Radeon HD 7770 and 7750 Specs surface

[Alex-Ro]

You are not too shabby either We shall see tomorrow the real performance and o/c potential and stuff.

[informal]

We already know where will AMD position 7770 in their product stack. The point is that if they position it above 6790 and below 6850 then it can only be somewhere midway between these two and the spread is 10%. So 5% slower than 6850 is pretty much where it will land.I guess there will be games where it can be even faster than 6850 but overall that's the place where it will land. But when you count in OCing,TDP and price(after it settles a bit),it should be a good product. Sorry to hear you expected 5850/5870 killer... You will probably be disappointed by Pitcairn too with its performance versus 6970...

[Manicdan]

^the old days the X7X0 were much slower than the X8X0 products because in the days for 4800 and 5800s the top of the line was not a X9X0, so now they have a few extra products, the gap between them is all very small and something is available for every price range.

i could understand expecting the 7770 to beat a 5800, because i think we hoped the 7770 was faster than a 6870 and a 7870 faster than a 6970. but if thats not the case then maybe these will all be replaced with a bigger gpu in the next 10-14 months where each line gets another 15-25% faster.

[SKYMTL]

We already know where will AMD position 7770 in their product stack. The point is that if they position it above 6790 and below 6850 then it can only be somewhere midway between these two and the spread is 10%. So 5% slower than 6850 is pretty much where it will land.I guess there will be games where it can be even faster than 6850 but overall that's the place where it will land. But when you count in OCing,TDP and price(after it settles a bit),it should be a good product. Sorry to hear you expected 5850/5870 killer... You will probably be disappointed by Pitcairn too with its performance versus 6970...

The spread between the HD 6790 and HD 6850 was closer to 15% at release.

HOWEVER, this launch more than any other will come down to price. The HD 6790 currently retails for ~$120 before MIR while the HD 6850 is ~$150 before MIR. Even the GTX 560 muscles into this price point with MIRs. That's a seriously thin needle to thread so AMD needs to nail down their cost relative to performance in the current market. Not some mythological future market where they've discontinued everything else.

[cold2010]

PowerColor Radeon HD7770



http://www.neon24.de/PC-Hardware/Gra...70::27611.html

• Chip clock: 1000MHz, Memory clock: 1250MHz
• Chip: Cape Verde XT
• Memory interface: 128-bit
• Stream processors: 896
• Texture units: 16
• Manufacturing process: 28nm
• Maximum power consumption: not specified (operation), not specified (no load)
• DirectX: 11.1
• Shader model: 5
• Construction: dual-slot
• Dimensions: not specified
• Interface: PCIe 3.0
• Special features: Intel integrated 7.1 HD audio controller, CrossFireX

[informal]

That is strange. From here (heise.de) we have a bit different specs:

Chiptakt: 1000MHz, Speichertakt: 1250MHz • Chip: Cape Verde XT • Speicherinterface: 128-bit • Stream-Prozessoren: 640 • Textureinheiten: 16 • Fertigung: 28nm • Maximaler Verbrauch: keine Angabe (Betrieb), keine Angabe (Leerlauf) • DirectX: 11.1 • Shader Modell: 5 • Bauweise: keine Angabe • Abmessungen: keine Angabe • Schnittstelle: PCIe 3.0 • Besonderheiten: AMD Eyefinity, integrierter 7.1 HD Audiocontroller, unterstützt CrossFireX

[radier]

http://preisvergleich.hardwareluxx.de/735500

In the morning it was 896SP...now it is 640SP in description.

[bladerash]

First of all I meant architecture and therefor per shader performance, not transistor count per work done. If you want to compare it that way then with almost every step back you will see less transistors used (but more specialized) needed for particular task. You can't really add more features like improved tesselation, UVD encode block, DX11.1 extension, better caching, vastly improved compute and power gating (big transistor hog) with same transistor budget as older design.
What is important is how well new architecture is aligned with todays tasks as well as manufacturing process.
For me GCN is placed very well in both. Die sizes for Thaiti and Cape Verde are smaller than chips they replace and are much more efficient at dealing with todays tasks we expect them to run. Besides power consumption is just great on these parts compared to older gen!

Even after u take those improvements into account, you're still talking about an increase from 1 billion to 1,5 billion transistors. That's a 500 million or a 50% increase in transistors while decreasing shaders at the same time. There is no doubt GCN shaders are bigger, way bigger than an average VLIW5 shaders. For one GCN shader, you could've crammed 1.5 to 2 VLIW5/VLIW4 in the same die area which would have offered better performance for gaming. The biggest advantage GCN has, is its compute abilities which offers more than twice the performance of VLIW. For this, they did sacrificed some gaming performance.
It's not a gain-only architecture, they made a trade-off.

Im pretty sure a die-shrink from 40nm to 28nm would resulted into the things u said in those last 2 sentences, not necessary thanks to GCN. If you look at the transistor budget for HD7970.. that would've fitted two and a half Barts.
Check out the performance of HD6870 in crossfire and compare it with HD7970.

[Lightman]

Even after u take those improvements into account, you're still talking about an increase from 1 billion to 1,5 billion transistors. That's a 500 million or a 50% increase in transistors while decreasing shaders at the same time. There is no doubt GCN shaders are bigger, way bigger than an average VLIW5 shaders. For one GCN shader, you could've crammed 1.5 to 2 VLIW5/VLIW4 in the same die area which would have offered better performance for gaming. The biggest advantage GCN has, is its compute abilities which offers more than twice the performance of VLIW. For this, they did sacrificed some gaming performance.
It's not a gain-only architecture, they made a trade-off.

Im pretty sure a die-shrink from 40nm to 28nm would resulted into the things u said in those last 2 sentences, not necessary thanks to GCN. If you look at the transistor budget for HD7970.. that would've fitted two and a half Barts.
Check out the performance of HD6870 in crossfire and compare it with HD7970.

GCN shader core is not much bigger than VLIW5 shader core. AMD themself said that. Everything else is. GCN has way more cache and they are R/W to start with. ROP, TMU, Memory interface, PCIe 3.0 interface, I/O for 6 displays, UVD, encode block, cross-bar, etc. They take way more transistors than shaders itself. I would guess in small GPU like HD7770 shader core will be less than 50% of die area. To see what I'm talking about just google Trinity die shoot
Few extra points to think/read about:
- HD6870 no DP support compared to HD6970/HD7970
- same functionality chip implemented on 40nm process will usually have less transistors spend compared to 32nm or 28nm chip. In other words 28nm Juniper would have anywhere between 5% to 20% more transistors just to be efficiently implemented on new node.
- more than 1tri/clk is very expensive logic wise (HD6970 already paid that price but HD7970 is even more refined / not necessary will apply to Cape Verde)

You have a valid point in that GCN sacrifices some gaming performance compared to VLIW5/4 in yesterdays and todays games, but future engines or even current BF3/Civ5 are geared more towards what GCN and Fermi offer.
Lets see what small GCN chip can do in few hours Maybe it's not that bad, or thought I expect price to be too high in relation to older generation initially ...

[LordEC911]

GCN shader core is not much bigger than VLIW5 shader core. AMD themself said that. Everything else is. GCN has way more cache and they are R/W to start with. ROP, TMU, Memory interface, PCIe 3.0 interface, I/O for 6 displays, UVD, encode block, cross-bar, etc. They take way more transistors than shaders itself. I would guess in small GPU like HD7770 shader core will be less than 50% of die area. To see what I'm talking about just google Trinity die shoot
Few extra points to think/read about:
- HD6870 no DP support compared to HD6970/HD7970
- same functionality chip implemented on 40nm process will usually have less transistors spend compared to 32nm or 28nm chip. In other words 28nm Juniper would have anywhere between 5% to 20% more transistors just to be efficiently implemented on new node.
- more than 1tri/clk is very expensive logic wise (HD6970 already paid that price but HD7970 is even more refined / not necessary will apply to Cape Verde)

You have a valid point in that GCN sacrifices some gaming performance compared to VLIW5/4 in yesterdays and todays games, but future engines or even current BF3/Civ5 are geared more towards what GCN and Fermi offer.
Lets see what small GCN chip can do in few hours Maybe it's not that bad, or thought I expect price to be too high in relation to older generation initially ...

Saved me from having to type that much.
Would like to add a few things, scheduling and power gating.

Edit- RV770 and RV740 ALUs took up some 30-40% of the die area, give or take a little depending on exactly what you consider part of the ALU.

[Mungri]

I really dont like that the shader count was cut down from 800 on the previous *770s to 640 on these, and I didnt want to believe it before. It will be interesting to see how these perform, but I doubt that they are going to bring any significant performance increase in the <£150 price range.

[Miwo]

that thing is going to be so bandwidth starved.... but in any case, a much needed and significant stepup from 5770/6770
Should be fine for playing at 1080p with no AA, unless they plan on using more shader-based post processing AA/effects like Morphological AA

[SKYMTL]

that thing is going to be so bandwidth starved.... but in any case, a much needed and significant stepup from 5770/6770
Should be fine for playing at 1080p with no AA, unless they plan on using more shader-based post processing AA/effects like Morphological AA

A much needed and significant step up from the HD 5770 was the HD 6790....a card that was released for $149.

