(OBR) AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz - "GPU Boost" and faked clocks!

[Lonbjerg]

Once again -- citations are not needed for common knowledge. Just say that you're completely ignorant of how Nvidia has named their GPUs since Fermi, and I'll be more than happy to provided sources. I may laugh at you though.

If it is THAT common knowlegde...won't you just post the current and upcomming (just for 2012) NVIDIA GPU names? :whiste:

 

[Keysplayr]

Indeed there was nothing to indicate that, i didn't know that it was required, there is nothing wrong though with people pointing out that it is required here, but some people are taking it past that point and just looking for an excuse for an attack because if it was not that it would of been something else.

That is right. There isn't anything wrong with pointing out what is needed in the thread titles or in regards of quoting sources. However, social prowess is not a strong point here at anandtech forums. Enter at your own risk. Unfortunately.

 

[Keysplayr]

So now people aren't responsible for what they post?

How about I start posting anti-Nvidia stuff as fact and just claim "Hey, I didn't know it wasn't true!".

Then the OP simply could have been POLITELY asked to clear things up for those who really didn't understand. Phynaz, if you think the way some folks went about this was acceptable, then we are done ever talking again bud.

 

[arkcom]

Indeed there was nothing to indicate that, i didn't know that it was required, there is nothing wrong though with people pointing out that it is required here, but some people are taking it past that point and just looking for an excuse for an attack because if it was not that it would of been something else.

Whether you knew it was a rumor or not, one of the rules of this forum is to put the source in the title.

If you had done that, people wouldn't have a reason to "attack."

 

[Final8ty]

Whether you knew it was a rumor or not, one of the rules of this forum is to put the source in the title.

If you had done that, people wouldn't have a reason to "attack."

The majority of the attacks had nothing to do with the fact that i didn't put rumor in the title and were merely that i posted from such a person and site and a dislike for the content.
Don't even try to paint it any other way.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Trash site, broken English and poor information. Nothing to see here.

 

[Grooveriding]

Why isn't this thread locked ? The card is out, OBR shill propaganda is debunked.

Now this thread is just a flame fest serving no purpose since the whole topic was a steaming pile spread to multiple forums for who knows what reason.

 

[Final8ty]

That is right. There isn't anything wrong with pointing out what is needed in the thread titles or in regards of quoting sources. However, social prowess is not a strong point here at anandtech forums. Enter at your own risk. Unfortunately.

Indeed the lack of subtly is obvious and excuses appalling when getting straight to the point is so easy if in fact that was the true issue everyone was having it could of been rectified with the first few comments, instead it was on the 5th page before anyone said that i should put rumor in the title when the fact i was attacked for posting it period.
No point trying claim otherwise when so much was said without relevance to that fact prior.

 

[Final8ty]

Why isn't this thread locked ? The card is out, OBR shill propaganda is debunked.

Now this thread is just a flame fest serving no purpose since the whole topic was a steaming pile spread to multiple forums for who knows what reason.

I posted it on multiple forums because that what i do with most of my posts, this one is no exception.

I didn't think nothing of it, it just another rumor like many others, it just shows that there are some that cant cope with rumors even when they are nothing to do about them, it isn't like any of us has anything to lose or gain by it.

Read it, likely or BS and move on.

The only bit that got me intrigued was GPU boost which i thought was interesting, i didn't give a monkeys about anything else and none of it would bother me one way or the other if everything was true or false because it simply does not matter and does not effect anybody.

 

[Keysplayr]

Whether you knew it was a rumor or not, one of the rules of this forum is to put the source in the title.

If you had done that, people wouldn't have a reason to "attack."

Excuse me? Reason to attack? Don't you mean, a reason to ask him to clarify?

Nevermind. I'm talking to someone who condones this behavior.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why isn't this thread locked ? The card is out, OBR shill propaganda is debunked.

Now this thread is just a flame fest serving no purpose since the whole topic was a steaming pile spread to multiple forums for who knows what reason.

How did your beratement of Polyzp go?

 

[Vesku]

Let me first say I'm not offended by Final8ty posting this. However, someone who posts lots of news/rumors/info should read stickies. The tag should not say (rumor) it should say [OBR] or similar. I'd like to cite http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=225737 :

Thread-Title Citation Expectations:
Per community voting, thread titles containing information based on 3rd party sources must include a citation of the source in the thread-title.

For example, if a member wishes to start a new thread based on information from an article published on Semi-Accurate, the VC&G community expects the thread-starter to incorporate some manner of reference to Semi-Accurate in their thread's title.

"S/A: 580GTX's are not manufacturable"
or
"580GTX's are not manufacturable, per Semi-Accurate"

The thread-citation guideline was approved for permanent adoption by VC&G community vote effective Sunday Mar 27, 2011.

 

[Will Robinson]

Oh hey, it's Keysplayr defending someone posting unsubstantiated rumor news showing AMD in a negative light. Didn't see that one coming.

Classic comment!:biggrin::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Phynaz]

Then the OP simply could have been POLITELY asked to clear things up for those who really didn't understand. Phynaz, if you think the way some folks went about this was acceptable, then we are done ever talking again bud.

Some, or one?

 

[Phynaz]

How did your beratement of Polyzp go?

Stay classy Keys.

 

[HurleyBird]

Why is this thread still alive?

 

[MrK6]

Stay classy Keys.

Watch out, you might get an infraction for baiting... wait, they did take out the trash, nevermind.






Baiting members is also not allowed


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[chimaxi83]

Well, at least he's putting in his Focus Group hours, that's admirable






Baiting members is also not allowed


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Homeles]

If it is THAT common knowlegde...won't you just post the current and upcomming (just for 2012) NVIDIA GPU names? :whiste:

Nvidia, since the launch of the 400 series, has named their GPUs with a consistent scheme. Nvidia, like AMD, launches their flagship single GPU first, with the 6900 series being an exception to this due to the fact that it was 32nm part up until TSMC cancelled the process.

Nvidia names their GPUs as follows:

G -- graphics
T, F, or K -- architecture name (Tesla, Fermi or Kepler. Maxwell will probably be GMxxx)
1 -- unknown
0 or 1 -- revision count. GF110 was the revised version of GF100. GK110 will be the revised version of GK100.
Last digit -- indicates the intended market segment of the chip. Starts at 0, with larger numbers inversely proportional to the size of the chip. I.e, "0" chips are massive, "9" chips are tiny.

If GK104 was the original chip that Nvidia had intended for the GTX680, it would have been named GK100, as Nvidia starts work on their flagship "0" chips first. While it's not exactly known what happened with GK100, it is rumored to have been scrapped due to interconnect and power issues. This decision had to have been made far before the launch of the 7970 though -- Nvidia never said "hey look, Tahiti sucks! Let's beat it with our mid range chip!" A few people would love to believe that, but it's not the case.

Further evidence that GK104 was not the intended flagship part is shown by is terrible FP64 performance. GK104's FP64 is 1/24th of its FP32 performance, while GF114 has 1/12th of its FP32 performance and GF110 has 1/2 of its FP32 performance. GK100 likely would have had 1/4th of its FP32 performance, while GK110 is slated to have 1/2 of its FP32 performance, like GF100 and GF110.

Ryan Smith, the senior GPU editor here at AnandTech, seems to share my sentiment:

It’s unfortunate for AMD that NVIDIA managed to tie AMD’s best gaming performance with a 104-series part, allowing them to reap the benefits of lower power consumption and less noise in the process.

As far as future product codenames go, GK110 is a given, and will be named GTX780, and will likely have a partially disabled chip launched as GTX770. GK114 will be either the 760 or 760 Ti (or both), depending on how weird Nvidia wants to be with their naming scheme. There will be a GK116 as well. There will likely be a smaller chip after that, but Nvidia hasn't named the small chips consistently.

Also, we're still looking at a GTX660 or GTX 650 to launch later this summer based on a GK106 chip.

 

[Keysplayr]

Stay classy Keys.

I totally will, and thanks for the reinforcement. :thumbsup:

 

[Keysplayr]

Oh hey, it's Keysplayr defending someone posting unsubstantiated rumor news showing AMD in a negative light. Didn't see that one coming.

Yeah, someone. Not the "rumor". Makes no difference to you though, does it?

 

[blackened23]

I totally will, and thanks for the reinforcement. :thumbsup:

 

[Mistwalker]

Watch out, you might get an infraction for baiting... wait, they did take out the trash, nevermind.

Well, at least he's putting in his Focus Group hours, that's admirable

What are you guys trying to accomplish with posts like these?

The OP absolutely should have posted the source in the thread title, this could have been requested without resorting to attacking anyone. If there's something wrong with the content in a linked article, shouldn't we be discussing/disproving/ridiculing that rather than our fellow AT posters? The whole "faked clocks" rhetoric originated at the linked site.

I know there's mudslinging on both sides, but it's gotten pretty blatant.

 

[Final8ty]

Let me first say I'm not offended by Final8ty posting this. However, someone who posts lots of news/rumors/info should read stickies. The tag should not say (rumor) it should say [OBR] or similar. I'd like to cite http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=225737 :

Thread-Title Citation Expectations:
Per community voting, thread titles containing information based on 3rd party sources must include a citation of the source in the thread-title.

For example, if a member wishes to start a new thread based on information from an article published on Semi-Accurate, the VC&G community expects the thread-starter to incorporate some manner of reference to Semi-Accurate in their thread's title.

"S/A: 580GTX's are not manufacturable"
or
"580GTX's are not manufacturable, per Semi-Accurate"

The thread-citation guideline was approved for permanent adoption by VC&G community vote effective Sunday Mar 27, 2011.

I did read that sticky before, but i also looked at how other threads are posted here and it looked to me just like any other forum that as long as the link to the source was included and what was posted was in quotes then all is good as i have seen and can still see plenty of threads without the source in the title and not a peep has been said.

So i didn't have to put rumor but OBR, thank you!

 

[Final8ty]

What are you guys trying to accomplish with posts like these?

The OP absolutely should have posted the source in the thread title, this could have been requested without resorting to attacking anyone. If there's something wrong with the content in a linked article, shouldn't we be discussing/disproving/ridiculing that rather than our fellow AT posters? The whole "faked clocks" rhetoric originated at the linked site.

I know there's mudslinging on both sides, but it's gotten pretty blatant.

Looking at what's going on in some of the other threads it looks like any excuse will do.