Don't get so worked up over it. We don't know if it really is 4d or 5d. But if it is 5d then it is probably an evolution of the cypress core. If it is 4d then it is probably a whole new architecture. I'm not saying either is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
Edit:
If a reworked cypress is AMD's backup plan to the canceled 32nm, I can't really blame them for being conservative. It's a lot better then Nvidia's "we don't need a backup plan".
Hmm.. Looking forward to a nice 6870 vs 450's in SLI comparo.
I would love to see a benchmark with Tesselation extreme and AA 8x.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Sigh...after following this thread for so long and seeing these preview benchmarks up, I think they should've called the cards the 6840 and the 6860...I know they don't use those numbers typically, but it seems more suited as the performance is slightly below the 5850 and the 5870.
Aside from the fact that the number 4 is bad luck in a lot of circles, I don't think the naming scheme will matter much when the 6900's come out, and everyone is looking at those
That's what I mean by smaller. Barts is 255mm^2, Cypress is 334mm^2Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Right, but a 5830 just has some of the cores disabled, it started life as a potential cypress chip. They could, however, make a chip that only includes 1120 shaders from the start, based on an upgraded/modified cypress architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Most of the rumors so far pointed to a 4d design and that's what I had hoped for. But the early numbers and AMD slides have given me pause. Perhaps we won't get the 4d arch until Cayman or even 28nm. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
That's what I mean, Barts was designed from the get-go to be smaller. One could just as easily call it a re-designed compact-er Cypress, but one could also call it a beefed up Juniper mated to a 256-bit interface.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I think given that AMD found out about the cancellation of 32nm relatively late in the game, they decided they needed a product to fill the gap between old 40nm products and when 28nm is ready, and hence NI is going to be a half-way architecture. That is, Evergreen 4+1 shaders but the new front endQuote:
Most of the rumors so far pointed to a 4d design and that's what I had hoped for. But the early numbers and AMD slides have given me pause. Perhaps we won't get the 4d arch until Cayman or even 28nm. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
Actually that makes Cayman more interesting, because even if it isnt 4D, the fact that Cypress is (allegedly) very ineffcient despite all its functional units (its literally 2x Juniper on a single die, yet 2 x Juniper in CF beats it often), that the front-end changes might affect Cayman a lot more
Curious why the bottom box is cut off on the right side:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Anyways....
5850 725/1000, 10.4 Driver, Crossfire Disabled
http://i54.tinypic.com/vifr6b.jpg
5850 900/1050, 10.4 Driver, Crossfire Disabled
http://i52.tinypic.com/5ydi6s.jpg
I recall they made some driver improvements for 2.1 Heaven after 10.4 and being as close as these are and the bottom box being chopped I'd like to think someone just benched a 5850 at 6870 clocks.
Otherwise coming from $250 5850's a 6870 for the same price is:down:
The cut off box pretty much says its been photoshopped
Whether its relevant photoshopping or not, it doesn't say, but it doesn't help its credibility
I see what you are saying. Maybe my choice of words wasn't the best. I guess calling it a scaled up juniper or cut down cypress depends partially on if you are trying to convey a negative or positive impression. "Modified Evergreen" might be a more neutral way of putting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I never believed the rumors about a frankenstein between cypress and NI. Making parts of two separate architectures work together would be an incredible amount of work and has so many potential pitfalls that it doesn't seem like a sound backup plan, IMO. Now they may have back-ported some of the lessons learned in developing NI to a modified Evergreen, but I doubt it would be the full NI front end.Quote:
I think given that AMD found out about the cancellation of 32nm relatively late in the game, they decided they needed a product to fill the gap between old 40nm products and when 28nm is ready, and hence NI is going to be a half-way architecture. That is, Evergreen 4+1 shaders but the new front end
Actually that makes Cayman more interesting, because even if it isnt 4D, the fact that Cypress is (allegedly) very ineffcient despite all its functional units (its literally 2x Juniper on a single die, yet 2 x Juniper in CF beats it often), that the front-end changes might affect Cayman a lot more
any shots of the heatsink yet?
But a 6870 can be OCed as well, try to compare default 5850 with default 6870 because both of them have OC potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
I dont think that bench was legit for one. Notice the same clocks and ~equal scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
If it is a legit bench then this only shows clock for clock they are equal in this bench.
Secondly I dont feel we will see much high overclocking head room on the 68xx.
I expect the same ~1000-1080mhz core limit as 58xx's but we should find out for sure in the next few hours :D:up:
EDIT: I did post a default 5850 run in the first SS ;)
but i think that 5850 OC potential is significantly higher considering the very low baseclock; 5850s in ref design run up to 1ghz on the core; i think that we can't expect more than 1.1ghz from barts -> they'll end up with equal performance when overclockedQuote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
i'll stick to my 5850; it's been doing its job for a year now and i still can't see a proper replacement, never had a graphics card hold out that long :D
I thought the new front end for the hd6xxx was going to give the architecture more efficiency (clock for clock)
well it gives it.
900 Mhz 5850 (1440 shaders) = 900 Mhz Bart XT, with 1120 shaders. So i think the efficiency is there.
Those HD68X0 parts deserve HD67X0 branding, nothing more, AMD marketing failed ...
Really? Then explain where they'd put the 5770's if they're against rebranding cards? Which do you think would be the bigger PR hit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Well yes but then again AMD did have to make room for the fusion parts also i mean saying that this processor has 80 SP gpu is no good and instead they can now brand it properly like dual core cpu with HD61xxQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Cart before the horse. Wait a quarter see how many they sell first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Assuming the Heaven bench was legit. Where are the Vantage bench's that were leaked?Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
Id like to make a run at the same clocks to compare IF they are performance preset/ No 1920x1200 Xtreme for me:(
Could you update your driver and rerun both at default and 900MHz ?
:rofl: And leave my beloved 10.4:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
JK sure I'll run it over on my bench drive;)
Can anyone dig up some leaked Vantage/06 benchmarks with some details on cpu clocks etc:shrug: Thx:up:
well isn't there plenty of room for that in the lower levels ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
why disturbing the upper segment ?
i think that the point is that they are consistent in price more then in naming.
witch is better as one might expect higher price = higher performance
also there is smaller chip, maybe improved manufacturing of chip .. I really hope of improved OC :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu