Ghz edition 7970 coming very soon! (Softpedia)

[OCGuy]

Who doesnt have their 7970 at 1ghz already?

 

[lavaheadache]

Who doesnt have their 7970 at 1ghz already?

which is why they are releasing a faster one... to make it official =)

 

[3DVagabond]

Who doesnt have their 7970 at 1ghz already?

The reviewers when they put those pretty colored charts up that show the 680 being faster than the 7970. AMD is going to fix that. LOL As a benefit to the consumer though, they will in turn get higher guaranteed clocks.

 

[lavaheadache]

The reviewers when they put those pretty colored charts up that show the 680 being faster than the 7970. AMD is going to fix that. LOL As a benefit to the consumer though, they will in turn get higher guaranteed clocks.

:thumbsup:

 

[Mad_dawg]

Skyrim with mods. :biggrin:

You sure about that hoss?


*Edit- Doh! 3DVagabond beat me too it with the same graphs, although with average power consumption the difference is only 35W.

Yeah i'm pretty sure....

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=3

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/?page=6

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/03/nvidia_geforce_gtx_690_dual_gpu_video_card_review/6


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/03/nvidia_geforce_gtx_690_dual_gpu_video_card_review/8

 

[3DVagabond]

Yeah i'm pretty sure....

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=3

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/?page=6

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/03/nvidia_geforce_gtx_690_dual_gpu_video_card_review/6


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/03/nvidia_geforce_gtx_690_dual_gpu_video_card_review/8

You are cherrypicking individual benches here and there. The only link that shows a comparison to 680 vs 7970 power usage neglects to tell us what they were benching, what his voltages were, what settings in CCC, or what clocks the cards were at to get those results. At least not anything that I saw. The TPU performance charts were done using their entire benchmark suite as an avg. Not just a game or two. TPU's power measurements were done while gaming. Somewhere that neither card would self throttle. Finally, with all of the mudslinging ABT has been doing about AMD of late, we can't take anything they say about an AMD product at face value.

 

[Mad_dawg]

You are cherrypicking individual benches here and there. The only link that shows a comparison to 680 vs 7970 power usage neglects to tell us what they were benching, what his voltages were, what settings in CCC, or what clocks the cards were at to get those results. At least not anything that I saw. The TPU performance charts were done using their entire benchmark suite as an avg. Not just a game or two. TPU's power measurements were done while gaming. Somewhere that neither card would self throttle. Finally, with all of the mudslinging ABT has been doing about AMD of late, we can't take anything they say about an AMD product at face value.

Even all the games that hardocp review on power consumption and you're still in denial and NO, those are not cherry pick reviews because every reviews on the interweb says Kepler is far more efficiency than AMD counterparts... This is what you called "cherry picking" gtx 680 @ 1442mhz..

http://en.expreview.com/2012/05/04/...ith-geforce-gtx-680-on-air-cooling/22838.html

 

[3DVagabond]

Even all the games that hardocp review on power consumption and you're still in denial and NO, those are not cherry pick reviews because every reviews on the interweb says Kepler is far more efficiency than AMD counterparts... This is what you called "cherry picking" gtx 680 @ 1442mhz..

http://en.expreview.com/2012/05/04/...ith-geforce-gtx-680-on-air-cooling/22838.html

No, that's just stupid. Stupid as in knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway.

it's cherry picked because it is only representative of the few games you linked to and using different sites means they are at different settings on different equipment with different testers. Which means there's no way to draw any sort of accurate conclusion on the data you supplied.

 

[Jaydip]

No, that's just stupid. Stupid as in knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway.

it's cherry picked because it is only representative of the few games you linked to and using different sites means they are at different settings on different equipment with different testers. Which means there's no way to draw any sort of accurate conclusion on the data you supplied.

[H],AT and all the major review sites out there concluded that Kepler is more efficient than tahiti,whats so hard about it?

 

[Alaa]

Screw power consumption, bring on the hertz.

Off to get a 670.

 

[3DVagabond]

[H],AT and all the major review sites out there concluded that Kepler is more efficient than tahiti,whats so hard about it?

We are not arguing which is more efficient. You are moving the goalposts.

He said in order to get the same perf. from a 7970 as you get from a 680 the 7970 will use 100W more. I showed where TPU reported ~35W more.

We haven't even got to the part where AMD is saying the latest chips are yielding better and offer the same perf as earlier chips at lower voltage.

He's trying to pass off what is the power usage difference between a 7970, at max voltage and max clocks, and a 680 at max O/C (even though you can't over volt a 680) with some unknown benchmark (likely Furmark) as the same thing as how much more power a 7970 will use to get it to the same performance as a 680 while gaming. Those 2 figures are not the same thing.

 

[Lepton87]

He's trying to pass off what is the power usage difference between a 7970, at max voltage and max clocks, and a 680 at max O/C (even though you can't over volt a 680) with some unknown benchmark (likely Furmark) as the same thing as how much more power a 7970 will use to get it to the same performance as a 680 while gaming. Those 2 figures are not the same thing.

That's how NV fanboys work. Since MSI 7970 launched I've been saying that it is faster then 680 at 2560 but many nv lovers disagreed and said that tahiti needs 1125mhz just to match gtx680.

 

[96Firebird]

You generalise lots,gonna back up what you are spewing?

Sure, here is a whole thread about the architecture of AMD's 79xx series being similar to that of Fermi's in that it focuses on GPGPU and compute rather than gaming. Because of this, their chips are larger, and less efficient at gaming. Just like how Fermi was compared to AMD's VLIW5 and VLIW4 architectures. But complaints started rolling in because the OP compared AMD's cards to Fermi, and ultimately the thread got locked.

Here, I point out the fact that while we used to have threads about the power costs of running a Fermi GPUs for gaming, and now we have people posting about the power costs of running an AMD 79xx series GPU for gaming. I just find it funny that this is happening. And then posters get all upset because, God forbid, I put the 79xx even remotely close to Fermi. Which I don't really understand, because Fermi was a pretty successful architecture on both the desktop side, as well as the professional side.

blastingcap, I'm not sure why you are bringing up all these other metrics. I never posted anything about release timing, "broken" releases, or heat output. I merely said what I explained above, and I shouldn't have to explain it again after this post.

 

[Zanovar]

Sure, here is a whole thread about the architecture of AMD's 79xx series being similar to that of Fermi's in that it focuses on GPGPU and compute rather than gaming. Because of this, their chips are larger, and less efficient at gaming. Just like how Fermi was compared to AMD's VLIW5 and VLIW4 architectures. But complaints started rolling in because the OP compared AMD's cards to Fermi, and ultimately the thread got locked.

Here, I point out the fact that while we used to have threads about the power costs of running a Fermi GPUs for gaming, and now we have people posting about the power costs of running an AMD 79xx series GPU for gaming. I just find it funny that this is happening. And then posters get all upset because, God forbid, I put the 79xx even remotely close to Fermi. Which I don't really understand, because Fermi was a pretty successful architecture on both the desktop side, as well as the professional side.

blastingcap, I'm not sure why you are bringing up all these other metrics. I never posted anything about release timing, "broken" releases, or heat output. I merely said what I explained above, and I shouldn't have to explain it again after this post.

Fair enough,good post

 

[blastingcap]

Sure, here is a whole thread about the architecture of AMD's 79xx series being similar to that of Fermi's in that it focuses on GPGPU and compute rather than gaming. Because of this, their chips are larger, and less efficient at gaming. Just like how Fermi was compared to AMD's VLIW5 and VLIW4 architectures. But complaints started rolling in because the OP compared AMD's cards to Fermi, and ultimately the thread got locked.

Here, I point out the fact that while we used to have threads about the power costs of running a Fermi GPUs for gaming, and now we have people posting about the power costs of running an AMD 79xx series GPU for gaming. I just find it funny that this is happening. And then posters get all upset because, God forbid, I put the 79xx even remotely close to Fermi. Which I don't really understand, because Fermi was a pretty successful architecture on both the desktop side, as well as the professional side.

blastingcap, I'm not sure why you are bringing up all these other metrics. I never posted anything about release timing, "broken" releases, or heat output. I merely said what I explained above, and I shouldn't have to explain it again after this post.

As others have already said and explained to you, it's a matter of degree and that's where your analogy breaks down. Sorry that I did not make it more explicit but I think others before me already said the same thing. I'll be very explicit here: your analogy is correct, but you are stretching it too far imho.

The idle power in watts (which actually matters more than load vs load for many people, though the 480 was a pig at load too) and load power in watts of the 5870 vs 480 and 7970 vs 680, can be found here: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/25.html You can draw your own conclusions about the piggishness of 480 and why NV wasted no time doing a respin and issuing the 580 so soon after the 480.

