic gains. Which is why AMD had better results with the 4870 than NV did with the gtx 280.
NV40 was 6800, NV50 was changed to G70/71 pretty early in development IIRC. Not sure what G80 was codenamed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
NV47 was the G70/G71. NV50 was the G80. Trust me on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain665
Yeah, G70/71 is much closer to NV 40 than to G80, mArch wise speaking.
Supposedly less than a month away and no leaked benchmarks yet .....
What difference would benchmarks done with early non-release drivers make at this juncture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmy
Wait for launch so you get the full picture right away instead of mostly pointless selective benchmarks. :)
http://www.abload.de/thumb/msi-7970ggjnv.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/797197k9q.jpg
5+1 PWM, 2x6 pin, dual bios switch, looks smaller than Cayman
http://chinese.vr-zone.com/index.php...hiti-12092011/
Closer one looks 8-pin to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
I see dual 6's
Just count the number of silver connectors coming out from the back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
There are better shots floating around, it's dual 8 pin connectors.
Nope, we are all wrong.
There are two different variants of the car floating around as confirmed by VR-Zone.
There is this screen shot (Tweaktown)
http://cdn5.tweaktown.com/news/2/1/2...ries_cards.jpgQuote:
It also includes two 8-pin PCI Express power connectors, which should give it up to 375W of power to suck down. The card, however, is powered by the SIG-approved 6-pin plus 8-pin config, which uses up to 300W of power.
Then there is this one (vr-zone)
http://limages.vr-zone.net/body/14193/7971.jpg.jpegQuote:
There is a crucial difference from the previous leak - this sample consists of 2 x 6-pin PCI-e connectors, as opposed to the 8-pin + 6-pin configuration previously captured. This could suggest that this is either an advanced production ready sample, or Tahiti Pro, or HD 7950, which should feature a lower TDP than Tahiti XT / HD 7970. This card thus has a TDP somewhere between 150W and 225W.
Read more: http://vr-zone.com/articles/more-amd...#ixzz1g4OyQPE1
I am waiting on reputable sites like DigiTimes to report benchmark numbers before setting my expectations. :rofl: Oh wait, I guess I could just benchmark the card sitting here and see if those hopes and dreams will be dashed or not. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
I suggest you do that! Plus get new GPUClock Tool from AMD and check how well/bad your sample is clocking! New 28nm process so a lot to be learnt again :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
Crossfire config is two 7970 ES.
Retail card should be ~210w TDP, 6+1 phase and 8+6pin.
VR-Zone's is a MSI 7950.
384bit and will come in both 1.5gb and 3gb flavors.
TDP is supposedly around 170-180w, 5+1phase and two 6pins.