AMD Releasing 28nm 7000 series December 6th [Heise.de]

[Silverforce11]

1. FUD thinks AIBs have high-end tahiti desktop cards already but sitting on it til Jan when AMD give them the go.

2. Current 40nm radeons are still selling well, there's a disincentive for AMD partners to be releasing brand new stuff while they are still sitting on stocks of a high demand product. That's what happened to 58xx, heaps of stocks that AIBs still released new models months after 6xxx release. I don't think they can be happy about that.

Makes sense there's no launch of desktop parts this year. But, what doesn't make sense, if AIBs have tahiti in stock, where's all the performance leaks?!

 

[3DVagabond]

1. FUD thinks AIBs have high-end tahiti desktop cards already but sitting on it til Jan when AMD give them the go.

2. Current 40nm radeons are still selling well, there's a disincentive for AMD partners to be releasing brand new stuff while they are still sitting on stocks of a high demand product. That's what happened to 58xx, heaps of stocks that AIBs still released new models months after 6xxx release. I don't think they can be happy about that.

Makes sense there's no launch of desktop parts this year. But, what doesn't make sense, if AIBs have tahiti in stock, where's all the performance leaks?!

I doubt they are sitting on stocks. Everyday you have something and don't sell it you are losing money.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Finally a worthy replacement for my 5870?
Looking at the BF3 benchmarks makes it hard to let go of the old trusty beast. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2182821

Too stripped down to really take those seriously.

3 more days and you will have more accurate benchmarks.

As for AMD cards, I just hope the GPU is not bigger, uses more power and under performs like Bulldozer hehe

 

[RussianSensation]

Too stripped down to really take those seriously.

They already updated their test to Beta version and enabled Ultra Quality:

 

[Madcatatlas]

Just look at the 6990...what a beast.

 

[Vdubchaos]

They already updated their test to Beta version and enabled Ultra Quality:

umm, same applies to Beta. EA/Dice already said that Beta is stripped down as far as graphics go...and I really hope they are right cause the game looked like crap.

Not even close to the videos they have been showing.

 

[happy medium]

Just look at the 6990...what a beast.

IM more impressed with the gtx570 , for a gpu thats out of memory its beating every single gpu card except the gtx580.
You can easily grab one for under 300$, it looks like its the best bang for the buck, so far.

The gtx 560ti looks like a best buy also beating the 6950 2gb for 40$ less.
Seems 1gb cards are good to go also at 1080p ultra settings ,HBO enabled and 4xaa.

The gtx470 looks mighty impressive also for an older card beating the 5850 and 6870.

 

[Firestorm007]

Just look at the 6990...what a beast.

Agreed! It's a monster. I bet with a few driver revisions, those scores are going to get a lot better. I'm really looking forward to this game. I'm pre-loading later today.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Agreed! It's a monster. I bet with a few driver revisions, those scores are going to get a lot better. I'm really looking forward to this game. I'm pre-loading later today.

Same, going to be playing it from time to time. It will definetly be worth the money from what i experianced in the Beta.

And i also think the radeons will have an edge on the geforces when the resolution increases to 1600p.

 

[-Slacker-]

IM more impressed with the gtx570 , for a gpu thats out of memory its beating every single gpu card except the gtx580.
You can easily grab one for under 300$, it looks like its the best bang for the buck, so far.

Then why isn't the gtx 470 beating the hd6870, despite having 25% more vram?

The gtx 560ti looks like a best buy also beating the 6950 2gb for 40$ less.
Seems 1gb cards are good to go also at 1080p ultra settings ,HBO enabled and 4xaa.

Are you absolutely sure the 2 gb 6950 outperforms the 1 gb model at that resolution?

The gtx470 looks mighty impressive also for an older card beating the 5850 and 6870.

It's as fast as the 6870 from what I can tell, and the hd 5850 has always been in a lower performance category, never meant to compete with the gtx 470 and the hd 5870, and later the 6870.

You must have known this, so what exactly was the purpose of this post?

 

[happy medium]

Then why isn't the gtx 470 beating the hd6870, despite having 25% more vram?

Look again it is, 34fps vs 33.

Are you absolutely sure the 2 gb 6950 outperforms the 1 gb model at that resolution?

Yes look again, the gtx560ti has 39 fps 69502gb has 38fps.

It's as fast as the 6870 from what I can tell, and the hd 5850 has always been in a lower performance category, never meant to compete with the gtx 470 and the hd 5870, and later the 6870.

It is faster than the 6870 in that chart. Looks at the fps not where its located on the chart.

The only AMD card on the chart beating gt560ti is the 6970 and the 200$ gtx560ti will overclock past 6970 speeds in BF3 to gtx570 levels.

My gtx 460 overclocked is as fast as a gtx560ti, which in that chart beats a 6950 2gb.

 

[Firestorm007]

nm

 

[96Firebird]

That graph with the 5 different CPUs needs to stop being circulated, it is a very poorly done comparison. For all we know, the Intel CPUs were tested with the Nvidia cards, while the AMD CPUs were tested with the AMD cards. This will favor the Nvidia cards because of the better CPU...

And I doubt partners are holding 7000 series stock to try to sell out 6000 series stock, they know that once they release the 7000 series part they will sell plenty of both... They could even mark up the 7000 series and that will help sell the leftover 6000.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Look again it is, 34fps vs 33.



Yes look again, the gtx560ti has 39 fps 69502gb has 38fps.



It is faster than the 6870 in that chart. Looks at the fps not where its located on the chart.

The only AMD card on the chart beating gt560ti is the 6970 and the 200$ gtx560ti will overclock past 6970 speeds in BF3 to gtx570 levels.

My gtx 460 overclocked is as fast as a gtx560ti, which in that chart beats a 6950 2gb.

on that chart, the following AMD cards beat the 560 ti, i dont know how you didnt notice, you must be blind:


6990
6970
6950
5870
5870 Eyefinity


then we have the following cards beating the 470 further down:

6870



And as a curiosity, why is the 5850 above the 470 when its minimums are the same but its average is lower?...

so happymedium, the 470 beats the 5850.

 

[happy medium]

And as a curiosity, why is the 5850 above the 470 when its minimums are the same but its average is lower?...

Because you go by averages not by minimums.
Just because a card dips for 1 second to say 33 fps does not mean its slower.
The gtx560ti's average fps is faster then all single gpu AMD cards except the 6970.

 

[Firestorm007]

Isn't this thread a discussion about AMD's 7 series and not about supersizing Nvidia cards. I'm confused.....

 

[happy medium]

That graph with the 5 different CPUs needs to stop being circulated, it is a very poorly done comparison. For all we know, the Intel CPUs were tested with the Nvidia cards, while the AMD CPUs were tested with the AMD cards. This will favor the Nvidia cards because of the better CPU...

No the AMD cpu's are shown to be just as fast in most cases IN THIS GAME.
unless you think a Phenom II x4 @ 4.0 will bottleneck a single 6950 or 6970.
The gpu is the bottleneck not the cpu.

 

[happy medium]

Isn't this thread a discussion about AMD's 7 series and not about supersizing Nvidia cards. I'm confused.....

Yea it somehow changed at posts 29 and 30.
Mabe people realize it for mobile 7 series gpu's, not desktop.

 

[Paul98]

Because you go by averages not by minimums.
Just because a card dips for 1 second to say 33 fps does not mean its slower.
The gtx560ti's average fps is faster then all single gpu AMD cards except the 6970.

Why? You should look at both. If average is close going with higher minimum is a good bet. Really you want a more consistent fps, so the higher minimum and lower average will give you a smoother gaming experience.

This is only one test, in another test it could just as easy go the other way. Unless these are benched many many more times not only on that rig but on other rigs you won't know what is actually faster.

 

[happy medium]

Why? You should look at both. If average is close going with higher minimum is a good bet. Really you want a more consistent fps, so the higher minimum and lower average will give you a smoother gaming experience.

This is only one test, in another test it could just as easy go the other way. Unless these are benched many many more times not only on that rig but on other rigs you won't know what is actually faster.

Not to be rude but we are way off topic.....

 

[-Slacker-]

HM: 1 fps faster with lower minimums ... *sigh* facepalm.jpg

Anyway, I'm surprised we're getting desktop 28 nms this year, in time for christmas even. I thought this time the mobile gpus would release first.

 

[RussianSensation]

EA/Dice already said that Beta is stripped down as far as graphics go...and I really hope they are right cause the game looked like crap.

Not even close to the videos they have been showing.

While I wouldn't go as far to say that the game looks like crap, it certainly doesn't look anything like the videos/screenshots shown to us for 6 months. I agree with you on that. I'll upgrade the thread in about a week. Looking at the Beta, I can only see performance get worse if graphics are even better. Perhaps BF3 will make a lot of people finally lust for those next generation cards because so far outside of Witcher 2, Dragon Age 2 and Shogun 2, no first person shooter in 2011 really brought an HD6970 and GTX580 to their knees (unless it meant enabling Tessellation aka Crysis 2 or Metro 2033 style).

 

[Stuka87]

No the AMD cpu's are shown to be just as fast in most cases IN THIS GAME.
unless you think a Phenom II x4 @ 4.0 will bottleneck a single 6950 or 6970.
The gpu is the bottleneck not the cpu.

Yeah, BF3 uses a quad core pretty well. My Phenom II never even got close to being maxed. And every other bench I did see showed just about any quad core CPU that was over 3.2GHz (ish) would switch it to being GPU bottlenecked.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Just to clear up some confusion:

Radeon HD 7900: Enthusiast
Radeon HD 7800: Performance
Radeon HD 7700: Mainstream

Both Enthusiast and Performance are part of the high-end, but Performance is obviously a lower tier. If they mean Performance parts then they mean the HD 7800 series, if we're to go by AMD's current naming scheme and if they'll continue using it--they probably will, otherwise why change it with the HD 6000 series?

 

[Vdubchaos]

While I wouldn't go as far to say that the game looks like crap, it certainly doesn't look anything like the videos/screenshots shown to us for 6 months. I agree with you on that. I'll upgrade the thread in about a week. Looking at the Beta, I can only see performance get worse if graphics are even better. Perhaps BF3 will make a lot of people finally lust for those next generation cards because so far outside of Witcher 2, Dragon Age 2 and Shogun 2, no first person shooter in 2011 really brought an HD6970 and GTX580 to their knees (unless it meant enabling Tessellation aka Crysis 2 or Metro 2033 style).

Well, to be honest, bringing top of the line graphics card to its knees is justified by the games graphics.

In videos I've seen, yes it would be justified.

Playing the beta, not justified at all. I thought Beta looked like glorified BC2 (which is not a bad thing, but FAR FAR FAR from videos)

I still have little hope, we shall see.