If you disagree for whatever reason, please take it up with someone else, as I have no further interest in this topic and have already spoken my piece.

 

[Jaydip]

We are not arguing which is more efficient. You are moving the goalposts.

He said in order to get the same perf. from a 7970 as you get from a 680 the 7970 will use 100W more. I showed where TPU reported ~35W more.

We haven't even got to the part where AMD is saying the latest chips are yielding better and offer the same perf as earlier chips at lower voltage.

He's trying to pass off what is the power usage difference between a 7970, at max voltage and max clocks, and a 680 at max O/C (even though you can't over volt a 680) with some unknown benchmark (likely Furmark) as the same thing as how much more power a 7970 will use to get it to the same performance as a 680 while gaming. Those 2 figures are not the same thing.

I didn't move any goalposts ,I actually missed the context

 

[Mad_dawg]

No, that's just stupid. Stupid as in knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway.

it's cherry picked because it is only representative of the few games you linked to and using different sites means they are at different settings on different equipment with different testers. Which means there's no way to draw any sort of accurate conclusion on the data you supplied.

AMD fanboy in denial... Here's a quote from the review...

The PowerColor HD 7970 when overclocked and overvolted draws 102W more than overclocked on the stock fan profile and with the stock voltage. It also uses over 100W more than the GTX 680 in the same situation and in the same system!

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=3

Here's a "max overclocking" gtx 680 BF 3 drawing 355w total system power consumptions... Even when o/c the gtx 680 uses less power than a stock 7970....

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/6

Here's a total system power drawn for the hd 7970 drawing 117w more when overclocked... Stock @ 490w vs 607w when overclocked..

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/25/asus_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/8

Even with facts and number and you're in still denial...

 

[Jaydip]

AMD fanboy in denial... Here's a quote from the review...

The PowerColor HD 7970 when overclocked and overvolted draws 102W more than overclocked on the stock fan profile and with the stock voltage. It also uses over 100W more than the GTX 680 in the same situation and in the same system!

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=3

Here's a "max overclocking" gtx 680 BF 3 drawing 355w total system power consumptions... Even when o/c the gtx 680 uses less power than a stock 7970....

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/6

Here's a total system power drawn for the hd 7970 drawing 117w more when overclocked... Stock @ 490w vs 607w when overclocked..

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/25/asus_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/8

Even with facts and number and you're in still denial...

Don't do that please,we have enough of that already.

 

[Mad_dawg]

Don't do that please,we have enough of that already.

Why? What's wrong with throwing some numbers around...

 

[Jaydip]

Why? What's wrong with throwing some numbers around...

No problem with numbers just don't like this "AMD fanboy" tag.I am a NV fan by the way.I don't like to be addressed as NV fanboy either

 

[Mad_dawg]

No problem with numbers just don't like this "AMD fanboy" tag.I am a NV fan by the way.I don't like to addressed as NV fanboy

All good dude because someone was using the word Nvidia Fanboys earlier... I won't uses these words anymore...

 

[Zanovar]

No problem with numbers just don't like this "AMD fanboy" tag.I am a NV fan by the way.I don't like to addressed as NV fanboy

christ im shocked jaydip,thought you had amd tatooed to your arse

 

[Jaydip]

All good dude because someone was using the word Nvidia Fanboys earlier... I won't uses these words anymore...

Thx buddy :thumbsup:

 

[Rvenger]

AMD fanboy in denial... Here's a quote from the review...

The PowerColor HD 7970 when overclocked and overvolted draws 102W more than overclocked on the stock fan profile and with the stock voltage. It also uses over 100W more than the GTX 680 in the same situation and in the same system!

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=3

Here's a "max overclocking" gtx 680 BF 3 drawing 355w total system power consumptions... Even when o/c the gtx 680 uses less power than a stock 7970....

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/6

Here's a total system power drawn for the hd 7970 drawing 117w more when overclocked... Stock @ 490w vs 607w when overclocked..

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/25/asus_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/8

Even with facts and number and you're in still denial...

Please don't start attacking in my thread. If you are going to start fanboy crap, get out.

 

[Jaydip]

christ im shocked jaydip,thought you had amd tatooed to your arse

I am a big proponent of echo friendly stuff dude,so green all the way :biggrin: