AMD HD7XXX Series - Latest leaked details - Chiphell

[LordEC911]

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.

[Manicdan]

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.

[iddqd]

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.

[Mungri]

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.

[Lanek]

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..

[Particle]

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.

[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.

[Tenknics]

has this been posted yet? its nice and neat!

[ryan92084]

january 2012 may or may not be very interesting

[Lanek]

has this been posted yet? its nice and neat!

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 ..

[Mungri]

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.

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.

[ClockZ]

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.

[Particle]

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.

[Mungri]

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.

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.

[Chickenfeed]

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.

[UNTAMED]

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.

[Mungri]

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.

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.

[Jodiuh]

Breakdown of a $1000 GPU setup:

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

[Mungri]

Breakdown of a $1000 GPU setup:

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

Spot on

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

[wez]

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

[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

[Mech0z]

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

[Mungri]

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).

[eXa]

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)

[ajaidev]

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 . 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.