AMD HD7XXX Series - Latest leaked details - Chiphell

OP: http://www.chiphell.com/thread-299051-1-2.html

"Double confirmed" means confirmed by official emails inside AMD; "double checking" means the message has been mentioned once in an email inside AMD but needs further confirmation by a second email.

1. All the HD7XXX series products are just rebranding products. (Double confirmed)

The low-end cards of HD7XXX series has been received by the OEM manufacturers now, with the following naming scheme:

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...wwlhr7e7ib.jpg

The HD57XX and the HD67XX have always been the key to the mid-low ranged market, then what about the HD77XX?

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...6mut0iudld.jpg

First possibility, the HD7770 has 2GB VRAM, and it is castrated from 6950/6970. (Double checking)

Second possibility, the HD7770 is an HD6770 with BIOS flashed (Double confirmed), with 1GB VRAM.

Here is a key question regarding power consumption, VRAM and performance:

If it were castrated from the HD69XX, then according to the basic mathematics, how many SP in VLIW4 must be castrated in order to match the same performance and power consumption of 800 SP in VLIW5? It is known that the 5770/6770 is at around 100W power consumption (rough estimation), and the previously leaked NG cards don't need any 6-pin auxiliary power connectors, where the hell does HD7770 aim for?

2. AMD will drop the current "HD" naming scheme and use new trademarks and rules on the NG architecture. (Double checking)

The NG is not yet taped out, so there is no way to know the details of architecture and performance. However the current specifications of power requirements have been given to the manufacturers.

The NG will feature high-end, mid-ranged and low-end product lines but not the same unified stream processors. (Speculated)

3. AMD has teamed up with a big manufacturer and a big brand, to make a top card like the ASUS ARES / Mars II, in order to gain the halo effect. (Double confirmed)

Recall the AMD Radeon memory, if AMD can acquire a hard drive company, then it is possible to build a rig "Intel-free".

Tahiti has met more problems than GF100 did.

It's a big challenge for Tahiti to get an early release, due to very large die size, 384 bit vram bandwidth, very low yield, new tech like PCI-E 3.0 and higher vram clock.

The top 28nm graphics card based on single-GPU (not necessarily Tahiti) should be able to get P45,000+ in 3DMark Vantage.

Source: http://www.chiphell.com/forum.php?mo...4&authorid=232

However AMD blog just increased the credibility of XDR2:

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...o3wywv8p3o.jpg

Interesting stuff :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

OP: http://www.chiphell.com/thread-299051-1-2.html


Recall the AMD Radeon memory, if AMD can acquire a hard drive company, then it is possible to build a rig "Intel-free".

---

Also, this is nearly impossible now that Seagate owns Samsung's HDD business and WD owns Hitachi's. There's nearly no HDD companies left in the world to buy... :(

You know i don't take chiphell words as it was fresh ... we all know till 3 months( AFDS - august 2011) the low end will be made of 6970-6950 ( middle series ) and possibily 6870 in 28nm... with a luck the 6870 ( aka 7500 ) will just be a revamped 6870 in VLIW4 instead of VLIW5. ( 6870 for a simple reason, this is what you will find on Trinity gpu )

For Thaiti, we have the invert question running around, TSMC is still a problem for 28nm, but less of what it was with 40nm. the chips are ready and allready running in ES system since some months ( this mean more of a test product have been made )..

Offcourse, this is really challenging, as we speak about a GCN new architecture ( a complete new architecture, who are there for define the new base of what computing will be ), new process, and new PCI express specification ( PCI ex3.0 ).. this make a lot of "new". And we need ad to this all the new standard on memory side ( no, no rambus confirmed, i speak about, the x86 memory instructions I/O who will be used on GCN, who will allow to use the Vram and System memory as it was an unique virtual memory system for increase computing interoperability between gpu and cpu ) .

lots of new toys coming out soon. i cant wait to go shopping!! :D

I really don't remember when did I read so much bulls**t in only one (or two) post.:D

Quote:

---

Recall the AMD Radeon memory, if AMD can acquire a hard drive company, then it is possible to build a rig "Intel-free".

---

This is the best.:rofl:

7770 = 6770 = 5770?????

I hope not, thats poor. I slammed nV for it and i'd slam AMD in the same way.

interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

7770 = 6770 = 5770?????
I hope not, thats poor. I slammed nV for it and i'd slam AMD in the same way.

---

agreed
i wouldnt be to pissed if 7770 was a 28nm 2g 6870 with a few tweaks though
or if they get the 6770 doing ~1ghz at least then it would be a worthy improvement

So if all the HD7XXX series products are just rebranding products, then Tahiti will be HD8XXX, yes? :rolleyes:

Rebrand
Rehash
Release

Everyone is taking a leaf out of Activision's books these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

First possibility, the HD7770 has 2GB VRAM, and it is castrated from 6950/6970. (Double checking)

Second possibility, the HD7770 is an HD6770 with BIOS flashed (Double confirmed), with 1GB VRAM.

---

Wait, these can't both happen... so I wonder if they are both "true" in the sense that AMD is considering using one possibility or the other as the chip that will be called "HD 7770," but it hasn't been decided yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

2. AMD will drop the current "HD" naming scheme and use new trademarks and rules on the NG architecture. (Double checking)

---

I'd say if this is true then it makes sense to use HD 7xxx on HD 5xxx/6xxx rebrands. I don't have as much of a problem with a "rebrand line" like (supposedly) HD 7xxx per se, but if it exists mainly because the "new" generation is delayed, then I have a problem.

They're rebranding midrange and lowend cards!? Stop the presses!
..Wait, don't they do this nearly every time?

I very much doubt anyone here cares about pricepoint crap anyway. It's the big fat high-end die that xs is waiting for (if at all).

i wouldn't call 4 cards out of a lineup "All the HD7XXX series products" but i'm still never a fan of rebranding

If the low end cards have higher memory bandwidth and core clocks then I can at least see AMD justifying it this round. Lower power consumption + increase in performance will be a great sell to Dell etc.

But as noted I think we're all waiting on the high end. I really hope the HD 7770 turns out to be a 6870 replacement. It would be really nice to get that kind of performance for ~$100

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

But as noted I think we're all waiting on the high end. I really hope the HD 7770 turns out to be a 6870 replacement. It would be really nice to get that kind of performance for ~$100

---

You are in luck. Guess what that ~130mm2 GPU was...

:D

Well then, I know what my christmas gift to myself shall be now xD

Seagate and WD belongs to Intel?

What? :shrug:

For gamers it makes no difference re-branded 6 series or not. A console port doesn't even pressure a 5850 @ 1680x1050. And as all we PC gamers get is console ports, what's the point in upgrading anyway? I don't think I will need to upgrade my vid card until the next generation of consoles have been on the market for at least 6 months.

I accept that for hardware enthusiasts and those seeking overclocking records there is a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s1nykuL

For gamers it makes no difference re-branded 6 series or not. A console port doesn't even pressure a 5850 @ 1680x1050. And as all we PC gamers get is console ports, what's the point in upgrading anyway? I don't think I will need to upgrade my vid card until the next generation of consoles have been on the market for at least 6 months.

I accept that for hardware enthusiasts and those seeking overclocking records there is a difference.

---

I completely agree with you, but some people here think that you need tri SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s to play the latest games smoothly at 1920x1200 resolution :rofl:

There's still plenty of use for extra performance like Triple monitors, stereoscopic 3D, SSAA etc. And personally I've lost faith on SLI/CrossFire and will be switching to a single GPU when next gen emerges, whatever it might be called. I guess AMD could do a name switch for GCN cards since it's a completely new architecture. The rest of that speculation made no sense to me whatsoever, outside rebranding low end cards which happens all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s1nykuL

For gamers it makes no difference re-branded 6 series or not. A console port doesn't even pressure a 5850 @ 1680x1050. And as all we PC gamers get is console ports, what's the point in upgrading anyway? I don't think I will need to upgrade my vid card until the next generation of consoles have been on the market for at least 6 months.

I accept that for hardware enthusiasts and those seeking overclocking records there is a difference.

---

My thoughts exactly. It's good news in a way since I'm cheap and hate to spend money. Obviously the bad part is that we're not seeing any cutting edge graphical stuff being released these days. I'm not sure if that upsets me anymore since most games seem like the same old stuff. Has anything really novel happened in game design over the last five years or so? I'm either getting too old, or I've just seen it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantsu

There's still plenty of use for extra performance like Triple monitors, stereoscopic 3D, SSAA etc. And personally I've lost faith on SLI/CrossFire and will be switching to a single GPU when next gen emerges, whatever it might be called. I guess AMD could do a name switch for GCN cards since it's a completely new architecture. The rest of that speculation made no sense to me whatsoever, outside rebranding low end cards which happens all the time.

---

Exactly.

In a way, it's amost a relief that consoles have kept things back in terms of game development, but graphics cards have kept improving. Only because 3*1920*1080 eyefinity can be done on a single card solution without cutting too many graphics options. Because I'm one of those idiots who might spend double the money if it wasn't possible :D

Can't see myself using 3d though. At least that saves me half the burden.


EDIT: On topic, rebranding sucks. Will wait for the 8000's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

OP: http://www.chiphell.com/thread-299051-1-2.html
**Sniped***

---

AMD Rebrand HD5770 -> HD6770 and now they rebrand it as HD7770 ?
Oh come on give me a break !! That's BAD !! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imamage

AMD Rebrand HD5770 -> HD6770 and now they rebrand it as HD7770 ?
Oh come on give me a break !! That's BAD !! :mad:

---

How is that any worse than 8800GT 512>9800GTX>9800GTX+>GTS250? I'm assuming AMD is doing it for the same reason Nvidia does.

--Matt

He only said that was bad, not less bad that what nvidia did. Let's not fall again in the same place please...

Some improvements in either more performance or less power would be welcome.

I'm pretty sure AMD (or nvidia, for that matter) themselves don't really much care for it either - the pressure to rebrand mostly comes from big box OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc... they'd very much like to keep putting the same el cheapo die in their boxes, but "keep up" with the latest gen at the same time :D. Can't have it all, so the next best thing is to keep up with the naming scheme.

Either way, since when does XS give a rat's ass about low end crap?

if the 6770 goes to 7770, that sure does not leave much room for a 7970 to beat a 6970 now does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

I'm pretty sure AMD (or nvidia, for that matter) themselves don't really much care for it either - the pressure to rebrand mostly comes from big box OEMs like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc... they'd very much like to keep putting the same el cheapo die in their boxes, but "keep up" with the latest gen at the same time :D. Can't have it all, so the next best thing is to keep up with the naming scheme.

Either way, since when does XS give a rat's ass about low end crap?

---

Not all of us have megatons of cash to blow on new top of the line hardware every 6 months.

While true, it is almost always better to buy a used top of the line card that's 1 or 2 generations old, than to buy the current low-end pos. We even have a pretty good fs/ft section on this very forum!

I disagree, stuff like the 4850 when it came out were both very affordable and better options than the previous high end imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I disagree, stuff like the 4850 when it came out were both very affordable and better options than the previous high end imo

---

that and the 8800GT were the best perf/dollar and offered an incredible shelf life for picture quality.
the 5850 was another since its launch price stayed for a year, and now a 6870 is still only like 30% cheaper, being 2 years later.

Yeah the was definitely a time when the performance market offered the best of both worlds. For a reasonable price we got previous high end performance.

I think we'll see that again once the new wave of architectures come about. I don't see how AMD or Nvidia can realistically do another 8800gt type move where things currently stand regarding TSMC's manufacturing problems - though I do wonder what's holding them back from just adding more shaders in the time being (like how AMD went 320 -> 800 -> 1600). With all this being said, it's pretty remarkable to think about what NV did with the 8800gtx and how long its shelf life was. That was one of the few instances I can think of a company getting it perfectly right the first time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I disagree, stuff like the 4850 when it came out were both very affordable and better options than the previous high end imo

---

n850 is 2nd to highest end possible? How's that low-end? Try a 4350.

upgraded vaper chamber heatsink :)

http://www.techpowerup.com/155082/Th...Heatsinks.html

looks like they'll be hot or want us to overclock!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

upgraded vaper chamber heatsink :)

http://www.techpowerup.com/155082/Th...Heatsinks.html

looks like they'll be hot or want us to overclock!

---

Most likely it will be on the professional lineup.
Will have to wait and see about the desktop.

Quote:

---

planning on launching desktop HD7000 GPUs in January, and SemiAccurate just got a few more bits about them. There isn’t much new, January launch for Tahiti XT, followed by Tahiti Pro a month later, then Pitcairn XT in March, Pro in April.

The cards themselves are known as GNC (Graphics Core Next), Southern Islands, or HD7000, depending on who you talk to. All of them are made on TSMC’s 28nm process, and are cousins to the laptop lines we told you about earlier. Pricing is tentatively set for around $500 for the top Tahiti part, $400 for the Pro, $300 for Pitcairn XT, $200 for the Pro, all subject to much change and our minor but patented SPMOODT(TM)(R)(C)(P) (Source Protecting Minor Obfuscation Of Data Technology).

The new tidbit? 384-bit memory bus, that means 3GB cards. Whoopee, you can now bump the AA setting 1x more on your six 30″ 4Mp panels for Eyefinity gaming. It can’t come soon enough. Things are about to get even more silly.S|A

---

http://semiaccurate.com/2011/11/17/m...landsgcn-leak/

So does that mean no XDR2 (not that it was likely before we knew this)?

384bit bus tells me one thing

these will be large chips. i doubt they would go as big as fermi, but its gotta be bigger then cypress. hopefully they wont come out burning hot and underclocked like fermi did either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

n850 is 2nd to highest end possible? How's that low-end? Try a 4350.

---

Since when does a 4350 cost as much as a used high end card though? Even when the 5870 first came out, a used 8800 ultra went for well more than $100, easily performance segment pricing if not more (got my 4850 for $150 when it came out). That's a non sequitur argument on your part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manicdan

384bit bus tells me one thing

these will be large chips. i doubt they would go as big as fermi, but its gotta be bigger then cypress.

---

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if it were even bigger than Cayman.

This also reminds me of that Northern Islands rumor a while ago with a roadmap containing Cayman/Barts/Turks/Caicos. They weren't too much accurate other than the names, but they did say 384-bit bus for Cayman.

The current GDDR5 chips might be too slow combined with 256-bit so it isn't far fetched that AMD would go for 384-bit, certainly not more than going XDR2. It would be interesting to see AMD make a big chip like Nvidia, but I'm not quite ready to jump on that wagon just yet.

I think Fermi, r600 and BD all proved that big chips are much more difficult to get right and usually end up with heat and power consumption problems. IMO i'd rather see them stick to making flexible architectures with a dual gpu high end card and continue working parallel processing coding to eliminate microstutter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iMacmatician

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if it were even bigger than Cayman.

---

I was told smaller than Cayman. I believe someone else on the forum heard larger than 400mm2.

I would be very surprised if it ended up being larger than R600 since they need to fit two on a PCB and unless they are clocking these things low, compared to the last few generations from AMD, the power consumption would be extremely high, far too high for New Zealand.

wasnt there a news item about faster gddr5 a 4 or 5 months ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

Since when does a 4350 cost as much as a used high end card though? Even when the 5870 first came out, a used 8800 ultra went for well more than $100, easily performance segment pricing if not more (got my 4850 for $150 when it came out). That's a non sequitur argument on your part.

---

oh whatever, the 4850 thing is such a corner case. mostly, 2nd highest end cards were more in the $350 price bracket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

wasnt there a news item about faster gddr5 a 4 or 5 months ago?

---

7Gbps GDDR5 was "introduced" 3 years ago next week and we still haven't seen it on any AMD or Nvidia product.
8Gbps GDDR5 was "announced" this summer. I doubt we will see it in the next year or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AliG

I disagree, stuff like the 4850 when it came out were both very affordable and better options than the previous high end imo

---

Agreed - 3850, 4850, 5770, GTX 460, GTX 560 ti - all fantastic price / performance cards and very competitive with the previous high end (Almost the same performance, vastly reduced energy consumption, temperature and noise).

They were even better when used in pairs :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

oh whatever, the 4850 thing is such a corner case. mostly, 2nd highest end cards were more in the $350 price bracket.

---

You couldnt be any more incorrect with that statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordEC911

7Gbps GDDR5 was "introduced" 3 years ago next week and we still haven't seen it on any AMD or Nvidia product.
8Gbps GDDR5 was "announced" this summer. I doubt we will see it in the next year or so.

---

Can the Memory Controllers on the chips actually operate at those frequencies though? I believe that is where the biggest hurdle lies to date, although I don't know how high AMD can get theirs to run error free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

Can the Memory Controllers on the chips actually operate at those frequencies though? I believe that is where the biggest hurdle lies to date, although I don't know how high AMD can get theirs to run error free.

---

That does seem to be the problem.
Nvidia had trouble just getting their memory controllers to work at 4Gbps.
AMD had to beef up/tweak their MCs to hit over 4.2Gbps. If I can remember correctly, I am a little sleep deprived right now, I believe in an interview an AMD employee said that they used Redwood's MC in Barts and they are about half the size of Cypress'. Gets you thinking about how much larger Cayman's MCs are compared to Cypress' for only 15% higher bandwidth.

They could just tweak Redwood's MC, stay at the same clocks and with a 384bit bus get a 15% increase in bandwidth over Cayman.

i wonder if their goal is to have the 7950 at like 200w, a 7970 at +250w and a 7970 that would be 2x 7950s. they could be going for the fastest gpu, while also going for the fastest single core card, which would let them try and have all the records for 4x gpu setups. right now anyone going for records trys to go with 4x 580s, and they might not like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

You couldnt be any more incorrect with that statement.

---

What would you say the average launch price of the 2nd-to-top-of-the line video card is, then?
Do tell. I'm all ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

What would you say the average launch price of the 2nd-to-top-of-the line video card is, then?
Do tell. I'm all ears.

---

I categorize 'top line' and 'mid range' based on GPU, as each line will obviously have several cards based off the same die.

4870 / 4850 were exceptions because in this generation, ATI either didnt feel the need to, or weren't able to deliver single GPU cards in the high end section. Both the 4850, and 4870 were actually mid range cards based on their prices (£150-£200), and ATI used the 4870 X2 to compete in the high end segment.

Curently from Nvidia, 'top line' would be G110, while 'mid range' would be G114. From AMD, top line would be 6950 / 6970, while mid range would be 6850 / 6870.

The mid range cards for the last several generations have been incredibly attractive for their price / performance / watt, especially when comparing the performance of two mid range cards to a single high end, which in most cases have consistently performed better than the single high end offering, and each midrange card was on par with the previous high end in single GPU comparisons while being a lot more efficient.

High end GPUs are really only a requirement for people running at 2560x resolutions, or surround setups. For most gamers playing at 1920x1200 or below, there are havnt been any advantages to be had from buying high end cards for a long time.

Current high end setups consisting of builds based on the 6950 / 6970 or GTX 570 / 580 will be at least matched, if not surpassed by the next gen midrange along with much lower cost, power consumption, temperatures and noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeathReborn

Can the Memory Controllers on the chips actually operate at those frequencies though? I believe that is where the biggest hurdle lies to date, although I don't know how high AMD can get theirs to run error free.

---

The memory controllers used so far... with a lot of difficulty ( as explained by LordEC911 ), but on top 7000 range, GCN have should have a new memory controller, completely different as all the "memory system " will have x86 support " + will be capable of a virtual memory space with the system memory. ( and a lot more ) .
On the slide we have seen this summer, it was pretty clear all the " memory part " is redesigned, so the memory controller.

We will need to wait for see the spec and the cores, offcourse..

But GDDR5 at thoses speed, have an higher TDP, this could well have his weight in the balance too ( remember what was say about the GDDR5 TDP on the 6970 when released )

Sadly i have not keep all the slide but well..
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7340/img00326691.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8375/img00326831.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7959/img00326881.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3797/img00326861.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

High end GPUs are really only a requirement for people running at 2560x resolutions, or surround setups. For most gamers playing at 1920x1200 or below, there are havnt been any advantages to be had from buying high end cards for a long time.

---

I'd have to disagree about that. If you're playing cutting edge games, you certainly have a use for the horsepower of the high-end offerings. Battlefield 3 is a good example of a good PC game that needs GPU power. One 6970 isn't enough to play multiplayer on maximum settings at 1920x1200 in my experience. Two 6970s together break over the point where it's doable, but just barely. There are also any number of games which are poor console ports that need a lot of extra horsepower just due to how badly they've been put together for their PC version, not necessarily due to cutting edge graphics. It sucks that such games exist, but they're a part of what we have to deal with if we want to play them.

he's right somwhere look metro 2033,bf3, civ5 etc ... But only if we speak about use of MSAA in BF3, who is mostly a driver problem ( 4xMSAA will not kill your fps so much otherwise ). i have 85-115fps without problem with my 2x 5870 at 1920x1080. just FSAA on max and no MSAA.

has this been posted yet? its nice and neat!




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e8wtvpvAjt.../s400/7000.jpg

january 2012 may or may not be very interesting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenknics

has this been posted yet? its nice and neat!




http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e8wtvpvAjt.../s400/7000.jpg

---

I don't know if it have been posted allready, but i have the same date on a guru post from HH... Same source i believe ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

I'd have to disagree about that. If you're playing cutting edge games, you certainly have a use for the horsepower of the high-end offerings. Battlefield 3 is a good example of a good PC game that needs GPU power. One 6970 isn't enough to play multiplayer on maximum settings at 1920x1200 in my experience. Two 6970s together break over the point where it's doable, but just barely. There are also any number of games which are poor console ports that need a lot of extra horsepower just due to how badly they've been put together for their PC version, not necessarily due to cutting edge graphics. It sucks that such games exist, but they're a part of what we have to deal with if we want to play them.

---

I'd rather say that BF3 is a game that is ahead of its time. I'd rather reduce my settings a bit to play it now, and then upgrade to the next mid range to max it out, rather than wasting money on an SLI GTX 580 setup right now.

Also I've seen several people capable of running BF3 on a pair of GTX 560s at ultra settings and 60+ FPS ... if they simply reduce their AA to 2x. I'd much rather do that as opposed to buying something more expensive just for the sake of 4x AA in a single game.

The 6970 is also a bad example of BF3 performance, this game is heavily Nvidia optmised and actually runs about the same, if not worse on a 6970 than it does on a single GTX 560 ti.

Some people on a few forums have recently been upgrading their rigs to SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s just for BF3. I cant help but think 'more money than sense' when we all know that HD 7000s and Keplers are due to be released soon, and I doubt that the mid range cards from the next gen will be incapable of maxing out BF3 at 1920x1200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanek

he's right somwhere look metro 2033,bf3, civ5 etc ... But only if we speak about use of MSAA in BF3, who is mostly a driver problem ( 4xMSAA will not kill your fps so much otherwise ). i have 85-115fps without problem with my 2x 5870 at 1920x1080. just FSAA on max and no MSAA.

---

Exactly, the only issue I see in BF3 is massive slowdown with 4x MSAA enabled, NOT with the other settings like textures, shadows and whatever else set to Ultra. If you set every setting in BF3 to Ultra, and drop the AA to 2x MSAA, it plays wonderfully on current mid range setups at 1920x1200.

Civ V, Metro (without DOF), and Witcher 2 (without Ubersampling) all at 4x MSAA and all other settings on highest have zero issues with remaining consistently playable, smooth and lag free on a pair of GTX 560 tis, as does BF3 with 2x MSAA.

People who think they currently need 2-3 GTX 580s to play these games comfortably at 1920x1200 resolution simply suffer from the 'more money than sense' illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

I'd rather say that BF3 is a game that is ahead of its time. I'd rather reduce my settings a bit to play it now, and then upgrade to the next mid range to max it out, rather than wasting money on an SLI GTX 580 setup right now.

Also I've seen several people capable of running BF3 on a pair of GTX 560s at ultra settings and 60+ FPS ... if they simply reduce their AA to 2x. I'd much rather do that as opposed to buying something more expensive just for the sake of 4x AA in a single game.

The 6970 is also a bad example of BF3 performance, this game is heavily Nvidia optmised and actually runs about the same, if not worse on a 6970 than it does on a single GTX 560 ti.

Some people on a few forums have recently been upgrading their rigs to SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s just for BF3. I cant help but think 'more money than sense' when we all know that HD 7000s and Keplers are due to be released soon, and I doubt that the mid range cards from the next gen will be incapable of maxing out BF3 at 1920x1200.



Exactly, the only issue I see in BF3 is massive slowdown with 4x MSAA enabled, NOT with the other settings like textures, shadows and whatever else set to Ultra. If you set every setting in BF3 to Ultra, and drop the AA to 2x MSAA, it plays wonderfully on current mid range setups at 1920x1200.

Civ V, Metro (without DOF), and Witcher 2 (without Ubersampling) all at 4x MSAA and all other settings on highest have zero issues with remaining consistently playable, smooth and lag free on a pair of GTX 560 tis, as does BF3 with 2x MSAA.

People who think they currently need 2-3 GTX 580s to play these games comfortably at 1920x1200 resolution simply suffer from the 'more money than sense' illness.

---

Or they are playing on 120hz monitor where 60fps just don't cut it and don't want to make the game look like crap in order to get the FPS they want/need.

In the real world, we have to deal with poorly optimized games or ones that favor Brand A over Brand B. Battlefield 3 is also a valid choice for my point as it's a very popular, modern title. The 6970 is also a perfectly valid choice for my point as it's considered a "high end" card, doubly so considering the thread is about the next iteration of ATI branded products. You can't logically just start carving out exceptions for games and cards because they don't fit your view if you're trying to make a general point about how high end cards aren't useful.

I'm not really sure how 60 FPS (minimims) 'dont quite cut it', or 'make the game look like crap' - even on a 120 hz monitor, a pair of GTX 580s arent going to maintain a constant 120 FPS in any modern game. But if you feel that is the case then feel free to buy whatever you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

they don't fit your view if you're trying to make a general point about how high end cards aren't useful.

---

I havnt had the need to use any high end cards over a pair of mid range ones at 1920x1200 for the last 4 generations now, so I am mainly speaking from experience of performance at that resolution, not trying to dismiss the usefulness of high end cards in situations where they are useful like ultra high resolutions, triple monitors, or 3D vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

I'm not really sure how 60 FPS (minimims) 'dont quite cut it', or 'make the game look like crap' - even on a 120 hz monitor, a pair of GTX 580s arent going to maintain a constant 120 FPS in any modern game.

---

I have to stop you here. Being a 120Hz user with a single 580 this is totally wrong. 2 580s at 1920x1080 can easily do 100+ min in most current games ( the setup I built for my friend is as such ). And yes 60min on a 120hz display doesn't feel so great I can tell you first hand. Once you are accustomed to 120hz gaming, 60fps on a 120hz display feels like 30fps on a 60hz display. Its kind of a double edged sword as it improves the experience but requires more to do so ( ie those 3gb sli 580 setups )

I agreed with everything you said up until you mentioned 120hz. Its a totally different ball game. As you said, for the most part a single upper mid range gpu can handle games at 60hz @ 1080. I've also ran my 1920x1200 display with various multi gpu setups up until my current setup.


More on topic I'm curious to see how these fare on a smaller process as 45nm has been hampering progress for too long now.

I sent a pair of 570's back after testing the vram limits clearly crippled for the money ,even worse for the 1 gig 560ti, having water block's that fit the 580's went with them,
I also see alot of people with 1 gig's of vram having more issues with bf3 than 580\6970 users , so I'am glad I have more money than sense , not to mention what games that might come out in the next year with the consoles on their way to be upgraded.
-and been looking a lot at the U2711 lately which even with 580sli I wonder about the min. fps gaming for the next year , when the 2nd gen. of 28nm might be for sale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

I have to stop you here. Being a 120Hz user with a single 580 this is totally wrong. 2 580s at 1920x1080 can easily do 100+ min in most current games ( the setup I built for my friend is as such ). And yes 60min on a 120hz display doesn't feel so great I can tell you first hand. Once you are accustomed to 120hz gaming, 60fps on a 120hz display feels like 30fps on a 60hz display. Its kind of a double edged sword as it improves the experience but requires more to do so ( ie those 3gb sli 580 setups )

---

Ok, I take it from you and the others that high end cards are good for 120 hz. That just wasnt something I knew about before, sorry for being uninformed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNTAMED

I also see alot of people with 1 gig's of vram having more issues with bf3 than 580\6970 users

---

This is purely because they are trying to use 4x MSAA, which is not advisable in BF3 on any cards other than the GTX 570 or 580 (in SLI). (Even though I've seen evidence of several GTX 560 ti SLI users running BF3 around 55 FPS on Ultra and 4x MSAA, I will ignore this as speculation against it is too much for me to bother debating about).

If you drop the AA down to 2x, or FXAA, BF3 has no issues, and runs perfectly on a pair of GTX 560 tis for a 60 hz monitor:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18336345

All the problems I see with BF3 are caused by using 4x MSAA across both AMD, and Nvidia cards below the GTX 570. For me, buying a pair of GTX 580s right now would never be preferable to simply reducing my AA and waiting for the next gen of 28 nm cards instead.

Breakdown of a $1000 GPU setup:

$250 - for running the game
$750 - for AA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jodiuh

Breakdown of a $1000 GPU setup:

$250 - for running the game
$750 - for AA

---

Spot on :up:

Also regarding BF3 performance, crashes and other problems - a lot of people have overcome these by upgrading their ram from 4 to 8 Gb while running a pair of 5850s or GTX 560 tis. While BF3 itself doesnt require this much ram, the shared ram and data caching does fix most of these problems.

In fact, in most cases where I see people having issues with BF3 or any other game (mainly at 1080p), I tend to notice that they are only using 4 Gb system ram. While your 'Physical Memory Usage' chart may not show all 4 Gb being used up, in most cases this would be due to your system simply not having enough space to utilize more ram, plus you will have next to no free space for shared video memory and data caching, which wont be detected on the total memory used graph, but rather underneath it like this:

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/4712/ramcache.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jodiuh

Breakdown of a $1000 GPU setup:

$250 - for running the game
$750 - for AA

---

Lets not forget AA also does more than anything else in terms of image quality :)

Since i sold my 6950 to wait for the 7xxx i am forced to play on my MBP's 6750m "480 not 800 like desktop" and well BF3 raps the 6750m left and right even on the native resolution. Laptops are just not meant for heavy games i guess :( people who buy M18x's and other high-end gaming laptops would suffer the most compared to a desktop.

Its a good thing i bought a MBP instead of a M14x since i can take it to work and game without anyone giving a second look :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Since i sold my 6950 to wait for the 7xxx i am forced to play on my MBP's 6750m "480 not 800 like desktop" and well BF3 raps the 6750m left and right even on the native resolution. Laptops are just not meant for heavy games i guess :( people who buy M18x's and other high-end gaming laptops would suffer the most compared to a desktop.

