Haha, I know the feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
Forgot the source link for anyone who wanted it: http://www.facebook.com/pcper
Printable View
Haha, I know the feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
Forgot the source link for anyone who wanted it: http://www.facebook.com/pcper
what time is it there now lol ? just get a update ''Soon'' by pcper again a mins ago.. Ryan Shrout also says the same on Twitter if anyone wonders..Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
It's 8:17pm Eastern as of this posting.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
bah i guess it's three and a half hour later then.. see ya lolQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Gah, turns out it is the mobile one for the review..... oh well.
It's a GT640M preview, based on a GK107.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Mobile/...Arrives-Mobile
Hot clocks are still there! And it looks hot indeed...
Seems really fast in dx11. Clock speeds for mobile are low, but it is quick. Can't wait to see desktop stuff. Cpu speed in this model is low too which hurts.... still, it's promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
lol PC Perspective says.... " Desktop will have to wait a little longer."
Oh, forgot we kept things in one thread...
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...-gt-640m-.aspx
Perhaps a bit more accurate.
Blah, blah, blah. Nvidia is definitely price-gouging this "generation." So what else is new?
Only 2GB = fail. Nvidia Surround says, "Oh, come on!!"
GTX 670 being renamed "GTX 680" = double fail. Nvidia fans say, "@#$%!!"
AMD being put in there place = nothing new. Nvidia says, "BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAWW!!"
This thread = epic popkernz. I say, "http://1337gif.com/images/gif/Popcorn-Deer-52.gif"
Go to the discrete thread on it, you'll see that the drivers had a typo and it's actually a unified 625 mhz. So whichever site predicted the abandonment of the hot clock very likely has some other accurate information as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
One thing I wouldn't mind happens is if for some odd reason, AMD gets beats bad enough that they decide to make huge monolith designs to compete with the big chips from Nvidia. I would love to see AMD to make a 500mm2+ monster. Their high transistor density and performance per watt should translate well into larger chips. If we are going back to the days of 600 dollar graphics cards, I want these cards to be monsters that can replace midrange dual GPU solutions. This would hopefully push these new cards, back into midrange status and down to 400 or less.
Im still waiting for a single gpu that can push 120hz in BF3 ..... maybe this round wont do it either...
:(
So according to pcper numbers Kepler is 15% less efficient then Fermi per shader and GHz.
Actually with one 7970 you replace without any problem performance, cost wise, 2x 5870, ( and so 2x 6870 ).. i have test it waiting my second 7970,.. outside some rare case where you get some few fps less ( Dirt3 ), a single 7970 is faster and sometime a lot faster of this crossfire setup. synthetic wise, 3Dmark11, vantage, unigine: i was beat at stock my 2x 5870 at 1ghz+. In a lot of recent games, ( Skyrim, BF3 etc ) the 3gb make a huge difference vs the 2x 1024mo ( not shared in cfx or sli ).Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Actually a single stock 7970 is a lot faster in general of 2x 5870 ( OC ).... You will find some "old " games where it is equal, but in general it is faster.
Max settings, no way: this mean 300% faster average fps of a single GTX580, lets forget minimum of 120fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Hard to believe they'd manage to improve the performance/watt ratio as well as performance/mm^2 THIS much. Quite impressive if that's accurate.
Be careful, they're not entirely accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by sergiojr
Can't say much beyond that, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Wouldnt it make more sense to have put 7950 in that graph instead of 7870? As that seems (die size) wise where there going to be trading blows?
I'm with ya, not gonna happen though I don't think.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Been corrected by Theo from BSN, and that's make sense as it is not what was report Anandtech ..Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
BSN
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...-gt-640m-.aspx
Anandtech review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5672/a...kepler-verge/1
Do you have links to some data that says VRAM use is over 2GB in Surround, barring isolated examples like "game X with texture pack Y at 8X MSAA". Point there being I can probably find settings where 3GB are exceeded, or 4GB for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I've done a lot of surround gaming at 57X10 and 60X10 (most common res for surround, 1080PX3) with 1.5GB, 2GB, and 3GB. For the most part, 1.5GB works at 4X MSAA. I don't think I've ever seen problems at 2GB or 3GB.
Not to mention for all of 2011 pretty much everyone and their brother was saying "2GB is the thing to have for surround/eyefinity".
If 680 ends up at 2GB, that won't be a factor in my buying decisions.
interesting that kepler is in a shipping notebook today.
also interesting is the continued reporting of a dual GK104 board coming quickly. you'd be hard pressed to call that anything but 690. so given that all the 600 numbers are about to be used up, the next big chip will have to be 780. thirdly interesting is whether we'll see that before 2013. paying full price for not-the-big-chip does kind of annoy me.
The GF104/114 was more efficient than the GF100/110, perhaps it was planned?
AMD does not publish the actual TDP of their cores. The 250W is the maximum sustained power input which the board itself is rated to handle. The 210W is the "PowerTune max" consumption and can be controlled (increased / decreased) via the dedicated slider in the CCC's Overdrive panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh