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

[Siberian]

So NVIDIA has the top 3 chips right now. That would place the 7970 square in the midrange. It should be $300 or so. I wonder what they can do with their current chip to get it up to the level of the GK110.

 

[Will Robinson]

What?
NVDA's recently released Titan and 7 series cards are faster than the year old AMD Tahiti series cards?
Damn...didn't see that coming...

 

[rgallant]

So NVIDIA has the top 3 chips right now. That would place the 7970 square in the midrange. It should be $300 or so. I wonder what they can do with their current chip to get it up to the level of the GK110.

mid range from $1000.00 would be $500.00 @50%

 

[Elfear]

Not to mention you kicking my sorry midrange ass in the Valley benchmark thread.

Mid-range is pretty fun but we bow to our Titan overlords.

I'm actually very impressed how high your single 670 scored. Maybe it's your ram that clocks so much higher than mine.

So NVIDIA has the top 3 chips right now. That would place the 7970 square in the midrange. It should be $300 or so. I wonder what they can do with their current chip to get it up to the level of the GK110.

Looking at last gen, Nvidia's mid-range (the 560 Ti) was 1/2 the cost of their high-end (GTX 580). So going by your logic the 7970 should increase its price to $500. :sneaky:

 

[ocre]

Way to address the actual points being made. Taking your entire original quote lets see if we can spot the flaws.



The word competed is the key, it implies, no explicitly means past tense.

Gk-104 didn't easily compete with Tahiti for the majority of 2012 and most of 2013 (to date) because it was slower overall out of the box at each price point. Like I said 2012 was the first time in years AMD didn't just compete with AMD for performance, they actually come out ahead on all price points.

Tahit vs GK-104 derivatives
7870XT > GTX660
7950 > GTX660Ti
7970 > GTX 670
7970 GE > GTX680

It took until GTX770 for GK-104 to finally match 7970 GE overall.

didnt easily compete with tahiti? huh? When one speaks of performance there are many metrics and scales you could go by. Like raw fps, calculations per watt, or even frame times. But when you talk about the GK104 and its ability to compete with tahiti *over a span of time*, I would think that there would be little doubt (i mean who could argue) that nvidia competed quite well with their gk104. When its all added up (and it should be) the gk104 was a hugely successful chip for nvidia.

If this were not true and the gk104 did not easily compete with tahiti-then AMD would currently be owning the market, outselling nvidia. Right now nvidia sells nearly 2 gpus to AMDs 1, if they were struggling to compete with the gk104 it would be quite the opposite scenario.

Performance can be many things. Performance can be measured in many ways. But when its all put together and we are talking about products, the ability to compete......well this becomes something pretty specific. It is true that a products ability to compete is the sum of many factors, the accumulative performance of many scales. Nvidia was able to compete quite well with the gk104 and i would bet money that this is one of their most successful architectures ever. One that they are extremely proud of. I just dont see how anyone would think that nvidia was not able to compete well with their gk104 this round. As far as competing goes, it would be scary if they done much better. Especially scary for AMD

 

[The Alias]

didnt easily compete with tahiti? huh? When one speaks of performance there are many metrics and scales you could go by. Like raw fps, calculations per watt, or even frame times. But when you talk about the GK104 and its ability to compete with tahiti *over a span of time*, I would think that there would be little doubt (i mean who could argue) that nvidia competed quite well with their gk104. When its all added up (and it should be) the gk104 was a hugely successful chip for nvidia.

If this were not true and the gk104 did not easily compete with tahiti-then AMD would currently be owning the market, outselling nvidia. Right now nvidia sells nearly 2 gpus to AMDs 1, if they were struggling to compete with the gk104 it would be quite the opposite scenario.

Performance can be many things. Performance can be measured in many ways. But when its all put together and we are talking about products, the ability to compete......well this becomes something pretty specific. It is true that a products ability to compete is the sum of many factors, the accumulative performance of many scales. Nvidia was able to compete quite well with the gk104 and i would bet money that this is one of their most successful architectures ever. One that they are extremely proud of. I just dont see how anyone would think that nvidia was not able to compete well with their gk104 this round. As far as competing goes, it would be scary if they done much better. Especially scary for AMD

stop bs'ing yourself if gk104 was 20% slower than tahiti it'd still outsell it by a healthy margin just because it's nvidia

 

[parvadomus]

NV did ok with their gk104 "mid-range" die, cause its more gaming oriented than tahiti. And the latter being a "high-end" chip, is only 21% bigger than the former. Still it destroys it @ compute and at games (clock for clock). Then we have GK110, a 65% larger die than tahiti, that is only 30% faster (not more thanks to being low clocked to be a sub 250watt TDP part). For me GK104 is nothing more than a high factory clocked chip, with a subpar memory subsystem, and a joke for high-resolution gaming.
I am really tired about discussing the same about 1.5 year old tech..

 

[ICDP]

didnt easily compete with tahiti? huh? When one speaks of performance there are many metrics and scales you could go by. Like raw fps, calculations per watt, or even frame times. But when you talk about the GK104 and its ability to compete with tahiti *over a span of time*, I would think that there would be little doubt (i mean who could argue) that nvidia competed quite well with their gk104. When its all added up (and it should be) the gk104 was a hugely successful chip for nvidia.

If this were not true and the gk104 did not easily compete with tahiti-then AMD would currently be owning the market, outselling nvidia. Right now nvidia sells nearly 2 gpus to AMDs 1, if they were struggling to compete with the gk104 it would be quite the opposite scenario.

Performance can be many things. Performance can be measured in many ways. But when its all put together and we are talking about products, the ability to compete......well this becomes something pretty specific. It is true that a products ability to compete is the sum of many factors, the accumulative performance of many scales. Nvidia was able to compete quite well with the gk104 and i would bet money that this is one of their most successful architectures ever. One that they are extremely proud of. I just dont see how anyone would think that nvidia was not able to compete well with their gk104 this round. As far as competing goes, it would be scary if they done much better. Especially scary for AMD

I made it quite clear that my premise was based on the fact that Sirpauly used the words easily competed implying throughout the entire life-cycle and the entire range. While Nvidia's release of GTX680 did increase price/perf and did marginally win the corwn for Nvidia it didn't last long. For the 1st time in a few GPU generations AMD not only matched but exceeded the performance of the equivalent Nvidia cards for most of the year. It took Nvidia one year after 7970GE was released to match high end Tahiti performance with the GTX770. Like it or not HD 7970 GE was ~10% faster than GTX680 out of the box and that performance delta remained similar or better as we went down the range. If we add in GPGU compute Tahiti leaves GK-104 in the dust. When GTX580 offered a similar performance delta compared to HD 6970 all the Nvidia fans hailed it as an amazing piece of kit or, "Fermi done right". Tahiti does the same thing to GK-104 and we get the revisionist "GK-104 was arguably still faster overall" when it clearly wasn't.

I am not in any way referring to market share here, simply from a stock for stock standpoint Tahiti was overall faster than GK-104 out of the box. No "arguably" about it.

Once again taking Tahiti vs Gk-104

7870XT > GTX660
7950 BE > GTX660Ti
7970 > GTX670
7970 GE > GTX680

Nvidia have utter crap power consumption = "who cares, it's performance that matters".
Nvidia have marginally better power consumption = "These new Nvidia cards are so power efficient"
Nvidia have superior GPGU = "Nvidia give more features"
Nvidia have inferior GPGU = "Who needs GPGU anyway"
Nvidia are 10% faster = "Nvidia are untouchable for speed"
Nvidia are 10% slower = "They are arguably faster"
Nvidia release a card ~27% faster for a massive premium (Titan vs 7970GE) = "You want the best you must pay for it"
AMD release a card ~27% faster for a lower price (7970 vs GTX580 3GB) = "Overpriced junk, wait for Nvidia to cream them".

I'm sick of reading revisionist history always attempt to make Nvidia the winner in all areas when the truth was sometimes the opposite.

 

[SirPauly]

I'm sick of reading revisionist history always attempt to make Nvidia the winner in all areas when the truth was sometimes the opposite.

I just don't understand -- no one said a winner and offered, "easily competed," not easily dominated or easily winning.

I have no problem saying this:

Tahiti easily competed with GK-104 and arguably still has the faster chip over-all, out-of-box!

 

[SirPauly]

NV did ok with their gk104 "mid-range" die, cause its more gaming oriented than tahiti. And the latter being a "high-end" chip, is only 21% bigger than the former. Still it destroys it @ compute and at games (clock for clock). Then we have GK110, a 65% larger die than tahiti, that is only 30% faster (not more thanks to being low clocked to be a sub 250watt TDP part). For me GK104 is nothing more than a high factory clocked chip, with a subpar memory subsystem, and a joke for high-resolution gaming.
I am really tired about discussing the same about 1.5 year old tech..

Efficiency is quite the joke!