[Olivon]

http://chinese.vr-zone.com/10056/amd...7770-02142012/

[mAJORD]

Enjoy!

Less bw than 5770/6770.. Lower tdp bracket. almost doesnt seem like a replacement. Rather a class beteen x770 and x670

[kuroikenshi]

well the thing about this card is that it envelope should in theory be enough to put into HTPC's it should be rather easy to make low profile versions of this card. whilst that was not possible for its predecessors.

correct me if I was wrong on that Mr Rodent "SKYMTL"

[tajoh111]

Less bw than 5770/6770.. Lower tdp bracket. almost doesnt seem like a replacement. Rather a class beteen x770 and x670

Could kind of be like what happen with the 5870 --> 6870. No increase in performance, just a naming casualty/performance casualty.

Yeah, the bandwidth seems way too low. That is lower than a 4870 which is close to 4 years old and could perform very similarly to this card if those specs are true.

[cold2010]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...50-review.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ra...d-7770-review/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/X...per_Overclock/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7750_iCooler/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...7770_DirectCU/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H...770_CrossFire/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_7770_OC/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7770/
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7770/

HD 7770



HD 7750

[DJ_Datte]

Prices in Sweden: Sapphire 7770 149 USD, 7750 109 USD, excluding VAT.

[mAJORD]

More reviews..

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5541/a...edition-review
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...0-1gb-review/1 (7770)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...0-1gb-review/1 (7750)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...50-review.html
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/...clocked_review
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/artic...rd-Review/1489
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews.php?reviewid=1405
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...adeon-hd-7750/
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...on-hd-7770-oc/ (Sapphire OC edition)
http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...dition-review/
http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...ssfire-review/(Crossfire review)
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1854/1/
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...rde-GPU-Review
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/..._launch_review
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22473
http://tbreak.com/tech/2012/02/asus-hd-7750-review/ (7950 only)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...mark,3135.html
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-rade...ses/14879.html

[Tha Last Meal]

GIGABYTE GV-N56GOC-1GI GeForce GTX 560 $164.99 with Rebate
MSI N560GTX-M2D1GD5 GeForce GTX 560 $159.99 with Rebate
ASUS ENGTX560 DC/2DI/1GD5 GeForce GTX 560 $174.99 with Rebate
EVGA 01G-P3-1460-KR GeForce GTX 560 $174.99 with Rebate

HD 7770 Slower than GTX 560 (20%-25%)
and the ing Problem is AMD Priced this card HD 7770 $160!!!
So how the hell AMD Price this card In this way?
GTX 560 cost you between $160 and $175 and this card is Faster and better than HD 7770

Now the question is it worth buying this card HD 7770 ?
Simply not worth....Because you have an alternative (GTX 560) at the same price and better performance.

[~CS~]

Tha Last Meal, I cannot believe you are still not banned, you are such an obvious shill, it's not even funny. Your posting history has been either positive news for nvidia or negative news for AMD, until I called you out on it, after which you started posting news, that didn't really make sense, just to blend in.

So what ,that after rebate GTX is cheaper, for GTX 560 AMD has 6870 which it handily beats for less money !!! 6870 also beats this new card in raw performance, but this card has features, that 6870 simply does not, that's why it's currently at a premium.

Go shill elsewhere.

[informal]

It's no secret that price needs adjustment . IMO Techpowerup has summed it up nicely in the conclusion of their review. Card @ stock is slightly slower than 6850,around ~4% across all resolutions, while it offers around 15% perf. improvement when OCed(matching stock 5850 on average). It has great power characteristics too,both idle and load. AMD just needs to lower the price to ~6850 level and this card will sell good.

[cold2010]

Tha Last Meal, I cannot believe you are still not banned, you are such an obvious shill, it's not even funny. Your posting history has been either positive news for nvidia or negative news for AMD, until I called you out on it, after which you started posting news, that didn't really make sense, just to blend in.

You are not the judges of the people

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ing&highlight=

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...zed&highlight=

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...970&highlight=

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1st&highlight=

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...!!)&highlight=

[Mechanical Man]

It's no secret that price needs adjustment . IMO Techpowerup has summed it up nicely in the conclusion of their review. Card @ stock is slightly slower than 6850,around ~4% across all resolutions, while it offers around 15% perf. improvement when OCed(matching stock 5850 on average). It has great power characteristics too,both idle and load. AMD just needs to lower the price to ~6850 level and this card will sell good.

Maybe they are limiting demand...