Hawaii Confirmed to be 28nm and 30% smaller than GK110

[n0x1ous]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2013/09/16/exclusive-interview-amds-matt-skynner-talks-new-radeon-cards-next-gen-consoles-7990-criticism/

 

[imaheadcase]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2340347&page=15

Already posted in thread.

 

[NTMBK]

No way in hell it was ever going to be 20nm.

 

[Imouto]

Maths...

 

[smackababy]

So, are we still estimating it is going to be double the performance of a 780?

 

[wand3r3r]

Nope, not based on those comments. It's likely around 780/titan +/- a couple percent in my opinion based on what's been said. The main difference will likely be price and maybe overclockability?

Those double rumors are just like every product launch on ATF. Sky high/low (depending on whose "side" people are on) predictions and then everyone gets a good swift kick back to reality and ends up with a meager 30% or so.

 

[Jimzz]

^

Yea I agree. AMDs goal is high end Nvida performance but cheaper price/lower cost to make.

I also agree most do not or will not spend $999 on a video card. My personal max is $200.

 

[Teizo]

Will probably be at most 5% faster than the 780, but with a smaller chip. Or, even with 780...and AMD will tout design superiority due to efficiency.

Bottom line on the card will be cost. Naturally, they will undercut Nvidia...but by how much. Then, Nvidia will drop the price of the 780 (and possibly 770) accordingly I imagine. That is the beauty of competition. If the roles were reversed, the same would apply as well. Companies are out to make money for their investors so they charge as much as they can and get away with it.

 

[3DVagabond]

So, are we still estimating it is going to be double the performance of a 780?

You need to go over to those numptys at Chiploco. They were the only ones I saw that reported that (Because they knew of someone who actually had one. LOL). I don't think you'll find anyone here that thought that.

 

[3DVagabond]

Will probably be at most 5% faster than the 780, but with a smaller chip. Or, even with 780...and AMD will tout design superiority due to efficiency.

Bottom line on the card will be cost. Naturally, they will undercut Nvidia...but by how much. Then, Nvidia will drop the price of the 780 (and possibly 770) accordingly I imagine. That is the beauty of competition. If the roles were reversed, the same would apply as well. Companies are out to make money for their investors so they charge as much as they can and get away with it.

I'm thinking it's going to be slower than the 780 and a worse deal than what Tahiti is currently. ~2x as much money for ~25% more performance. They'll get lambasted again by nVidia marketeers for the next 2 years like they did with Tahiti.

 

[smackababy]

You need to go over to those numptys at Chiploco. They were the only ones I saw that reported that (Because they knew of someone who actually had one. LOL). I don't think you'll find anyone here that thought that.

I know, I was just joking because there were some here who knew AMDs new strategy was big die and going to belittle Titan for half the price!

 

[Black Octagon]

No way in hell it was ever going to be 20nm.

+1 million. Everyone who speculated otherwise can go eat their hat.

That said, I will admit surprise at hearing confirmation that the cards will, in fact, launch this year. Just goes to show that you can't read too much into tweets, even if they do come from company staff.

Now let's await some proper reviews so that all the flimsy speculation can finally die the shamed death it deserves

 

[seitur]

No way in hell it was ever going to be 20nm.

Now imagine boards going into fire once there will be confirmation that Maxwell is gonna be 28nm too.

 

[zlejedi]

30% smaller ? If they want to match 780 performance with that it would mean sacraficing DP computing performance which is kinda weird for chip that could be used in professional gpus.

 

[nitromullet]

What AMD really needs to do is fix their performance in Battlefield/Frostbite engine.

Right now NVIDIA's ~$250 GTX 760 matches AMD's ~$300 7970.

...and the leaked BF4 alpha benchmarks don't look very promising for AMD's supposed advantage as a DICE partner either. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-alpha-gpu-and-cpu-benchmarks/

IMO, BF4 performance is the game that will sell cards this fall. Sure there are other games, but none will matter as much in terms of sales volume and actual need for a graphics upgrade.

 

[wand3r3r]

What AMD really needs to do is fix their performance in Battlefield/Frostbite engine.

Right now NVIDIA's ~$250 GTX 760 matches AMD's ~$300 7970.

...and the leaked BF4 alpha benchmarks don't look very promising for AMD's supposed advantage as a DICE partner either. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-alpha-gpu-and-cpu-benchmarks/

IMO, BF4 performance is the game that will sell cards this fall. Sure there are other games, but none will matter as much in terms of sales volume and actual need for a graphics upgrade.

I agree fully. The engine clearly favors NV so they have their work cut out for them.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Alpha benchmarks aren't totally worthless, but nearly so...the final game's performance will likely have no resemblance to the alpha

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Is that a GHz 7970 or not? I doesnt look like it.

 

[tweakboy]

I gonna hold out until Alaska ....... thx

 

[Teizo]

Is that a GHz 7970 or not? I doesnt look like it.

Well, that is not an overclocked 760 either...so that is somewhat of a moot point.

 

[nitromullet]

Alpha benchmarks aren't totally worthless, but nearly so...the final game's performance will likely have no resemblance to the alpha

They really weren't that far off in terms of relative performance for BF3 if you compare the GTX 580 and 6970, the two top end cards at time.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-alpha-test-gpu.html

HQ 1920x1080
GTX 580...76 avg (100%)
6970........64 avg (84%)

compared to final benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/517?vs=509

Battlefield 3 - 2560x1600 - Ultra Quality + FXAA-High
GTX 580...45.7 avg
6970........38.1 avg (83%)

Battlefield 3 - 1920x1200 - Ultra Quality + 4xMSAA
GTX 580...48.5 avg
6970........36.4 avg (75%)

Battlefield 3 - 1920x1200 - Ultra Quality + FXAA-High
GTX 580...68.2 avg
6970........55.1 avg (80%)

Battlefield 3 - 1680x1050 - High Quality + FXAA-High
GTX 580...82.5 avg
6970........69.1 avg (83%)

It doesn't exactly line up with the 6970 delivering 84% of the GTX 580's performance in the alpha benchmarks, but it stays within 10%.

The 1920x1080 HQ alpha benchmarks also fall in neatly between AT's 1920x1200 UQ and 1680x1050 HQ exactly as they should. If anything, I'm actually impressed at how close those alpha benchmarks were to final thing.

 

[DiogoDX]

What AMD really needs to do is fix their performance in Battlefield/Frostbite engine.

Right now NVIDIA's ~$250 GTX 760 matches AMD's ~$300 7970.

...and the leaked BF4 alpha benchmarks don't look very promising for AMD's supposed advantage as a DICE partner either. http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-alpha-gpu-and-cpu-benchmarks/

IMO, BF4 performance is the game that will sell cards this fall. Sure there are other games, but none will matter as much in terms of sales volume and actual need for a graphics upgrade.

Performance in BF3 is on par with Nvidia. Anand test one of the few the specific single player parts that Nvidia have more performance. In others single player maps and in the multiplayer maps the radeons have good performance.

A good post from another forum that explains more: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24870033&postcount=1360

Other reviews:

 

[nitromullet]

Performance in BF3 is on par with Nvidia. Anand test one of the few the specific single player parts that Nvidia have more performance. In others single player maps and in the multiplayer maps the radeons have good performance.

A good post from another forum that explains more: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24870033&postcount=1360

<snip>

That's actually pretty interesting. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Red Hawk]

Well, that is not an overclocked 760 either...so that is somewhat of a moot point.

It wouldn't matter if the 760 is overclocked or not, as the 7970 GHz Edition is an official AMD SKU. It technically isn't overclocked, it's just clocked higher. But it's still fair to point and say a $250 Nvidia GPU SKU is on par with a $300 AMD GPU SKU, if the benchmarks support it.

 

[3DVagabond]

I know, I was just joking because there were some here who knew AMDs new strategy was big die and going to belittle Titan for half the price!

True. I'm still waiting for it to lay a hurting (I think that's the term used) on the 780. At ~30% smaller it will have to be something really special to even match the 780. Unless they clock it up by 20% or so above the 780. Just my opinion, of course.