Its a good thing i bought a MBP instead of a M14x since i can take it to work and game without anyone giving a second look :P

---

I game on a thinkpad, thats worse, but I will get a eGPU soon when the new pci-e 2.0 versions come, should give me 18k at least in 3dmark 06 and make me capeable of playing most games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wez

Lets not forget AA also does more than anything else in terms of image quality :)

---

For some people yes, but there seems to only currently be one single game that wont run at 4x MSAA and highest settings at 1920x1200 resolution on mid range cards, and I think its much more preferable to wait for the HD 7000s or Keplers rather than upgrading right now to GTX 580s (I particularly mention this card because I'm seeing several people rushing to buy a pair of them just for BF3).

And the alternative to MSAA in BF3 isnt no AA but FXAA. And i can play BF3 with everything maxed just without MSAA on my single 6950 (Tho overclocked) just fine (60fps)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mech0z

I game on a thinkpad, thats worse, but I will get a eGPU soon when the new pci-e 2.0 versions come, should give me 18k at least in 3dmark 06 and make me capeable of playing most games

---

My stock 6750m gets near 10K in 3dmark 06 :( i wish i could also upgrade my laptop had a MXM card but compatibility is a :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:. As for the eGPU does it not nee thunderbold connector?

My MBP's thunderbold connector does not show up in windows at all :( i dont think i can use a eGPU via that route for windows.

2x7950 covers my needs for 2 years at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

2x7950 covers my needs for 2 years at least.

---

I guess it depends on whether a new console is out in the corner or not. My setup with the dual 8800GTs (mid range cards from 2007) can still play most games at max in medium resolutions. That's four years and counting.

If however a new console is about to be released "your" card won't last for a year (see what happened to X1XXX series - great products which had the bad luck to be released about/around the time the new consoles were coming out).

It's a sad state of affairs but computer hardware's evolution is not "independant" anymore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevethegreat

I guess it depends on whether a new console is out in the corner or not. My setup with the dual 8800GTs (mid range cards from 2007) can still play most games at max in medium resolutions. That's four years and counting.

If however a new console is about to be released "your" card won't last for a year (see what happened to X1XXX series - great products which had the bad luck to be released about/around the time the new consoles were coming out).

It's a sad state of affairs but computer hardware's evolution is not "independant" anymore...

---

ah well, got to buy things anyhow ;)
dont play with consoles not likely to start anytime either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevethegreat

I guess it depends on whether a new console is out in the corner or not. My setup with the dual 8800GTs (mid range cards from 2007) can still play most games at max in medium resolutions. That's four years and counting.

If however a new console is about to be released "your" card won't last for a year (see what happened to X1XXX series - great products which had the bad luck to be released about/around the time the new consoles were coming out).

It's a sad state of affairs but computer hardware's evolution is not "independant" anymore...

---

we also do not know what the next consoles will even need. also since the last console the PC world has adopted multi gpu as a commonplace (if we wanted extra AA or resolution). while the console world will probably be stuck at 1080p. so i somehow suspect the next wave of consoles will not launch at 600$, or even come close to matching PCs. instead i bet they focus on more fun for the family, and keeping it affordable.

i think 2x 7950s will be the best bang/buck for the next 5 years, which is why i am about to jump on that wagon myself. (this is all just an educated guess, and by educated i mean strait up guessing)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

ah well, got to buy things anyhow ;)
dont play with consoles not likely to start anytime either.

---

Sure, but the developments in the console world dictate the worth (and longevity) of your hardware.

What's good in having a super duper HD 9990 dual card if there's no software (games) to use even 1/10th of its power (since everything is a console port these days)?

Or -in reverse- what's good in buying the latest card only to find shortly thereafter that all games require twice that power only because the latest consoles happen to have a card more powerful than yours (therefore everybody develops with *that* in mind)?

Like I said, it's sad, but the console world IS part of our lives (no matter how much most of us -here- wouldn't want to have anything to do with it).

When should we expect GTX 660? jan, feb march?

4th Dec sounds very optimistic for Pitcairn, I believe its somewhere in January. Should bring about a nice reduction in TDP, some increases in core clock and a decrease in memory clocks compared to Cayman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevethegreat

Sure, but the developments in the console world dictate the worth (and longevity) of your hardware.

What's good in having a super duper HD 9990 dual card if there's no software (games) to use even 1/10th of its power (since everything is a console port these days)?

Or -in reverse- what's good in buying the latest card only to find shortly thereafter that all games require twice that power only because the latest consoles happen to have a card more powerful than yours (therefore everybody develops with *that* in mind)?

Like I said, it's sad, but the console world IS part of our lives (no matter how much most of us -here- wouldn't want to have anything to do with it).

---

It costs a lot of money to make games now, and the high end PC market isn't big enough to support $80,000,000 PC exclusives that push new cards to the edge. Crysis sold more because it was a graphical benchmark than a great game, people bought it to see if their upgrades made a difference.

When the new consoles come out they won't have twice the power of a PC, they'll just have an API that eats up less cycles, and they don't have high driver overhead, that makes them look like they have twice the power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightSpeed

4th Dec sounds very optimistic for Pitcairn, I believe its somewhere in January. Should bring about a nice reduction in TDP, some increases in core clock and a decrease in memory clocks compared to Cayman.

---

Date sounds fair, if you look at the new Envy 15, its going to be launched about dec 9th I think and it has a hd 7xxx inside

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

And yes 60min on a 120hz display doesn't feel so great I can tell you first hand. Once you are accustomed to 120hz gaming, 60fps on a 120hz display feels like 30fps on a 60hz display. Its kind of a double edged sword as it improves the experience but requires more to do so ( ie those 3gb sli 580 setups )

---

lol? This is just wrong on so many fronts. 60fps @ 120hz is ALWAYS better than 60fps @ 60hz, and If I have to explain why you may not know at all whats the fuss about 120hz gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prava

lol? This is just wrong on so many fronts. 60fps @ 120hz is ALWAYS better than 60fps @ 60hz, and If I have to explain why you may not know at all whats the fuss about 120hz gaming.

---

Hmm, I agree with Chickenfeed on this one......anything below around 80 on mine feels not so good, feels butter smooth at 100+. I understand why it shouldn't feel like that but it sure does and its always baffled me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

2x7950 covers my needs for 2 years at least.

---

What if it's a flop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

What if it's a flop?

---

what is it with the hate lately in xtreme forums?

I was merely remarking on the fact that you speak with such certainty. How can you be so sure that two 7950s will last you no less than two years? Are you from the future? There are countless variables, not the least of which is whether the new architecture will even be good or not - as you may well know, the thing with new architecture is: it is almost never quite works out the way anyone hoped on the first try ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

I was merely remarking on the fact that you speak with such certainty. How can you be so sure that two 7950s will last you no less than two years? Are you from the future? There are countless variables, not the least of which is whether the new architecture will even be good or not - as you may well know, the thing with new architecture is: it is almost never quite works out the way anyone hoped on the first try ;)

---

Flop and Tahiti only go together when you are speaking of Giga/Teraflops...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordec911

flop and tahiti only go together when you are speaking of giga/teraflops...

---

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClockZ

Hmm, I agree with Chickenfeed on this one......anything below around 80 on mine feels not so good, feels butter smooth at 100+. I understand why it shouldn't feel like that but it sure does and its always baffled me.

---

This is totally not true. The higher the hz is, the better will be the experience at same framerates. Obviously you will be maxing your screen when you get 120fps at 8ms per frame, but thats not to say that at 80fps @ 120hz will be the same as 80fps @ 60hz, because its obviously not true no matter what you think.

So, you don't need more fps to enjoy 120hz, not at all. You will ALWAYS get a much better experience with 120hz no matter your framerate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prava

This is totally not true. The higher the hz is, the better will be the experience at same framerates. Obviously you will be maxing your screen when you get 120fps at 8ms per frame, but thats not to say that at 80fps @ 120hz will be the same as 80fps @ 60hz, because its obviously not true no matter what you think.

So, you don't need more fps to enjoy 120hz, not at all. You will ALWAYS get a much better experience with 120hz no matter your framerate.

---

Honestly I rather have better image quality (IPS Panel) than more FPS.
As long as the total lag isn't crazy.

I certainly hope the 7980 beats or matches the 6990 and uses as much power as my GTX 470 :p:

If so I'll have a worthy upgrade for my system. At the moment the GTX580 and ATI6980 just don't don't seem worth it
for me at 2560x1440 in a MITX system.

I have to agree on some of the points BHAVV makes though. Unless you "want" to run the latest games completely maxed out at AA, Ubersampling and Tesselation a mid range card like the GTX 560Ti is perfect at 1920x1080.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurz

Honestly I rather have better image quality (IPS Panel) than more FPS.
As long as the total lag isn't crazy.

---

I also completely agree with this.

I love my LED IPS Monitor, and I'd stay with it and it;s 60hz limit then have a 120hz TN panel....
There's just no comparison in My opinion really where it comes to image quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurz

Honestly I rather have better image quality (IPS Panel) than more FPS.
As long as the total lag isn't crazy.

---

i play WoW at a friends where i left a 120$ LED backlit TN monitor, and then i have a 27" IPS 10bit monitor at home that i paide 750$ for about 5 years ago. the difference is obvious after just a few seconds of playing. on the chepo monitor the colors are washed out, the whites are too pale, no black levels at all, and never look at it from the side, EVER, lol. monitors are one of the best investments for a PC since price/quality lasts a long time for the better products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurz

Honestly I rather have better image quality (IPS Panel) than more FPS.
As long as the total lag isn't crazy.

---

I don't own 2 DELL IPS monitors for nothing ;) So yeah, I'm on the same boat but I've actually had the chance to test one 120hz myself (my brother bought one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prava

I don't own 2 DELL IPS monitors for nothing ;) So yeah, I'm on the same boat but I've actually had the chance to test one 120hz myself (my brother bought one).

---

...and it sux, you still can't compare that (being a TN) even with e-IPS, which have very good response time and no lag whatsoever... LED is another joke, only RGB LED seems to make a difference but models based on that technology are very expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClockZ

Hmm, I agree with Chickenfeed on this one......anything below around 80 on mine feels not so good, feels butter smooth at 100+. I understand why it shouldn't feel like that but it sure does and its always baffled me.

---

If this is true, why do 120hz TV's feel better to watch when their input signal is still only 60hz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iconyu

If this is true, why do 120hz TV's feel better to watch when their input signal is still only 60hz?

---

Becaus it doesn't, it just the image post processing that happens in the TV, like the doubling of frames etc. but it often also has side effects like that images are to sharp etc.