Page 92 of 149 FirstFirst ... 428289909192939495102142 ... LastLast
Results 2,276 to 2,300 of 3724

Thread: AMD Cayman info (or rumor)

  1. #2276
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    250
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojoZ View Post
    Better than the trollboat. Hows that working out for yah?
    Troll boat !! Nothing of that sort.

    nothing is confirmed yet...
    Case: HAF-X
    CPU: AMD phenom II X6 1090T@4GHz
    Motherboard: Asus CHIV formula
    GPU: 2x 6870
    RAM: Patriot Sector 5 2x4GB
    HDD: Crucial M4 256GB

    Can you? On AIR
    Better? -- On AIR

  2. #2277
    Xtreme X.I.P. Particle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    3,219
    Pre-release price slips are usually a lot higher than what they actually end up selling for. It's like this is you guys' first GPU launch or something. C'mon, it's the same crap every time.
    Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
    As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.

    Rule 1A:
    Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.

    Rule 2:
    When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.

    Rule 2A:
    When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.

    Rule 3:
    When it comes to computer news, 70% of Internet rumors are outright fabricated, 20% are inaccurate enough to simply be discarded, and about 10% are based in reality. Grains of salt--become familiar with them.

    Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!

    Random Tip o' the Whatever
    You just can't win. If your product offers feature A instead of B, people will moan how A is stupid and it didn't offer B. If your product offers B instead of A, they'll likewise complain and rant about how anyone's retarded cousin could figure out A is what the market wants.

  3. #2278
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Particle View Post
    Pre-release price slips are usually a lot higher than what they actually end up selling for. It's like this is you guys' first GPU launch or something. C'mon, it's the same crap every time.
    This.

    Obviously some shops want to catch up uninformed people with those prices, maybe someone buys at it.

  4. #2279
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    66
    I thought this would fit here

    Source


    This is from the largest swedish computer site and thier "close source to AMD" is saying that 6950 will have 1440 streamprocessors. I still think 1536 SP count is the right one. And i might add that they were wrong about the 6870/6850 specs 1 week before launch and that was from the same "close source".

  5. #2280
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    743
    So far originally Fudzilla reporting the 1536. Now we have Edison from Chiphell and that site showing a lower SP count than other rumors. The though of Fudzilla actually being right this time kinda threw up in my mouth a little.

  6. #2281
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoran View Post
    I honestly do not believe that 1536SP is right, as we know it's going to be larger in size than Cypress and we also know that Cypress has 1600SP. Unless, they quadrupled everything else... and that does not make any sense to me either...
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    I really hope the price/performance ratio is great. Otherwise we will be stuck with overpriced GTX570 and GTX580 (and 69x0 cards, obviously) for a while.

    Hopefully you're correct. 1536 does look very disappointing, indeed. Still less than Radeon 5870 has. Hard to believe that...
    Quote Originally Posted by kadozer View Post
    So far originally Fudzilla reporting the 1536. Now we have Edison from Chiphell and that site showing a lower SP count than other rumors. The though of Fudzilla actually being right this time kinda threw up in my mouth a little.
    As someone said a page ago, Neliz from beyond3d confirmed it.

    True or False?

    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=5693

    If this is true, we should be trusting that forest guy a lot more, because he leaked those specs a month and a half ago. Also I think SKYMTL might be vindicated to some extent telling you guys to real back your expectations a bit and you guys just hammered on him when he was just trying to do you guys a favor.
    Last edited by tajoh111; 12-09-2010 at 12:24 PM.
    Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
    6gb OCZ platinum
    4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
    2*640 WD Blacks
    750GB Seagate.

  7. #2282
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    As someone said a page ago, Neliz from beyond3d confirmed it.

    True or False?

    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=5693

    If this is true, we should be trusting that forest guy a lot more, because he leaked those specs a month and a half ago.
    He would of gotten all the credit too then he goes a step backwards in credibility with that joke badly photoshopped slide he posted as his source.

  8. #2283
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    As someone said a page ago, Neliz from beyond3d confirmed it.

    True or False?

    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=5693

    If this is true, we should be trusting that forest guy a lot more, because he leaked those specs a month and a half ago. Also I think SKYMTL might be vindicated to some extent telling you guys to real back your expectations a bit and you guys just hammered on him when he was just trying to do you guys a favor.
    That tree-guy was also one of the first with a Juniper card as well so I believe he could be trusted (he posted a picture of it).

  9. #2284
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    66
    U guys know that i was talking about the 6950 right? So lets say 6950 has these 1440 SP and 6970 has 1536, so why does this Faud guy keep saying its a "big hot chip". If 6970 is below 1600 SP count and using 4vliw wich saves 10% chip space, then i can not see why 6970 would be any bigger than 5870. These things just confuses me , were STILL on 40nm here.

  10. #2285
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin View Post
    U guys know that i was talking about the 6950 right? So lets say 6950 has these 1440 SP and 6970 has 1536, so why does this Faud guy keep saying its a "big hot chip". If 6970 is below 1600 SP count and using 4-wliw wich saves 10% chip space, then i can not see why 6970 would be any bigger than 5870. These things just confuses me , were STILL on 40nm here.
    Yes and there are more rumor places pointing to 6970 being 1536 now. As for Faud, he has lousy grammar and likes to cover his bases is all I can think of.

