384 Sp units vs 320 SP units . Just as a hunch.
if 320 Units in cypress = 320 perf points, 384sps x 96% = 368.64 perf points for cayman. This is the rumoured 6950 that is.
Printable View
384 Sp units vs 320 SP units . Just as a hunch.
if 320 Units in cypress = 320 perf points, 384sps x 96% = 368.64 perf points for cayman. This is the rumoured 6950 that is.
Why are you multiplying 384 sps by 96%? If the Charlie babble was about 96% of 320? o.OQuote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
no, he said a SP made of 4 units (VLIW 4) is around 96% of a SP made of 5 units (VLIW 5). So that's why i multiplied the 384 sps of the rumoured 6950 to 96%
Your sentence says one thing, and calculation other. Read what your wrote and see if your calculation makes sense. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
SP made of 4 units (VLIW 4) = 96% of SP made of 5 units (VLIW 5)
In Math:
384 SPs = 0,96*320 SPs
now that is senseless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
If you wanna compare them than you have to take equal numbers of SPs
meaning
320 of VLIW 4 SPs = 0,96*320 of VLIW 5 SPs
wow, great mathQuote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
No, it makes total sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
384 SPs in 6950 would be the equivalent in Cypress SPs of 368 SPs since each Cayman SP is 96% of a Cypress SP, so that's why i multiply 384 with 0.96. This why i find out how what their equivalent in Cypress SPs would be, or, to put it easier, 384 Cayman SPs = 368 Cypress SPs.
@Florinmocanu
FYI
rumored 1536sp of HD6970 is equal to 1600sp of HD 5870
So we are not getting performance boost from new gen cards.
Great! ;)
the rumours i read say that 1536 would be the SPs of 6950, and it would be higher than the perf of a 5870. You can find them 1-2 pages behind.
That's not true at all. 1600 5D shaders, but where maybe 80% are utilized, vs. 1536 which most are utilized... might very well be a big differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
The best thing we can look at is # SIMD's
That would be such a weak response by AMD. Why even bother?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
All I wanna to say that VLIW4 SP performs not almost the same as VLIW5 SP
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by From Cayman analysis
translated with googleQuote:
Originally Posted by From Cayman analysis
A ~20% increase in performance over a 5870 would be weak. That's not even enough to beat the competitor's current stuff.
Going to VLIW4 could either save you power and die space for similar performance, or give you power/die headroom to also add extra shaders. Considering what they are already doing for the low-power segment; and also considering the size of the chip on that leaked board design. What is the likely scenario?
All these numbers are pointless to think about.
Look at it this way:
Fermi was supposed to be released with a full 512 core monster last year. AMD forecasted that, and knew that their next generation, NI had to beat Fermi 512 and be prepared to fight against Nvidia's 2nd gen of DX11 cards.
32nm gets cancelled, so AMD probably has to scale NI back a bit for 40nm, but they see Nvidia has stumbled out the gate. Still, they know Nvidia no doubt has the 512 card and possibly bigger refreshes available.
So what would you do in that situation as AMD? Release a new 69xx series, first time a single GPU is using the x9xx moniker since way back when big GPUs were AMD's thing, where its only 20% faster than Cypress and just beats a GTX 480, a card that wasn't even meant to be the high end card from a year ago?
Of course not, you're planning to have Cayman compete with the 512 Fermi with Antilles to take on any dual GPU / refresh of Fermi. It makes no logical sense for AMD to sit around 14 months later with a card that barely beats a card (the 480) that wasn't even meant to be their single GPU crown a year ago
"1536sp of HD6970..." If that's true than the 6970 is going to be a great card indeed. If they found a way to make the card that efficient there is no telling how powerful the card will be with what other improvements they've made. Add that with whatever the clock rate is, off chip buffering, what appears to be a bigger die, 2Gigs of vram, etc could explain the higher TDP! The HD6970 is shaping up to be a great card so far. I hope it's not to long before benchmarks start showing up.
This is true if the number of SPs are equal. meaning that one VLIW4 SP is 20% faster than one VLIW5 SP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Though I don't have confirmed info on SP number for both 6970 and 6950 cards.
If some one has, please, let me know. I'll buy him beer :toast:
Of course, that's just in theoretical shader power performance... the rest of the card matters too :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
Comparing individual SP counts is the wrong way to go about it. If current rumours stand up you're looking at 24 cores for Cayman and 20 for Cypress. That's already a 20% increase in core count without talking about clockspeed increases on top of that.
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
you have to compare the amount of SIMD units, not the amount of SP
Cypress: 320
Cayman: 384
that is a 20% increase, if you count in the higher clockspeed and new front end already known from barts you beatt the 480 without any problems....
