AMD Cayman info (or rumor)

[Lanek]

Barts was a 5 shader part but tweaked if I'm reading the spec sheet correctly.
It seems Cayman will be the 4D shader reworked chip people were expecting.

Since Cayman has (currently rumoured) 1920 shaders vs Barts 1120 and they are beefed up as well, it would account for a greater performance difference than what you would expect on the same node.

IF the rumoured TDP of 300W is true for cayman and the 6870 is 150W max then it's likely that the clock speed of Cayman will be in the same sort of region.
Best case scenario is that it's almost twice the speed of the 6870.

Cayman also has a different tessellation solution and involves of chip loading of some sort.

I hope the 6970 is fast enough for 1920x1200 crysis at 60fps and it might just be plausible too that finally, a real crysis card exists

I really don't think 300W is plausible .... even the GTX480 was not at this level, and you have seen what was the reaction about it ... Why will you see AMD take the risk or have only the idea to release a single GPU card with 300W .......... don't feed the Fudzilla Fermi theory about Cayman ....

[Jowy Atreides]

I really don't think 300W is plausible .... even the GTX480 was not at this level, and you have seen what was the reaction about it ... Why will you see AMD take the risk or have only the idea to release a single GPU card with 300W .......... don't feed the Fudzilla Fermi theory about Cayman ....

Yeah, it is. More.




There was also a 512sp prototype review with 500W power draw or something.

Edit - confirmed. 204 watts more than the reference 480. People are quick to forget the power drinking reputation isn't over exaggerating.

[Jowy Atreides]

GTX480 can do it with a slight OC.
It really is quite amazing, though, that modern top end cards are barely good enough for a 3 year old game...

I honestly only have 620W in my power supply. A 480 with overclocking would send my card exploding to the moon.

Overclocking on the 480 alone would definitely kill my psu outright.

[ohnoitseddy]

..maybe i missed something? but the new cards from ati....well they suck? except for 2 benchmarks, they are slower than the 5800 series by like 10-15%? i don't see why everyone is praising them so much?

Yes, you missed something - a funny thing called "price".

[zerazax]

The leaked Cayman XT slides put it at > 225W rated TDP, so it would be more than a 5870.

People sifting through the driver files know that there's at least 2 SKUs with 4D arrangement

Its most likely that its Cayman + Antilles going to be in 4D. Given that the 6800's scale so well in CF, its likely some hardware changes were also made that will help the 6900's, especially the 6990.

From all the hints on Cayman, it looks like there will be more features/architecture changes on it than Barts has, meaning AMD might very well be targeting for the high end single GPU crown again with this generation

[Chrono Detector]

We need some specs now that AMD/ATI has released Barts. The 69xx series should be a killer since Barts performance is quite decent, for a mid range card.

[kuroikenshi]

I honestly only have 620W in my power supply. A 480 with overclocking would send my card exploding to the moon.

Overclocking on the 480 alone would definitely kill my psu outright.

I had the same issue, whenever you can look into Enermax's Evolution range. I do push my OC to the limits on it (for 24/7 setup) and the PSU takes rather well.. unlike my past thermal.

Furthermore after seeing AMD's orientation towards power consumption, I also am a believe that the fermy model of high consumption will surely not apply to Cayman, id the die is larger, well yeah it'll be more power hungry, but if AMD is releasing a dual GPU card I am sure they've done in full cognoscente of the consequences powerwise... dual 8 pin connection??

[Sam_oslo]

The leaked Cayman XT slides put it at > 225W rated TDP, so it would be more than a 5870.

People sifting through the driver files know that there's at least 2 SKUs with 4D arrangement

Its most likely that its Cayman + Antilles going to be in 4D. Given that the 6800's scale so well in CF, its likely some hardware changes were also made that will help the 6900's, especially the 6990.

From all the hints on Cayman, it looks like there will be more features/architecture changes on it than Barts has, meaning AMD might very well be targeting for the high end single GPU crown again with this generation

You are talking about architectural changes and new generation. What do you mean by these words, are we getting a shrink, you think?

[Alex-Ro]

When is Cayman supposed to show up ?

[Hornet331]

It really is quite amazing, though, that modern top end cards are barely good enough for a 3 year old game...

And still looks better then games released toady...

Anyway I hope there will be still a single chip card that has better performance then the previouse generation.

[Iconyu]

You are talking about architectural changes and new generation. What do you mean by these words, are we getting a shrink, you think?

No he's saying that Barts isn't a Cayman with bits chopped off, and that Barts only has some of the improvements that we were expecting from AMD.

[Mad Pistol]

Barts seems to be the best bits from 58xx and 57xx range of cards with extra tessellation performance and a couple extra features. The result is a 6870 that falls squarely between the 5850 and 5870 performance wise on a smaller chip, which results in lower production costs. If AMD has been able to refine the architecture this much over the previous generation, Cayman is going to be powerful, and Antilles is going to be a monster. AMD shouldn't have to break the 300watt standard to hit their target performance range.

Seriously, they released the 68xx series of cards as a teaser of what's to come. They know they've got something special with Cayman, and they just want to make us drool a little before releasing it. Hype is the most powerful selling factor behind a product, and it cannot be bought for any price. AMD has it at the moment, and Nvidia is trying to keep it down by announcing the GTX 580 and releasing a bugged benchmark that uses stupid amounts of tessellation.

Yeah, I'd say AMD/ATI is the game changer at the moment, and Nvidia is playing catchup. Nothing like having 90% of the DX11 card market locked up.

[Xoulz]

..maybe i missed something? but the new cards from ati....well they suck? except for 2 benchmarks, they are slower than the 5800 series by like 10-15%? i don't see why everyone is praising them so much?

Did u happen to notice their price...?

[Manabu]

Barts seems to be the best bits from 58xx and 57xx range of cards with extra tessellation performance and a couple extra features. The result is a 6870 that falls squarely between the 5850 and 5870 performance wise on a smaller chip, which results in lower production costs. If AMD has been able to refine the architecture this much over the previous generation, Cayman is going to be powerful, and Antilles is going to be a monster. AMD shouldn't have to break the 300watt standard to hit their target performance range.

I think that most of the die-size reduction was cutting off shaders, and cutting off double-precision FP support. Nothing like the HD3xxx --> HD4xxx transition. That is also why they are not refreshing HD57xx: they have already done those tricks in it, so they could get half of the performance of HD58xx in only half of the die size.

[tbone8ty]

November 22nd

[Sam_oslo]

I think that most of the die-size reduction was cutting off shaders, and cutting off double-precision FP support. Nothing like the HD3xxx --> HD4xxx transition. That is also why they are not refreshing HD57xx: they have already done those tricks in it, so they could get half of the performance of HD58xx in only half of the die size.

You have a good point there. these guys (both of them) are trying to repeat something similar to nVidia's G92-mess by using new numbers (68xx, 69xx, GTX 560, 580 etc ..) on th improvements (evolution) of "old" 40nm and fool consumers that they are getting a new generation.

I can't see why they are playing the number-game (68xx, 69xx, GTX 560, 580 etc ..) without a shrink to 22nm. They will soon run out of the number, in with this mess.

[zalbard]

I can't see why they are playing the number-game (68xx, 69xx, GTX 560, 580 etc ..) without a shrink to 22nm. They will soon run out of the number, in with this mess.

It is a non-issue, really. Look at Nvidia. GT9800 -> GTX280, etc...

[Sam_oslo]

It is a non-issue, really. Look at Nvidia. GT9800 -> GTX280, etc...

There is a lot of issues there, my friend. Why should they try to "fake" a new generation by new numbers, while it's a evolution/improvement based on the same node(40nm in this round).

I mean they should use the same (58xx, 59xx, GTX 462, 482, or something similar), because they don't have a shrink in this round.

[Chumbucket843]

I'm not that optimist that AMD will break 400 mm^2 for their graphic chip size anytime in the near future, ESPECIALLY using this buggered 40 nm process by TSMC, but we'll see.

i'm getting sick of repeating myself. there is nothing flawed about tsmc's 40nm process.

[zalbard]

Why should they try to "fake" a new generation by new numbers, while it's a evolution/improvement based on the same node(40nm in this round).

$$$ and market share.
AMD is on the roll, they can afford doing this right now.
It's not a completely new chip, but it has been sufficiently tweaked, so whether this is a new generation or not is a grey area, really.

[Sam_oslo]

$$$ and market share.
AMD is on the roll, they can afford doing this right now.
It's not a completely new chip, but it has been sufficiently tweaked, so whether this is a new generation or not is a grey area, really.

I'm sure they are tweaked and have a better PPP (performance, price, power usage) in this round. But this number-game is the "gray zone" if making a lot of confusions.

They should,'t change the first digits. They cold add something to the last digits to indicate improvements/evolutions on the same "old" 40nm node.

This is going to be a big mess, if not bigger than G92, at least as confusing. Why can't they keep it real?

[K404]

Yeah, it is. More.




There was also a 512sp prototype review with 500W power draw or something.

Edit - confirmed. 204 watts more than the reference 480. People are quick to forget the power drinking reputation isn't over exaggerating.

That info is erroneous 500W dissipation on air isn't possible and i'm highly suspicious of the power consumption chart you posted. I can say with 100% certainty that the 9800GTX and 5770 numbers are miles off.

[Jowy Atreides]

That info is erroneous 500W dissipation on air isn't possible and i'm highly suspicious of the power consumption chart you posted. I can say with 100% certainty that the 9800GTX and 5770 numbers are miles off.

Go google for other charts and prove me wrong.

The rest are all total system consumption and with a single 480, they were all mid 400 watt best case.

[Bobsama]

IMHO, you should wait for highend SKUs with completely functioning chip from the green corner before claiming that TSMC 40 nm process has been totally mastered, we got two dominant player in the graphic bussiness, not just AMD graphic division.

I got the impression that AMD might try a more aggressive stance in mArch improvement and modification using the higher end & higher priced yet lower volume Cayman compared to Bart which will be their bread & butter until 28 nm process arrive.

My view is that AMD has effectively mastered 40nm for graphics cards. As a prior poster stated, they started with RV740 (HD4770) and continued with all R800 chips and are now releasing R900 chips. Whatever problems nVidia has had with 40nm GeForce 200 or any GeForce 400 is not effecting AMD's ability to produce GPU's in sufficient quantities (despite months of artificial shortages surrounding HD5800).

Who knows--Cayman may suck ass and be only a little faster than HD5800. I doubt that for all the spec improvements though the law of diminishing returns once again applies in force. Rumors say that HD69x0 is to be 50-80% better in specs than HD68x0 counterparts but, just as we didn't know the core config for HD68x0 prior to launch, we don't know HD69x0 config yet.

[K404]

I saw the charts and discussed it at the time. The power consumption is wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. Material Science and Physics say "no"

Do you really think someone sat down and tested a 500W GPU that only had a dual-slot cooler and 6 & 8-pin power plugs? What do you think melted first?

Anyway... this is a Cayman thread