 

[SirPauly]

stop bs'ing yourself if gk104 was 20% slower than tahiti it'd still outsell it by a healthy margin just because it's nvidia

imho,

I doubt that -- and Tahiti is strong competition --- and why nVidia may of decided to improve its performance value with Gk-104 with the GTX 770.

AMD did take some discrete desktop share away from nVidia.

 

[Keysplayr]

I just don't understand -- no one said a winner and offered, "easily competed," not easily dominated or easily winning.

I have no problem saying this:

Tahiti easily competed with GK-104 and arguably still has the faster chip over-all, out-of-box!

That's not good enough Pauly. You must submit completely.
Seriously though, GK104 mid range chip competes nicely with AMD's high end chip. It took nvidia a lot longer to release their high end chip, but now that it's here, look what happened. Even the GTX770 which is still GK104 is equal to or faster than 7970GE.

 

[parvadomus]

Efficiency is quite the joke!

Efficiency on what? Compute? Tahiti thrashes GK104.. Games? It loses by 40watts? while running faster. Games that use compute (like dirt showdown)? goodbye GK104.
BTW should I remember you that for gaming AMD made the most efficient chip on 28nm?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Efficiency on what? Compute? Tahiti thrashes GK104.. Games? It loses by 40watts? while running faster. Games that use compute (like dirt showdown)? goodbye GK104.
BTW should I remember you that for gaming AMD made the most efficient chip on 28nm?

Dift...really?
All that game shows is that AMD can bork code om NVIDIA GPU's...if that is an argument...lol!

 

[Lonbjerg]

And what drivers are people comapring when the sayGTX680 wasn't the main competitor of 7970's?

People have shitty memories:
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/03/...iver_performance_summary_review/#.UbSRcSHU99N

 

[SirPauly]

Efficiency on what? Compute? Tahiti thrashes GK104.. Games? It loses by 40watts? while running faster. Games that use compute (like dirt showdown)? goodbye GK104.
BTW should I remember you that for gaming AMD made the most efficient chip on 28nm?

I have a nice AMD video for you:

Be Invincible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MQcjEA3it90

We have deployed 100's of Radeon cores to your location!

Enjoyed that!

 

[Lonbjerg]

So a midrange CPU with and IGP is "invinsible"?

lol


PR + magic pixiedust getting the hook in fanboys once Again

 

[parvadomus]

I have a nice AMD video for you:

Be Invincible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MQcjEA3it90



Enjoyed that!

Nice, thats what happens when you run out of arguments :thumbsup:

@Lonbjerg, sorry man I don't discuss with trolls.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Nice, thats what happens when you run out of arguments :thumbsup:

@Lonbjerg, sorry man I don't discuss with trolls.

If stating the facts are "trolling"...I rest my case.

If an A10-6800K is proclaimed "invinsible", I call sheens because that is simply not true.

My 990X + Titan will run circles around that solution.....anyone claiming is is a troll.

So with the top CPU/IGP from AMD beaten, it cannot be invinsible.

So it's empty PR, with no foundation in reality,...like I stated before.

So WHO is trolling now...out of arguments? ^^

 

[SirPauly]

Nice, thats what happens when you run out of arguments :thumbsup:

Indeed! Your points were invincible!

 

[SirPauly]

I call sheens because that is simply not true.

It was a neat video but be careful -- AMD may call for additional reinforcements by deploying more Radeon cores to your position.

Such a neat line!

 

[Lonbjerg]

It was a neat video but be careful -- AMD may call for additional reinforcements by deploying more Radeon cores to your position.

Such a neat line!

They will need more than a few hundres cores...so I don't fear IGP's ^^

 

[parvadomus]

If stating the facts are "trolling"...I rest my case.

If an A10-6800K is proclaimed "invinsible", I call sheens because that is simply not true.

My 990X + Titan will run circles around that solution.....anyone claiming is is a troll.

So with the top CPU/IGP from AMD beaten, it cannot be invinsible.

So it's empty PR, with no foundation in reality,...like I stated before.

So WHO is trolling now...out of arguments? ^^

First I never talked about APUs. And about you being a troll, I cant do anything about it.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The GTX680 competed against the 7970/7970GHz... what's the big deal? They were generally in spitting distance of each other when it came to performance, price, and power use. If someone was looking to spend ~$450, that person probably looked at both of those GPUs. Why are we arguing again?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

My 990X + Titan will run circles around that solution.....anyone claiming is is a troll.

Well obviously a solution costing over $1200 is going to outperform a solution that costs less than $500. Good of you to admit that you're troll too. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to fixing it.