7970 GHz edition incoming!

[Lepton87]

Then what games do u want to see tested?

Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, CIV5, The witcher 2, Total War: shogun 2, Batman AC, Dragon Age 2, BF3, metro2033, AVP because those game are the most demanding on the market.
Including games like H.A.W.X 2 and not including games like Crysis or CIV5 is just lame.

 

[HurleyBird]

Power consumption does go up linearly with clock rate, but it goes up exponentially with voltages. A hypothetical 7975 or whatever they end up calling it could have identical or nearly so power consumption by using slightly lower vcore to get to 1150-1200 mhz.

Binning and temperature also have a significant impact on power draw.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

At stock speeds
A 7870 to 580 is as the 7970 is to 680, approx
7870 is slightly slower than 580 as is 7970 from 680

At probable overclocks
7870 oc to 580 oc is as the 7970 oc to 680 oc
7870 oc is a little faster than a 580 fully overclocked
Similarly 7970 oc is faster

However whether stock or overclocked, it depends on the game and settings, if both cards get over 60 fps minimum fps it hardly matters and if both cards get below 50 fps average it doesn't matter either, when neither case is true, if one card wins by at least 15% that is a true win and that rarely happens and happens from each side based on the game and setting, especially if overclocked

I see no reason to recommend gtx 580 over radeon 7870 if you don't do it in the other case.

 

[bryanW1995]

680 doesn't gain much after OC so OC7970 is usually faster. Personally I don't care about such minor victories because anything under 10% is not noticeable anyway. I just don't like that anand has no reservations about calling gtx680 the new king of the hill yet he didn't explicitly call 7950 faster than GTX580 while in actuality its lead over 580 is similar to 680 lead over 7970. nVidia flopped with its high-end chip and didn't release it and it's midrange chip can't claim convincing and meaningful victory at 2560. I want to see at the very least lead similar to GTX280/GTX285 over 4870/4890 or even gtx480 over Cypress or GTX580 over 6970. OC or stock nvidia cards were indisputably faster than AMDs but that's not the case now.

Um, Nvidia learned from their fermi 1 mistake by not trying to force out bigK before it was ready. Instead, they took a smaller design and scaled it up enough to slightly outperform AMD's high end. To me, that's very impressive. Let's give AMD the benefit of the doubt and say that gtx 680 is only 5% faster than 7970. However, we also have to say that nvidia's gpus is smaller, consumes less power, and it's quieter. Taking all of that into account, isn't gtx 680 actually much more impressive than gtx 480 was? Look, I'm not pushing for either side, but it sure looks to me like you're pushing hard for AMD right now. And not only that, but you're not even excited that we have competition and, hopefully, we'll soon see 79x0 price drops.

 

[Lepton87]

Taking all of that into account, isn't gtx 680 actually much more impressive than gtx 480 was? Look, I'm not pushing for either side, but it sure looks to me like you're pushing hard for AMD right now. And not only that, but you're not even excited that we have competition and, hopefully, we'll soon see 79x0 price drops.

No it's not, GTX480 was a gigantic leap over 5870 in DX11 performance, but that advantage was of little relevance at the time. And so far I don't see any price cuts and gtx680 is more expensive than 7970 where I live. I'm just not excited about souped-up mid-range design posing as high-end. It basically needs to have built-in auto overclocking to outperform 7970 leaving not much headroom for the end user

 

[bryanW1995]

But isn't 7970 really a "souped up midrange" offering as well when you compare it to bigK? Who gives a crap how they got there? The point is that instead of being 7 months late to the game, 10% faster, and MUCH louder/hotter/power hungry, this round NV is 2 1/2 months late to the game, 5% faster, and significantly quieter/cooler/less power hungry. And to top it all off, NV is actually CHEAPER this time instead of $150 more expensive like last time. Even the most optimistic fanboy projections can't fix this problem for AMD, only a new sku or a major price drop can clean this mess up.

 

[Lepton87]

But isn't 7970 really a "souped up midrange" offering as well when you compare it to bigK?

No, not really. It has solid DP performance and compute capabilities. Mid-range designs are focused almost solely on graphics performance as they are not meant for compute market. It's amd's philosophy to make sweet-spot dice instead of going all out with size. It might be even better than bigK for compute applications.

 

[Olikan]

No, not really. It has solid DP performance and compute capabilities. Mid-range designs are focused almost solely on graphics performance as they are not meant for compute market. It's amd's philosophy to make sweet-spot dice instead of going all out with size. It might be even better than bigK for compute applications.

the problem is, the sweet-spot strategy only works when your competition sucks at making chips...

amd was years fighting nvidia with a mid range chip....now that nvidia have an eficient chip, the sweet-spot strategy dies ( if bigK exist )

 

[mak360]

the problem is, the sweet-spot strategy only works when your competition sucks at making chips...

amd was years fighting nvidia with a mid range chip....now that nvidia have an eficient chip, the sweet-spot strategy dies ( if bigK exist )

Its only efficient bcoz its compute is below par (The GTX580 stomps the GTX680 in GPGPU), once nvidia puts together a compute part, am not so sure its going to be efficient than AMD GCN. suppose we will know closer to 2h/3h

 

[Idontcare]

I thought power increased by the square of voltage, but linearly compared to clock? There are other parts to a GPU than core (memory, and maybe fans though they tend to speed up as temperatures increase) but I would expect that a 21% increase in core speed would result in more than a marginal increase in wattage... like 18% even if it's not 21% Or am I missing something?

It has, as temperature increases so does the static power draw of the chip.

Power consumption does go up linearly with clock rate, but it goes up exponentially with voltages. A hypothetical 7975 or whatever they end up calling it could have identical or nearly so power consumption by using slightly lower vcore to get to 1150-1200 mhz. An easier move would be to just drop prices, of course.



I just pm'd IdontCare, he has some good explanations with charts/graphs/tables, hopefully he'll weigh in here in a little while.

Hey guys, I felt my ears burning and just knew somewhere on the vast intarwebz I was being lampooned for being a Nazi mod shill-hider, and also because someone was probably talking about power-usage versus temperature/voltage/clockspeed of a GPU

Hit this link for the long-story, read below for the abbreviated version

The graphic below is in relation to a CPU's power usage, but it universally applies to any IC in your rig, so just replace "CPU" with "GPU" and the end conclusion is identical:

The power usage rises with the square of the operating voltage and to the exponential power as a function of the operating temperature.

 

[Guovssohas]

In AMD's defense i must say this, it is easier to be late to the party in most cases, in this case about 3 months. Imagine if it was the other way around, Nvidia launched the 680 in january and AMD the 7970 now in late march, do you think the stock 7970 would trail the 680 by 5-10%?? They would have 3 months to tweak the hardware, just like Nvidia has done, they made sure to be faster. And also price..

Obviously this is wishful thinking now, but i do believe it would be just the opposite.

 

[buckshot24]

In AMD's defense i must say this, it is easier to be late to the party in most cases, in this case about 3 months. Imagine if it was the other way around, Nvidia launched the 680 in january and AMD the 7970 now in late march, do you think the stock 7970 would trail the 680 by 5-10%?? They would have 3 months to tweak the hardware, just like Nvidia has done, they made sure to be faster. And also price..

Obviously this is wishful thinking now, but i do believe it would be just the opposite.

Right, it's much easier to respond when you know what you are responding to. :hmm::hmm:

 

[bryanW1995]

I just love these "CSI: Idontcare" posts. :thumbsup:

snip

LOL!!

 

[Grooveriding]

But isn't 7970 really a "souped up midrange" offering as well when you compare it to bigK? Who gives a crap how they got there? The point is that instead of being 7 months late to the game, 10% faster, and MUCH louder/hotter/power hungry, this round NV is 2 1/2 months late to the game, 5% faster, and significantly quieter/cooler/less power hungry. And to top it all off, NV is actually CHEAPER this time instead of $150 more expensive like last time. Even the most optimistic fanboy projections can't fix this problem for AMD, only a new sku or a major price drop can clean this mess up.

This is about the sum of it. You cannot recommend a 7970 over a 680 to someone who is out there buying now.

The difference with this launch is there is nothing about the 680 to make you drop a 7970 for one, there were some arguments at 480 launch in favour of the 480 over the 5870. I made the switch for more VRAM and better multi-gpu scaling.

Both cards are guilty of being underwhelming in the amount of performance they delivered over the cards they replaced, the 7970 a little less so, but not by much. It is interesting that the 680 is not getting crucified the way the 7970 was on forums for its dissapointing perf. improvement over the 580, but I think it is getting the pass on that due to a mix of nvidia loyalism and the fact that nvidia priced the card cheaper. I think the pricing is a huge part of why the card has been so well received.

AMD could just as easily make waves and take the lead if they put out a 1ghz 7970 for $450. That would make the 7970 look like the better choice.

 

[n0x1ous]

It is interesting that the 680 is not getting crucified the way the 7970 was on forums for its dissapointing perf. improvement over the 580, but I think it is getting the pass on that due to a mix of nvidia loyalism and the fact that nvidia priced the card cheaper. I think the pricing is a huge part of why the card has been so well received.

I think they aren't getting as much flack because we all know Big K is coming. 7970 is the likely the top single GPU part AMD is releasing for the 7000 series (baring higher clocked versions of the same chip) If there was no Big K then GTX 680 would be much more disappointing. Probalby if NVIDIA launched first with $500 "mid range" part they would get more flack too, but since they came second they don't get as much crap for that.

 

[Grooveriding]

I think they aren't getting as much flack because we all know Big K is coming. 7970 is the likely the top single GPU part AMD is releasing for the 7000 series (baring higher clocked versions of the same chip) If there was no Big K then GTX 680 would be much more disappointing. Probalby if NVIDIA launched first with $500 "mid range" part they would get more flack too, but since they came second they don't get as much crap for that.

I really don't think that matters one way or the other. They are still selling half the performance increase they have in the past with their new flagship, for the same $500 pricetag with the 680 moniker. Whether there is a better card coming in however long or not, this is what is here now being sold.

I tend to think it is more the reasons I gave. ()

 

[Lepton87]

This is about the sum of it. You cannot recommend a 7970 over a 680 to someone who is out there buying now.

I don't agree. If someone doesn't OC then you are right. But if someone wants to get every lost ounce of performance then 7970 is easily slightly faster.

So Stock

Gaming at 2560.

680>7970

OC 680>OC 7970 if you can get GF cheaper and OC7970>OC680 if you can get radeon cheaper

 

[n0x1ous]

their new flagship

What you are saying is true, but is it their "true" flagship even though its positioned that way? No, I don't think it is. They are just taking advantage of the situation with the competition. If 7970 was released at 1.1ghz then GK104 would have been a 670ti

 

[bryanW1995]

This is about the sum of it. You cannot recommend a 7970 over a 680 to someone who is out there buying now.

The difference with this launch is there is nothing about the 680 to make you drop a 7970 for one, there were some arguments at 480 launch in favour of the 480 over the 5870. I made the switch for more VRAM and better multi-gpu scaling.

Both cards are guilty of being underwhelming in the amount of performance they delivered over the cards they replaced, the 7970 a little less so, but not by much. It is interesting that the 680 is not getting crucified the way the 7970 was on forums for its dissapointing perf. improvement over the 580, but I think it is getting the pass on that due to a mix of nvidia loyalism and the fact that nvidia priced the card cheaper. I think the pricing is a huge part of why the card has been so well received.

AMD could just as easily make waves and take the lead if they put out a 1ghz 7970 for $450. That would make the 7970 look like the better choice.

I think they aren't getting as much flack because we all know Big K is coming. 7970 is the likely the top single GPU part AMD is releasing for the 7000 series (baring higher clocked versions of the same chip) If there was no Big K then GTX 680 would be much more disappointing. Probalby if NVIDIA launched first with $500 "mid range" part they would get more flack too, but since they came second they don't get as much crap for that.

All things are relative. 7970 took all the heat for this generation's terrible price/performance improvement relative to previous gens. All 680 had to do was look better than 7970 in performance (check) and price/performance (check). They not only did that, but they are quieter/cooler/less power hungry on top of that (bonus points). gtx 680 still isn't very impressive, but it's the best we're going to get for a while and it smells significantly less bad than the alternative.

 

[rgallant]

I don't agree. If someone doesn't OC then you are right. But if someone wants to get every lost ounce of performance then 7970 is easily slightly faster.

So Stock

Gaming at 2560.

680>7970

OC 680>OC 7970 if you can get GF cheaper and OC7970>OC680 if you can get radeon cheaper

rant on:

at stock the 680 are overclocked so ,reviews calling a 680 @ stock are borked in my eyes

-reviewers saw the clock ramp up's in the benches and they should have been noted on the graphs.
-just like they do when testing any OC card.

xxx game
680 avg.clock's xxx = points\fps
7970 @925 = points\fps
580 @772 = points\fps

I think the 680 reviews are a scam when listing a 680 at 100x [gpu-z screen shot]then watching it bench a game @ 1200+ and not adding that .
-they do add the 680 = 20% faster , but not it's 20%oc

-what's the driff. when MSI-ab runs my cards @ 900 in 3D
or the 680 bios oc's from 1000 to 1300. both are oc and not by me.
-neither are at stock clock's but the 680 gets a pass because nv put it in the bios. what a joke.

note
no keyboards or fingers were injured in this rant.











=

 

[exar333]

rant on:

at stock the 680 are overclocked so ,reviews calling a 680 @ stock are borked in my eyes

-reviewers saw the clock ramp up's in the benches and they should have been noted on the graphs.
-just like they do when testing any OC card.

xxx game
680 avg.clock's xxx = points\fps
7970 @925 = points\fps
580 @772 = points\fps

I think the 680 reviews are a scam when listing a 680 at 100x [gpu-z screen shot]then watching it bench a game @ 1200+ and not adding that .
-they do add the 680 = 20% faster , but not it's 20%oc

-what's the driff. when MSI-ab runs my cards @ 900 in 3D
or the 680 bios oc's from 1000 to 1300. both are oc and not by me.
-neither are at stock clock's but the 680 gets a pass because nv put it in the bios. what a joke.

note
no keyboards or fingers were injured in this rant.











=

Do you also turn off your CPU turbo as well because it is 'cheating'? The boost is a NV design feature. AMD is more than welcome to do the same.

 

[Subyman]

rant on:

at stock the 680 are overclocked so ,reviews calling a 680 @ stock are borked in my eyes

-reviewers saw the clock ramp up's in the benches and they should have been noted on the graphs.
-just like they do when testing any OC card.

xxx game
680 avg.clock's xxx = points\fps
7970 @925 = points\fps
580 @772 = points\fps

I think the 680 reviews are a scam when listing a 680 at 100x [gpu-z screen shot]then watching it bench a game @ 1200+ and not adding that .
-they do add the 680 = 20% faster , but not it's 20%oc

-what's the driff. when MSI-ab runs my cards @ 900 in 3D
or the 680 bios oc's from 1000 to 1300. both are oc and not by me.
-neither are at stock clock's but the 680 gets a pass because nv put it in the bios. what a joke.

note
no keyboards or fingers were injured in this rant.

What? I have a 680, it doesn't overclock itself to 1200mhz. It does a 50mhz boost from time to time, which is a stock feature. Stock vs stock is all the graph needs to show. Having to show multiple graphs for every time the boost kicks in is really dumb. Reviewers didn't disable turbo mode on SB processors when running the review. Stock is stock is stock, there isn't much more to say about that.

 

[exar333]

This is about the sum of it. You cannot recommend a 7970 over a 680 to someone who is out there buying now.

The difference with this launch is there is nothing about the 680 to make you drop a 7970 for one, there were some arguments at 480 launch in favour of the 480 over the 5870. I made the switch for more VRAM and better multi-gpu scaling.

Both cards are guilty of being underwhelming in the amount of performance they delivered over the cards they replaced, the 7970 a little less so, but not by much. It is interesting that the 680 is not getting crucified the way the 7970 was on forums for its dissapointing perf. improvement over the 580, but I think it is getting the pass on that due to a mix of nvidia loyalism and the fact that nvidia priced the card cheaper. I think the pricing is a huge part of why the card has been so well received.


AMD could just as easily make waves and take the lead if they put out a 1ghz 7970 for $450. That would make the 7970 look like the better choice.

You hit the nail on the head here. I agree 100%.

In this generation (oddly) it was BETTER to release 2nd IMHO. AMD took most of the flak for the price increases and NV was able to swoop-in and price theirs just under AMD to appease folks. I still claim $499 is too much for the 680, but that's just my opinion. Either the 7970 or 680 would be good buys at $400 or below, that's just my opinion based on performance gains vs. last gen and what we should expect as consumers in the GPU market.

Finally, because the 680 does so well on the power consumption side, it makes the overall product more palatable. Efficiency should count for something.

 

[Grooveriding]

You hit the nail on the head here. I agree 100%.

In this generation (oddly) it was BETTER to release 2nd IMHO. AMD took most of the flak for the price increases and NV was able to swoop-in and price theirs just under AMD to appease folks. I still claim $499 is too much for the 680, but that's just my opinion. Either the 7970 or 680 would be good buys at $400 or below, that's just my opinion based on performance gains vs. last gen and what we should expect as consumers in the GPU market.

Finally, because the 680 does so well on the power consumption side, it makes the overall product more palatable. Efficiency should count for something.

Normally I wouldn't care, if the 680 was more efficient but slower than the 7970 across the board, to me, the 7970 would be better. But when it comes with also being faster in the games I am going to play it is nice.

Even though I plan to watercool the card, it sill means less heat for my loop to dissipate and less hot air blowing out of my system. Coming from 480s I think I could stay on air and still be more than satisfied with either a 680 or 7970. I couldn't believe how quiet these cards under loud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svRvAjgfLQ&list=UUXuqSBlHAE6Xw-yeJA0Tunw&index=6&feature=plcp

Starts at 7:10 in.

 

[blackened23]

Normally I wouldn't care, if the 680 was more efficient but slower than the 7970 across the board, to me, the 7970 would be better. But when it comes with also being faster in the games I am going to play it is nice.

Even though I plan to watercool the card, it sill means less heat for my loop to dissipate and less hot air blowing out of my system. Coming from 480s I think I could stay on air and still be more than satisfied with either a 680 or 7970. I couldn't believe how quiet these cards under loud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svRvAjgfLQ&list=UUXuqSBlHAE6Xw-yeJA0Tunw&index=6&feature=plcp

Starts at 7:10 in.

Groove, there is almost no reason to water cool a 680 at this time. First of all, the reference card has a 4 phase VRM (ie not good) and the reference cooler is *dead quiet*. I was actually shocked by how quiet the ref cooler is, it is fantastic.

But as far as water cooling? I don't see a reason. The reference VRM is cheap, the OC scaling isn't all that great (in my usage anyway) and the card is quiet anyway. If you want to water cool, wait for a MSI lightning card with a 12 phase VRM and better components. All of the reference cards are built by nvidia for their partners and definitely don't use components that lend themselves to OC'ing. (at least not at the enthusiast level)

Until more tools are released to truly manipulate the 680, I think its a moot point. I'd be lying if I said I was happy with the 680 overclocking situation, but it is what it is. Hopefully AIB makers get some cards out there with ways to manage the voltage and better VRMs. Whats more worrisome is minimal OC scaling in certain cases, but the jury is still out on that one.