Computex: AMD working on improved ref coolers for HD9000, will compete with GK110

[parvadomus]

What? The GTX680 is faster than the 7970. :\

It barely outperformed it on launch, with a much higher core clock, and thanks to AMD drivers. :'(

 

[2is]

I know this is a matter of opinion, but I see it the other way around. Nvidia answered Tahiti with gk104 quite well. Tahiti was generally faster most of the time, but performance on the whole was very close and continues to be with recent releases . Titan was not an answer to Tahiti, it is in it's own league in both performance and price. The difference between each company's best card has not been this big since the 8800gtx days.

Or more recently, the HD 5870 days.

 

[SirPauly]

It took until Big Kepler for nVidia to have a real answer for Tahiti.

The GK-104 easily competed with Tahiti and arguably still a faster chip over-all out-of-box.

 

[Rvenger]

The GK-104 easily competed with Tahiti and arguably still a faster chip over-all out-of-box.

Not with a 7970GE.

And the 680 needs a higher stock clock to compete with Tahiti. 7970 and 680 are roughly equal at stock clocks.

At launch the 680 was faster. Not anymore



Wow I can't believe this crap is being spewed 1 year later. Haters gonna hate I guess.

 

[sontin]

7970GHz? Yes, which was buyable nearly 4 1/2 months after the GTX680...

And the GTX680 is still faster than the 7970.

It barely outperformed it on launch, with a much higher core clock, and thanks to AMD drivers. :'(

And the 7970 needs more power to compete with the GTX680...

 

[SirPauly]

Not with a 7970GE.

Sure it does -- the GTX 770 (GK-104 derivative) easily competes with the HD 7970ghz edition over-all, out-of-box.

 

[tential]

7970GHz? Yes, which was buyable nearly 4 1/2 months after the GTX680...

And the GTX680 is still faster than the 7970.



And the 7970 needs more power to compete with the GTX680...

Talking power consumption when we're talking high end cards is so dumb. Power is cheap, you're running a performance rig not a cool/quiet rig.

It's something people CONSISTENTLY use to muddy the waters when they're wrong.

"Ya it performs better but uh... IT USES MORE POWER SO IT'S BAD"

Just stop, please. It's annoying.

 

[sontin]

Yeah, and talking about clocks makes more sense? Sure.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[SirPauly]

Wow I can't believe this crap is being spewed 1 year later. Haters gonna hate I guess.

It really would be helpful to read my posts:

The GK-104 easily competed with Tahiti and arguably still a faster chip over-all out-of-box.

Single Gk-104 encompasses the GTX 660 ti, GTX 670, GTX 680, GTX 770 -- Single Tahiti may encompass 7950, 7950 boost, 7970, 7970 ghz edition, 7870XT

Gk-104 easily competed with Tahiti and arguably still a faster chip over-all, out-of-box.

 

[tential]

Yeah, and talking about clocks makes more sense? Sure.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not disagreeing either, the Core Clock comment was retarded as well. I just hate it when everyone is talking how fast a chip is and how well it performs, and then people use derailing comments on core clocks, power consumption, etc. to talk about a chip's gaming performance.

Don't take the bait.

 

[rgallant]

It really would be helpful to read my posts:



Single Gk-104 encompasses the GTX 660 ti, GTX 670, GTX 680, GTX 770 -- Single Tahiti may encompass 7950, 7950 boost, 7970, 7970 ghz edition, 7870XT

Gk-104 easily competed with Tahiti and arguably still a faster chip over-all, out-of-box.

7970GHz? Yes, which was buyable nearly 4 1/2 months after the GTX680...
using sontin's statement
how many months did it take for the gtx 770 to come out after the faster 7970ghz ?

 

[SirPauly]

Talking power consumption when we're talking high end cards is so dumb.

No, it's not dumb, based on third party sites investigate power consumption and an important metric and important for multi-GPU as well because it may be important to gamers. Virtually every third party review investigates power with higher end GPU's and platforms.

Is it the most important? Not to me and more on the bottom of the 'important' totem pole! Certainly something to investigate, read, learn discuss, talk about! However, with Fermi my constructive nit-pick was performance per watt and happy to see this improved with Kepler!

 

[SirPauly]

7970GHz? Yes, which was buyable nearly 4 1/2 months after the GTX680...
using sontin's statement
how many months did it take for the gtx 770 to come out after the faster 7970ghz ?

I didn't quote Sontin.

 

[sontin]

http://boards.4chan.org/g/res/34411523

 

[SirPauly]

Cool, more potential choices.

 

[SirPauly]

HD 8970

Curacao XT 28nm
2304SP
48ROP
3GB GDDR5 384bit
1000/6500MHz
250W TDP
$550

http://images.4chan.org/g/src/1370695817089.jpg

 

[24601]

http://images.4chan.org/g/src/1370695817089.jpg

Finally some new information!!

Looks like they might have given up on blowers though....

Maybe they didn't want to spend the money on making a good blower.

I don't see the point of just making basically a Twin Frozr III as reference cooler.
It's not like the OEMs haven't been offering this kind of stuff since forever.

I was hoping for something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161420

As that blower is exceptional. They just need to connect the VRM heatsink to the main heatsink and it would be better than most OEM solutions, and in a blower!

 

[bystander36]

The thing that makes a blow great is not something you can see. It is about how good the fan works in relation to noise. I was shocked at how much better the reference 680 blower was in comparison to the reference 6950 blower. At the same percentage, the 680's blower was much quieter and kept it about the same temps.

 

[2is]

The thing that makes a blow great is not something you can see.

I disagree.

 

[blastingcap]

:::::raises glass:::::: :thumbsup:

If you didn't butt in--AFTER Keys had already answered my post--I would have asked Keys, he would have answered, I would have answered okay, and that would be that. Stop it already with your baiting and stirring up trouble. You are usually on-topic with cogent posts in the CPU forum so I'm surprised at how you are here. Let's get back on topic.

How was it bad? The 7970 was a great card upon release. It took until Big Kepler for nVidia to have a real answer for Tahiti. I hope AMD can pull off another great GPU once 20nm is ready.

I was talking about how I doubt 20nm TSMC will see problems on the scale of 40nm TSMC (which I think everyone can agree got off to a bad start). And I agree the 7970 was a great card upon release, especially for overclockers. Competition is good for consumers and I definitely want to see all companies thrive and compete with each other.

 

[ICDP]

Gk-104 easily competed with Tahiti and arguably still a faster chip over-all, out-of-box.

The facts are that for 2.5 months HD 7970 was by far the fastest GPU available. GTX680 was released and had a marginal performance advantage at 1920x1080 and traded blows at higher res. Then 3 months later 7970 GE was released and took the crown back with a marginal performance advantage. For the 8 months until Titan the HD 7970 GE had been the fastest GPU available.

You could argue that in some games Nvidia had the edge but that is not even close to saying "faster over all out of the box". The reviews agree with this and show that for most of 2012 AMD had the overall fastest single GPU available. Now Titan, GTX780 and the GTX770 are out we are to believe Tahiti cards were nothing special? I have no qualms stating Gk-104 and derivatives are great GPUs but I was never under any illusion that overall that Tahiti was not faster on average.

HD 7850 > GTX650Ti
HD 7870 > GTX660
HD 7950 > GTX660Ti
HD 7970 > GTX 670
HD 7970 GE > GTX680

For the 1st time in a number of GPU generations AMD not only competed but were faster at almost ALL price levels.

 

[blackened23]

I'm not flaming, nor am I posting with regards to camping out with a particular vendor. All I did was disagree and post reasons why, with a "hahaha" to start. Don't take offense so easily! It would be great if I'm wrong.

You're right of course, my mistake. I'm hesitant about AMD as well but it would be nice for them to suddenly pull an ace out of their sleeve - I feel they did just that with the 5870 (I thought it to be an awesome card), as to whether it happens again this time who knows. For now nvidia has the momentum.

As far as the 7970/680 discussion going on, I always felt they were pretty interchangeable, with both being very good cards. Of course you could argue stock performance and efficiency with the 680, but the two cards were pretty darn close.

 

[Erenhardt]

The thing that makes a blow great is not something you can see. It is about how good the fan works in relation to noise. I was shocked at how much better the reference 680 blower was in comparison to the reference 6950 blower. At the same percentage, the 680's blower was much quieter and kept it about the same temps.

Wait...what? Did someone put 6950 blower on 680 or vice versa? Or you just compared aples to grapes?

 

[tviceman]

Not with a 7970GE.

And the 680 needs a higher stock clock to compete with Tahiti. 7970 and 680 are roughly equal at stock clocks.

At launch the 680 was faster. Not anymore



Wow I can't believe this crap is being spewed 1 year later. Haters gonna hate I guess.

The very latest reviews show that the 680 is usually faster, on average, than a vanilla 7970. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/27.html - winning at 1200p and 1600p. But if you think these scores are "roughly equal" - which I would have no problem agreeing with - then the 680 is also "roughly equal" with a 7970GE, given that it's actually closer in performance to a 7970GE than a vanilla 7970. (Just to refute the "cherry picking" claim, anandtech also has the 680 beating the vanilla 7970 more often than it loses in gaming benchmarks)

Also, I'm not sure what the argument is with core clocks is getting at when comparing the two. The chips are completely different architectures designed by completely different companies. You can say that the 680 needs a higher core clock to achieve parity with the 7970GE, but then I can turn around and say you need more GCN cores and memory bandwidth to achieve parity with cuda cores. It's entirely apples to oranges. The only "fair" comparison is a stock reference speed card vs. another, or a maxed out overclocked card vs. another maxed out overclocked card.

 

[tviceman]

Or more recently, the HD 5870 days.

I guess you could count that since Nvidia was delayed so much with Fermi, but I still viewed it's competitor as the gtx480 and gtx470 since both releases were on the same node and were closer to each other than other releases. But yes, the hd5870 and hd5850 were great buys when they were released.