  11. #2286
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin View Post
    This is from the largest swedish computer site and thier "close source to AMD" is saying that 6950 will have 1440 streamprocessors. I still think 1536 SP count is the right one. And i might add that they were wrong about the 6870/6850 specs 1 week before launch and that was from the same "close source".
    1440/64=22.5 SIMDs

    So they didn't get the 6950 spec correct either. 1408 would be possible though.

  12. #2287
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin View Post
    U guys know that i was talking about the 6950 right? So lets say 6950 has these 1440 SP and 6970 has 1536, so why does this Faud guy keep saying its a "big hot chip". If 6970 is below 1600 SP count and using 4vliw wich saves 10% chip space, then i can not see why 6970 would be any bigger than 5870. These things just confuses me , were STILL on 40nm here.
    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=4519

    According to this guy who seems to have the cards way before hand and said the 6970 has 1536 shaders, we can inference the 6950 might have 1408 shaders.
    Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
    6gb OCZ platinum
    4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
    2*640 WD Blacks
    750GB Seagate.

  13. #2288
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    1408 is it

  14. #2289
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin View Post
    So lets say 6950 has these 1440 SP
    It is simply impossible. SP count in Cayman should be divided by 64. 1440 does not.

  15. #2290
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,207
    On another note for AMD buyers, doesn't the 5870 possibly sound like the much better buy at $250 now?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...x=0&y=0&Page=1

    I think unless cayman xt ends up 60% faster than the 5870, it is currently the way better buy and it would be better to buy them before they went out of stock if your still on 3870 or maybe 4870.
    Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
    6gb OCZ platinum
    4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
    2*640 WD Blacks
    750GB Seagate.

  16. #2291
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    On another note for AMD buyers, doesn't the 5870 possibly sound like the much better buy at $250 now?

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...x=0&y=0&Page=1

    I think unless cayman xt ends up 60% faster than the 5870, it is currently the way better buy and it would be better to buy them before they went out of stock if your still on 3870 or maybe 4870.
    most look like 270 after rebates, which makes some sense considering the 6870 is 250
    2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
    GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
    Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
    XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case

  17. #2292
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    I always say that if people aren't worried about power/heat, the last gen's high end cards when EOL are a pretty good deal for the budget conscious

    Too bad 5850's are still hovering $200 cause they're still a killer card

  18. #2293
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,207
    Quote Originally Posted by zerazax View Post
    I always say that if people aren't worried about power/heat, the last gen's high end cards when EOL are a pretty good deal for the budget conscious

    Too bad 5850's are still hovering $200 cause they're still a killer card
    It's amazing what competition can bring to the landscape. Who has missed such price drops for some very relevant hardware.
    Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
    6gb OCZ platinum
    4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
    2*640 WD Blacks
    750GB Seagate.

  19. #2294
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    It's amazing what competition can bring to the landscape. Who has missed such price drops for some very relevant hardware.
    Well people get caught up in the numbers and think that "oh that's old news"

    It's less true for new architectures of course, but when the 5800's were released, $100 4850's and $190 4890's were incredible deals

  20. #2295
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by zerazax View Post
    I always say that if people aren't worried about power/heat, the last gen's high end cards when EOL are a pretty good deal for the budget conscious

    Too bad 5850's are still hovering $200 cause they're still a killer card
    normally I would agree but in the case of the 5870 it's a toss up based on the games you play. the 6870 tends to be pretty close when Tesselation is involved so I would say it is a better future choice over the 5870 which has lackluster tess performance.

    as for the 1536sp's for 6970... that would be plain disappointing... considering that would put both the 6970 and 6950 with LESS shaders then the 5870 and 5850, yes the performance per shader is vastly better but by how much with lower clocks...

    but come to think about it the same thing happened with the 6870, the consensus and rumors for the longest time were that it had 1280 shaders and it was not till a few days before the launch that we found out it only has 1120. kinda the reverse of the 4870 effect.
    CPU: Intel Core i7 3930K @ 4.5GHz
    Mobo: Asus Rampage IV Extreme
    RAM: 32GB (8x4GB) Patriot Viper EX @ 1866mhz
    GPU: EVGA GTX Titan (1087Boost/6700Mem)
    Physx: Evga GTX 560 2GB
    Sound: Creative XFI Titanium
    Case: Modded 700D
    PSU: Corsair 1200AX (Fully Sleeved)
    Storage: 2x120GB OCZ Vertex 3's in RAID 0 + WD 600GB V-Raptor + Seagate 1TB
    Cooling: XSPC Raystorm, 2x MCP 655's, FrozenQ Warp Drive, EX360+MCR240+EX120 Rad's

  21. #2296
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristers Bensin View Post
    U guys know that i was talking about the 6950 right? So lets say 6950 has these 1440 SP and 6970 has 1536, so why does this Faud guy keep saying its a "big hot chip". If 6970 is below 1600 SP count and using 4vliw wich saves 10% chip space, then i can not see why 6970 would be any bigger than 5870. These things just confuses me , were STILL on 40nm here.
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=1480

    Quote Originally Posted by Aten-Ra View Post
    I was thinking about the new dual core (Graphics engines) and the 4-way VLIW architecture in Cayman,

    Starting with the front end, the ILP (Instruction Level Parallelism) must be the same or better than Barts (6800 series) and the new dual core design seems better in TLP (Thread Level Parallelism). Doubling the Graphics engines in order to have a second Tessellator unit will increase the transistor count and that means it will take more space. So the new front end will be bigger than Barts in size.

    Because the new 4-way VLIW don’t have a specialized T (Transcendental) unit, its job is done by the 3 out of 4 shaders insight the SP in the new VEC-4. I believe that when they calculate T(sin, cos etc) the new 4-way VLIW will be slower that the previous 5-way VLIW by up to 10-20%. FP performance could be almost the same as VEC-5 (5 VLIW) per SP but at some instances it could be slower by up to 10%. The new VEC-4 saves them 10% space per SP so in theory they could put 10% more SPs and keep the same size.

    One more problem with size will be the Texture units. Because Tex Units are part of the SIMD, and we will have more SIMDs than Cypress (20) they will increase the size of the die. I have no idea how big the Tex Units are but if Cayman have 30 SIMDs (120 TMUs) then they will increase the die size a lot.

    Another problem will be the need to connect all those SIMDs between them and that’s the job for the Crossbar. If we have 30 SIMDs and 1920 shaders, Cayman has 20% more shaders than Cypress and it will need more connecting lines and bigger crossbar. That will increase the complexity of the chip and will increase the size.
    One more side effect of this complexity is that it could effect the yields because more broken lines could happen in manufacturing and more copper could effect the thermal characteristics of the chip.

    From my point of view 120 TMUs are too much and if AMD wants to keep the die size close to Cypress then they will need to cut the SIMD count to 24 SIMDs and 96 TMUs. If the new 4-way VLIW have the same performance with the old VEC-5 and they will increase the ILP and TLP in the front end, then with 24 SIMDs and a dual Core architecture for 2x Tessellation performance, they will have a small chip at 360-380mm2 with 20% more performance in DX-9-10 but 2x in DX-11 Tessellation.
    A Dual Front End (Double Tessellation Units), 24 SIMDs with 16 more TMUs and beefed up ROPs will add to the die size even if they save 10% from shaders with the new VLIW-4 architecture.

    IMO Cayman is designed with DX-11 and Tessellation in mind and by keeping the small die size philosophy.

    20% more performance than Cypress in DX-9/10 and 2x performance in DX-11 Tessellation with a small die size and at the same lithography (40nm) is a nice engineering accomplishment
    Intel Core i7 920@4GHz, ASUS GENE II, 3 x 4GB DDR-3 1333MHz Kingston, 2x ASUS HD6950 1G CU II, Intel SSD 320 120GB, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit, DELL 2311HM

    AMD FX8150 vs Intel 2500K, 1080p DX-11 gaming evaluation.

  22. #2297
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    1,940
    i think that the 1920SP rumor was born with the 384 SIMDs

    people simply took 384SIMD*5D and ended up with 1920SPs and this number just stayed in the rumor mill even though it was 384 SIMD*4D
    Core i7 2600k|HD 6950|8GB RipJawsX|2x 128gb Samsung SSD 830 Raid0|Asus Sabertooth P67
    Seasonic X-560|Corsair 650D|2x WD Red 3TB Raid1|WD Green 3TB|Asus Xonar Essence STX


    Core i3 2100|HD 7770|8GB RipJawsX|128gb Samsung SSD 830|Asrock Z77 Pro4-M
    Bequiet! E9 400W|Fractal Design Arc Mini|3x Hitachi 7k1000.C|Asus Xonar DX


    Dell Latitude E6410|Core i7 620m|8gb DDR3|WXGA+ Screen|Nvidia Quadro NVS3100
    256gb Samsung PB22-J|Intel Wireless 6300|Sierra Aircard MC8781|WD Scorpio Blue 1TB


    Harman Kardon HK1200|Vienna Acoustics Brandnew|AKG K240 Monitor 600ohm|Sony CDP 228ESD

  23. #2298
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by '[XC
    hipno650;4659841'.

    as for the 1536sp's for 6970... that would be plain disappointing... considering that would put both the 6970 and 6950 with LESS shaders then the 5870 and 5850, yes the performance per shader is vastly better but by how much with lower clocks...
    Clocks are higher - 880 and 800 vs. 850 and 725

    Plus, it isn't shaders are equivalent - it's actual SIMDs

    1536/4 = 384 > 1600/5 = 320

  24. #2299
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    26
    If it takes 1536 shaders to perform better than the GTX 580 then I'm down...

  25. #2300
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,128
    Not only is 384 more than 320, but hasn't there been rumors about improved ROPs aswell?

Page 92 of 149 FirstFirst ... 428289909192939495102142 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •