Kepler vs GCN: Which is the better architecture

[Red Hawk]

I'm not talking about which company has the superior graphics cards at their price points on the market right now. I'm talking about the actual architecture. Transistor for transistor, millimeter for millimeter, which is the superior architecture, and why?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Kepler. Higher efficiency.

 

[moonbogg]

Kepler, more perf/watt, more scalable. Also much cheaper (unless your are a consumer).

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Kepler, more perf/watt, more scalable. Also much cheaper (unless your are a consumer).

I'm not trolling, but kepler can scale to higher clocks, but it loses to lower clocked AMD hardware.

 

[Skurge]

Just for gaming or does it include compute?

 

[wand3r3r]

I would expect GCN to perform better in the future with wider buses, more compute power etc.

I don't care about watts when they are this close and you get more performance with the extra watts.

 

[3DVagabond]

We've never experienced full Kepler. People thinking GK104 is better is funny, seeing as how limited it is.

 

[96Firebird]

Just for gaming or does it include compute?

This. Usage matters.

 

[Rvenger]

I can't give an accurate justification since basically GK104 and Tahiti are comparing an apple to an orange in computational aspects. If I saw BigK then I would have been able to tell you.

If AMD were to strip the compute out of their products, ramp up the streaming processors and clock speed, and lower the bus width then we should have a close to equally efficient product to GK104. I believe GCN is every bit as efficient as Kepler if we had an apple to apple comparison.

 

[Red Hawk]

Just for gaming or does it include compute?

Everything overall.

 

[Sable]

Really?!

 

[SolMiester]

We've never experienced full Kepler. People thinking GK104 is better is funny, seeing as how limited it is.

And yet Kepler still keeps up with GCN even when limited...!

 

[lavaheadache]

where is the "don't know yet" option?

 

[badb0y]

Strictly from a gaming point of view I think Kepler is better(more efficient) but I don't really use the compute power of HD 7970 so I wouldn't know if the overall architecture is better.

Voted Kepler.

 

[jones377]

I'd give a slight edge to Kepler but I don't think we've been this close in a very long time.

 

[Rvenger]

And yet Kepler still keeps up with GCN even when limited...!

In gaming, not compute. Read my post above.

 

[Genx87]

Which Kepler? In gaming I think the GK104 does rather well. In compute I think GK104 is pretty decent compared to GCN. But the full sized compute Kepler should wipe the floor with GCN in compute.

 

[blastingcap]

Kepler. Higher efficiency.

Also more features. async, no-adapter Surround, cuda/physx, etc

 

[3DVagabond]

And yet Kepler still keeps up with GCN even when limited...!

Depends on what you are measuring. CLBenchmark

This is why I say we need full Kepler to compare them.

 

[Ajay]

This poll is too vague.

 

[Elfear]

For strictly gaming, the two architectures are very very close according to TPU.

Tahiti has the edge in compute applications unless it's specifically coded for CUDA.

 

[SirPauly]

I think at this point in time and maturity, GCN may have proved to be a superior architecture based on performance with higher resolutions -- and not really surprising based on the raw specs and potential.

If the subject is efficiency, Kepler makes a very strong case.

AMD/ATI usually are always impressive when it comes to architectures. World class --leaders in many respects -- there are reasons why ATI/AMD and nVidia survived through the years and its based on their immense talents.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Too early to tell. We would have to wait what GK110 brings to the table. To compare architectures with such a discrepancy in raw power and bandwidth makes no sense imo.

 

[NIGELG]

I don't know.I haven't used either.

 

[BD231]

Kepler, more perf/watt, more scalable. Also much cheaper (unless your are a consumer).

lol