580 is another story and i think that the 384simd card is going to be the 5950 not the 5970
What happened to the whole 1920 SP thing? How come it's suddenly 1536? Why would they have slightly less shaders that are slightly better performing for a flagship single GPU card by going from 5D to 4D and have a higher TDP? This doesn't make any sense. As of late I've been seeing so many Cayman rumors being twisted and turned and now everything is blown out of proportions with all these rumors and it seems now that the 580 is perceived to be a faster card, but there is so much crap information going around it's hard to see anything.
Do you think maybe the 1536 shaders could be refering to the 6950 as suggested? Because if the 6950 is 384x4 = 1536 then the 6970 would either be 384 x 5 = 1920 or 480 x 4 = 1920?
Also, what is up with the memory count? Is it 1GB or 2GB? Or is it only 2GB on the 6970?
I don't know what the hell I am talking about.........:confused:
It's 2GB only for cayman.
6870/6850 is 5D shaders, and cayman is 4D shaders.
So maybe the 1536 rumour is true, but the number is not very important, because you can't compare to an old ATI/AMD gpu. The thing i can be sure, that my estimation about cayman will be corect.
I say cayman will be 35 to 40% faster than cypress. ( XT to XT. ) Pro will be different i think, and a i believe it's gonna be lower.
The thing the most important is not the number of shader but the improvement about the weaks of cypress and bart. That's i wait a lot for.
The thing that would be very nice, is a portal 2 key in package, and amazing, a software that do HD video high speed encoding with multipass, and high number of settings.
I think a lot of gamers here have some TB/s of video data, and don't have time to covert one file, after one file. Just select a folder and convert in high speed with good quality.
I have a lot of old file in old codecs, and i would like use much more advanced codec to lower the file sizes without loss or a very small.
No one is saying the 6950 is the one with 1536 shaders at beyond 3d, it is the 6970. This number came from 64* 24. Pro is supposedly 1404 or 64 * 22. This forrest guy gave the true specs(not the cut down numbers) of cypress and juniper 2 or 3 weeks before release and he shows that he had production cards in the past so this can be taken with alot less salt than usual.
But with 1536 shaders, my performance expectations have gone done substantially.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by madcho
No, a VLIW4 SP is most likely a tad slower than a VLIW5 SP. But a 1536 (384) shader VLIW4 chip will have 20% more real useful SPs than a 1600 (320) VLIW5 chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
A 320x5=1600 chip will have a lot less useful power than a 384x4=1536 chip.
Even if a Cayman shader is 96% of a Cypress one performance wise, there are still 20-50% more of them depending on which rumor to trust.
Your number of 20% higher performance is based on 20% more shaders.
You also have to look at where the cards are performing relative to one anotherQuote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
If the 6870 is ~5-10% slower than the 5870, how can the 6970 be only 20% faster than the 5870 if there's a 6950 to slot there too. Assuming the 6950 and 6970 have a 20% gap in performance (akin to 5850 and 5870), you'd certainly have to expect the 6950 and 6870 to have a sizeable gap as well. From there one ought to extrapolate where 6950 and 6970's are going to perform
youu got a good point; it wouldn't make any sense to place it so close to 6870 :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Would be funny if all this SP speculation all turned out to be wrong and it turns out to be 2k+ just like how everyone thought the 4800 series would have 480 SPs :ROTF:
First of all, i didn't came up with this 20 percent figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Secondly, read this carefully
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14763Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvese
Why we can't really predict anything.
I hope so...I'm only waiting for the 6970 because I'd like a very powerful futureish proof single GPU card...on paper it sounds like a side grade to the 5870 :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Yvese
1 week untill official press conference right?
All these high end cards will be future proof until Crysis 2(hopefully) comes out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggo0
I can't wait for another game(even though, crysis wasn't such a good game), that doesn't compromise working on low end hardware and is even tough on fast hardware.
Not like metro 2033 either, because that game really doesn't raise the bar compared to anything that has come out.
Crysis is still one of the best looking games today;especially with outdoor environments and in game models. The game came out three years ago and games have yet to look better even though hardware is 3-4 times more powerful. Its kind of annoying that we need to use things like 3d and eyefinity to make use of our cards for most games. I just want something that looks fantastic on one screen and I don't mind if it runs 50fps and the best setting cannot be enabled on a 6970 or gtx 580 or antilles for that matter. These type of games don't appear often enough anymore and I want a game that is graphics wise, ahead of its time. Even better if it achieves such frame rates not from bad coating, but just crazy graphics.
Its kind of a tragedy that it is being made for consoles, but hopefully it won't be the consoles this generation and hopefully the next.
I hope Cayman is 2160 shaders and is fast as stink, because I would be nice if one of the company got 2 gpu performance out of 1 GPU this generation on the same node. NV not going to due it with respect to their cards(it might match a 5970) because they don't even have one out, so we can only count on AMD for this. Cayman is impossible to predict though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
I agree with you on your views. The main reason I'm looking at a 6970 is because I want a card that will drive 1920x1080 sucessfully, with AA and good frames. The 2x 4850's I have now barely can, the 512mb is limiting, and I'd also like the card I get to last for about a year or so (maybe in a year, I can grab another and Crossfire them).
Granted a GTX460 or a 6870 will be more powerful than my 4850 cfx, and not to mention no scaling issues, but that would only be a side grade. Not knocking Crysis but I've never been a fan of it - so I'm not to concerned with how it runs. If it looks pretty and runs at 30fps you can consider me happy.
Now to break the boredom of lack of news, I have a pop question for all the ATI/AMD fans, be you die hard or not.
-Who over here actually knows (since before I asked this question) what the name A.T.I. stands for?
Array Technologies Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies
Internet is my friend.
I didnt, but i do now....
Neither did I, that was a real eye opener :D
I remembered looking up what it actually stood for but I wasn't able to find it last time, so I quickly forgot about looking it up again.
Now I know what it stands for. :ROTF::rofl:
And we also have ATIC (Advanced Technology Investment Company) the abu dhabi partner of AMD for GloFo.
You guys have concluded that 6970 will be 30 percent faster than 6870 due to a Fudzilla article, but 6970's 6 plus 8 pin power setup indicates TDPs in excess of 225W.
Considering 6870 is 151W, Cayman's "performance / watts" would have to have gone down MASSIVELY compared to Barts; in order for 6970 to just be 30 percent faster than 6870.
I'm still going with 60 percent faster than 6970 and 50 percent faster than 5870.
I never trust Fudo. I'm guessing the rumors are way off or AMD sent off early samples that were hamstrung. Based on 8 + 6 pin and guessing around 1920 SPs with over 32 ROPs. 35%-40% over a 5870 and average 10% over a GTX 580. Sweet spot is out the window this time around based on it being originally designed for 32nm.
Really ?? HD5870 has a 6-pin and an 8-pin but only 188W TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrdurr
The 6-pin and 8-pin show us the max power the card can draw from the PSU and not the TDP.
Maybe you need to check that again. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
Yes my bad, 2x 6-pin for 5870 and 188W
Did you forget about 6950?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
My assumption, HD6870 2*6pin, just little under 150W. HD6950 2*6pin ~190W and 6970 8pin + 6pin ~230W.
50% more power than 6870, alteast 50% more performance than 6870, note also, that would put 6950 to 20-30% more performance than 6870.
1120/5 -> 224SP, 224/0,96*1,5*4 -> atleast 1400SP for Cayman XT for 50% more performance. 0,96 is modifier for 4 wide SP is less powerful than 5 wide SP. And we can assume it wont be smaller than Cypress was. So it is very feasible to assume atleast 50% more performance than 6870 even if 4 wide to 5 wide performance ratio is as low as 0,84 at same clock as 6870. Add to that larger core than cypress and little less clocks, say 850MHz. Still it will keep 50% more performance than 6870 very feasible.
So I will except no less than 50% more perfromance than 6870.
IMHO, AMD will not enter the highend segment again if they can't produce a card that atleast maintain on par efficiency (performance/watt) compared to its latest mainstream offering (Bart) or even its predecessor, Cypress. :yepp:
EDIT:
I think 30% higher would be minimal & a rather pessimistic view (faster than GTX 480 but slightly slower than GTX 580), 40% higher would be pretty good & quite realistic view (slightly faster than GTX 580), while 50% higher & up would be plenty optimistic & viewed through red colored rose glass (though if it truly happens, i will gladly eat my crow served cold), all over HD 5870 in average performance. :)
Erm, you're forgetting power consumption / performance isn't a linear relationship. The higher you go the more inefficient and more leaking. Especially when we go over 200W territory. Cayman will probably not have the same performance efficiency as Barts, a 50% increase in power consumption may only translate to say 35~40% better performance for example unless architectural improvements are made in which the rumored shader arrangement might play a good part in, but the cards arrive quite soon anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
HD5870 was more power efficient than HD5770 in terms of performance/watts. Sure what you say might be the case, but just pointing out that it doesn't have to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
Well Juniper vs Cypress isn't a good direct comparision, my point was if you take the same card with same specs, only add more SPs or other units and perhaps add higher clocks too, then you'll get more inefficiency (performance won't improve as much as power consumption increases). Need internal changes if you want to improve efficiency as well. And before some1 counters with this, sometimes only rearranging the components could help too if there's a bottleneck somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrdurr
Yep, but as far as I can see Cayman vs. Barts is a much bigger difference than Cypress vs Juniper in terms of general architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
AMD’s Cayman Christmas card delayed say Taiwanese sources
Quote:
Fabless chip shop AMD was set to launch its "Cayman" GPU (aka AMD Radeon HD 6970) in the week of November 22nd - just in time for the tech-Xmas season – but reliable word from the Taiwanese street is that the product has been delayed due to yield problems at apparently not-so-fab Fab TSMC
God dammit.
Cayman got coldfeet looking at 580 silence graphs :D
I'm expecting the "are you ready" marketing from AMD any time now if this turns out to be true. :ROTF:
Personally I can wait after Christmas. Of course it sounds bad if they really have single digit yeilds, but FUDzilla gave a totally different explanation for the possible delay, so who knows? Still rumors of delays are never good.
Demers did say they would take their time with Cayman, because the risks are lower in high end and Christmas market isn't crucial for it unlike for Barts. Better they take their time, but to me it sounded like an explanation for future delays...
i smell conspiracy from nvidia+tmsc.. if nvidia 580 is released on time, then i hope Ati leaves tmsc for good!Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
Globalfoudries, come on..
sure im not so serious on that above :rofl:
Hmm this is mighty strange.Single digit yields and they are founding this out...now?! Two weeks from launch?? I smell BS.
That reminds me... http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=259976
Agreed informal, that's odd ...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I like AMDs November :) (Analyst day-Zambezi, Llano etc info, HD69xx cards etc)
Deja-vu any one.
nVidia problems same time last year.
6970 is here around marts 2011:rofl:
http://fudzilla.com/graphics/item/20...cturing-issues
Cayman reportedly plagued by manufacturing issues
TSMC stuck at single digit yields
As we reported on Friday, AMD's upcoming Cayman appears destined for a delay or a paper launch, as some partners have still not received the boards, or final bios versions.
According to TechEye, the delay was caused by poor yields, which is supposedly in the single digit range. This is somewhat surprising, as the 40nm process is rather mature. Nonetheless, building a 3 billion transistor chip was never going to be easy, a fact clearly demonstrated Nvidia's GF100.
Taiwanese sources told TechEye that there was only a slight chance of AMD keeping its schedule and shipment targets in Q4. Cayman was originally scheduled for a November 22 launch, just in time for the holiday season. We can only hope that AMD and TSMC will manage to work out the kinks plaguing the new GPU in time to start volume shipments in early December.
erm look at your source, fud is bored and he obviously needs some traffic so his ads will pay him money anf he can go buy some weed
Quote:
Originally Posted by stangracin3
Sure?:ROTF:
It would be somewhat hilarious if AMD made fun of Nvidia's "Are you ready"-campaign. They would post something very similarly looking and then when the date passes, they actually release the card.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantsu
Got a message a few days ago that the GTX 580's throne might not be as expected, performance of the 6970 is extremely impressive, at least on the same performance class as the 580.Quote:
前几天刚刚得到消息,GTX 580的确有点危险了,HD6970性能非常给力,至少是和GTX 580是同一等级的产品.
6970 loses out on synthetics (Vantage is likely) vs 5970, but (way) better in games, bad drivers now, probably has ample room for improvement.Quote:
6970 跑分低于5970，游戏好很多，驱动很烂，应该有不少提升空间。
People have cards // NOT everyone has drivers yet
Cayman is 4D, say about difference.. Go read muropaketti, Sampsa never releases news that his own sources do not confirm or not true according his under NDA information. Remember, even if you are under NDA, you can release news of others, that hit closest..Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
I wouldn't call 580 level perf. extremely impressive. What matters is the price, obviously. Also, if it's "way" better than 5970 in games, I wouldn't call it a 580 level cardQuote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
different sources honey :)Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrdurr
one definitely has the card but no drivers, the other claims to have both.
Normally both are reputable but who's correct this time though
Oh, okay. Are these your sources, or have you copied them from a site/forum?
It's Chiphell's admin and another dude with connections.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrdurr
AMD's really tight on leaks so nobody really knows where the performance level is, board partners/brands don't even have cards with the exact SPs yet.
Chiphell's leaks are mostly either through TuL (Powercolor) or Sapphire I presume. Not exactly sure but they've been rather reliable.
Oh, very interesting, the giant hot ATI power hogging failure of a video card that is breaking apart at TSMC with an extremely expensive under 10% yield that drives prices through the roof and profit into extreme losses - and indicates a very, very flawed execution and core design that will cripple and cave in use as it cooks the case to melting.
EPIC FAILURE ! :owned:
Can't you say BLOWBACK !!!!!!!! ???? :surf:
roflmao I am SO HAPPY ! :party2: :bday2:
( thanks to all those hundreds from here that attacked NVidia's 480 production since that's how I know exactly the crap ATI has crooked up now and how pathetic it is )
God this is GREAT ! :bounces:
I checked Charlie's hate site and he's pretending to be dumb, blind, deaf, and stupid right now, not a word on the epic failure of cayman. ROFLMAO ! hahahahahhahahhaHhahaha
I am so HAPPY ! Oh man can you say " TOTAL FACEPALM !"
Hey ATI you finally did it ! > :wtf:
Maybe JHH paid TSMC a visit on his way to Crytek...
Im saving this for sig material on nov 22.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SiliconDoc
since the mods haven't been here yet i am making my post nicer,Quote:
Originally Posted by SiliconDoc
dont be an idiot
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/e86671e...40582322aa.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
lol exactly! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
lighten up francis :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SiliconDoc
its not a yr late,but what goes around comes around :yepp:
Until we see what's really going on instead of just rumors, that's nothing more than trolling.
SiliconDoc, u have gave me some great laughs, but man u need to take a holiday. You've obviously had some very traumatic discussions in the past regarding ATI vs Nvidia. Seriously.
While i may agree with some of his posts in other threads, ban this guy already :down:
I would like to make some fun of the fanboys from both camps (although nvidias are much more fanatical and easier) but I think mods will soon clean this thread up and dont want them getting an eye for my comments.
Lets just say fanaticism for brands is kinda sad.
you freaking me out,i am scarred :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by SiliconDoc
Geez, I'm trying to ignore this guy but you keep quoting his post. It's like he thinks he own NV or something. :rolleyes: Man, NV should add this guy to the paid troll focus group list. :ROTF:
These threads are perfect to clean up (read: ban) the troll list. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Your_Boss
does anyone know who or what he was replying too?
it looks like just charlie, which we all know is anti nvidia,
so why do we have to listen to such a fanboy response at another fanboy (who isnt even on this forum)
I didn't say you came up with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
And yeah, I've read it. It confirms my point.
More tards getting banned? Orsum!
I am really disappointed at the mods letting this place degenerate into another OCN. You know, 11 year old LOLZtards and the like.
Wait for confirmartion about it ... we see allways the same story before launch ... If we speak about TSMC incapacity to ramp the production, this don't mean the cards will be a paper launch ( thanks to Fuad to bring this on table lol ). Jut sadly the avaibility will not be as good of what AMD want ... ( annonced 1 day before 580 launch and the Nvidia shareholder call is a bit too much coincidence for me )
You mean, everything you said about nvidia eventually came true while we don't know if that's the same for ATI yet as we aren't even past the launch date?????Quote:
Originally Posted by SiliconDoc
So guys, I'm thinking of sigging some of SiliconDoc's amazing feats of hypocrisy, but there's so much I doubt I would be able to actually summarize it elegantly into a quotable form.
copy saaya's "chronicles sytle" quotationQuote:
Originally Posted by cegras
the guy already has a title in every post, makes it quite easy to organize
Agreed, I wouldn't mind but most of us didn't jump that hard on rumours of the 580 being paper launch. The numbers for that look very good, and it's looking like it'll be a solid hard launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Even I said with clocks that good I really doubt any delay will be a yield issue, just nvidia pushing a too early launch for reasons unknown.
but do we really want those words remembered? i could understand at least catching a semi-rational person's short fallings but when a poster of that category rants i ask myself: are they worth my time? maybe if he is such a pioneer it's ok. the use of smilies is just so innovative.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Hey guys, any word on release date? expected performance against the GTX 580?
Confident people say it'll be on par, no word on performance from the people saying yield issues. Still no date other than the week of the 22nd November but I expect it's this year November and not next year... November.Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
This waiting is killing me.
On a side note: Why are some of you even responding to this guy (SiliconFog). He is obviously desperate for attention and you are giving it to him.
weird! :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
I get the feeling that we are talking past each other or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
Wow... words cannot describe how much this bleeds of fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiliconDoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
me too :D
I was amazed too, I didn't know half of those even existed ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
i really expected to see a mod say something by now, apparently only shazza and movieman cares and they like to stick to there respective sections.