• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Radeon 7990 to debut at computex - expected $849

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
In BF3 with ultra and msaa kills the 580s fps. I think the 79xx series is perfect with 3gb vram

At 1920x1080 on ultra with 4x msaa bf3 uses 1586mb of vram
That is just not true. First off, bf3 scales the LOD based on VRAM and the 580 was the fastest card for bf3 for a long while despite larger VRAM cards being available (ie 6970)

I've said this a million times but view the presentation at last years geforce LAN where a DICE developer was present - the VRAM usage scales back and becomes more efficient with less VRAM available. View it. I know i've stated this a billion times.

Lastly, this entire argument is freaking stupid because it won't happen. Customers should have a choice just like they had a choice with the GTX 580, a 350$ 7970 1.5gb would sell very well...On that note, I find it pretty humerous that the GTX 580 1.5gb was just fine when the 7970 was released but apparently now (per toyota) you NEED 3GB. What? Anyway, AMD doesn't have business sense to give customers a choice of a more cost efficient card, instead they get 3gb overkill which is worthless for anything less than 3d surround. Even for 3d surround, 2gb is fine unless you're playing crysis 2 or skyrim with tons of mods. Anyway - And THESE type of arguments are like arguing with a stop sign....just watch. But..AGAIN...MOOT DISCUSSION cuz it isn't happening. So might as well just drop it eh? Arguing about something that will never ever happen. Stop sign.
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
I game at 1920x1200. A 1.5GB 7970 for $100 less than the 3GB model would have been very tempting to me.

As it stands, I have the 3GB model and can do 1200MHz. I do think this card will last me a lot longer than the 1.5GB card... but that's not to say I wouldn't have to really think that decision over before buying one.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
I game at 1920x1200. A 1.5GB 7970 for $100 less than the 3GB model would have been very tempting to me.

As it stands, I have the 3GB model and can do 1200MHz. I do think this card will last me a lot longer than the 1.5GB card... but that's not to say I wouldn't have to really think that decision over before buying one.
you are thinking like other customers would. they would think oh I can save 75 bucks or so and all common sense goes out the window. if you game at a res and settings that need the power of a 7970 then you also can use more than 1.5gb in some cases. I peg or almost peg my 1.25 gb of vram in some games at just 1920x1080. an oced 7970 would blow my card away and could run higher settings and res smoothly. also throw in vsync with triple buffering and install some mods and you will be using even more and more vram. 1.5gb makes NO sense at this point for a top of the line card.
 

chimaxi83

Diamond Member
May 18, 2003
5,648
61
101
Yea, I don't see the point in a 1.5GB 7970. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should, or that they will. Maybe for 7950, but not for flagship. Just my opinion :)
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91


What were you saying about the hd7970 using 40 less watts than the hd6970? Looks like 20 more, not 40 less. And if AMD is going to upclock these chips for a dual part, then we're definitely looking at a part more power hungry than the hd6990.
There is no way these will be 1ghz parts; the 7990 will be lucky to hit stock 7970 speeds. Not a bad price, but that 'aggressively-priced' compared to the GTX 690 tells me it is probably down-clocked to hit a reasonable TDP. Doesn't mean it will not OC great, but it will be a mostly worthless card for most enthusiasts.

Games do not scale well above triple-SLI/CF anyway, so if you have a good MB that allows 3xCF, 3x7970 would be a better option. This only makes sense from a compute standpoint, IMHO, where you may want 2-3 of these in one box to crunch numbers. That said, just get an extra cheap box and add more 7970s.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,597
1
81
I'm too tired to dig up benches, but you're mistaken.
No, I'm not:
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/22506-test-2x-geforce-gtx-690-im-quad-sli.html?start=6

Witcher 2: 340%
BF3: 346%

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8812407&postcount=24
360%@3840x2160

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8847506&postcount=40
400%@8xSGSSAA

With 4 GPUs, not even Eyefinity with MSAA is enough to take the CPU bottleneck completely away.
 

Arzachel

Senior member
Apr 7, 2011
903
76
91
That is just not true. First off, bf3 scales the LOD based on VRAM and the 580 was the fastest card for bf3 for a long while despite larger VRAM cards being available (ie 6970)
Wait wait wait, are you sure about that? Wouldn't that make any fps comparisons moot?
 

LxMxFxD4

Senior member
Oct 6, 2007
359
0
0
That is just not true. First off, bf3 scales the LOD based on VRAM and the 580 was the fastest card for bf3 for a long while despite larger VRAM cards being available (ie 6970)

I've said this a million times but view the presentation at last years geforce LAN where a DICE developer was present - the VRAM usage scales back and becomes more efficient with less VRAM available. View it. I know i've stated this a billion times.

Lastly, this entire argument is freaking stupid because it won't happen. Customers should have a choice just like they had a choice with the GTX 580, a 350$ 7970 1.5gb would sell very well...On that note, I find it pretty humerous that the GTX 580 1.5gb was just fine when the 7970 was released but apparently now (per toyota) you NEED 3GB. What? Anyway, AMD doesn't have business sense to give customers a choice of a more cost efficient card, instead they get 3gb overkill which is worthless for anything less than 3d surround. Even for 3d surround, 2gb is fine unless you're playing crysis 2 or skyrim with tons of mods. Anyway - And THESE type of arguments are like arguing with a stop sign....just watch. But..AGAIN...MOOT DISCUSSION cuz it isn't happening. So might as well just drop it eh? Arguing about something that will never ever happen. Stop sign.
I can attest that this is simply untrue. I game at 2560x1440 on CF 6970s 2GB reference cards. At ultra the game uses 2500MB+ in gulf of oman. It may swap vram sufficiently if you're running around on the streets but hop into one of the choppers and fly up to see the whole map and I get stutter city. This very experience makes me want to go with a 4GB or 6GB video card for my next card. 3GB might be obsolete in 6 months! If a 6 month old map on an 8 month old game is already using 2.5GB on my non-eyefinity, single monitor setup, whats in store for the next gen of games? My solution for now is bumping it down to merely "high" when I play gulf and a few other maps. It only takes a moment but it annoys me that my (still valued at ) $500 worth of hardware is insufficient due to at most $30 worth of video ram.
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
lol. LxMxFxD4, you cant be using 2500mb of vram because you only have 2gb of vram anyway. vram usage for an AMD crossfire setup it will actually show TWICE the amount being used becuase its reading both cards so you are actually only using 1250mb.
 

LxMxFxD4

Senior member
Oct 6, 2007
359
0
0
lol. LxMxFxD4, you cant be using 2500mb of vram because you only have 2gb of vram anyway. vram usage for an AMD crossfire setup it will actually show TWICE the amount being used becuase its reading both cards so you are actually only using 1250mb.
Incorrect. Both cards show 2500MB of ram use. In addition this is the amount of vram+swap.

EDIT: So just to clarify, bf3 at 3.8million pixels uses at least 2.5GB vram. When it runs out of video ram it resorts to system ram / page file. Running around in the streets between buildings isn't an issue - just when in a chopper and there are lots of textures to display. Ever notice that almost NO benchmarks show numbers when in a chopper? Kinda funny how review sites have failed us on this front. As an avid chopper pilot i'm annoyed, but the solution I found is pretty simple. Overclocking my cpu to 4.5ghz helps a bit because it increases system memory access. But doesn't solve the issue.
 
Last edited:
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
5
76
Wait wait wait, are you sure about that? Wouldn't that make any fps comparisons moot?
Cards with more vram do render higher LOD objects further into the distance and more objects (especially when flying high up looking down etc).. but i have never seen an extensively benchmark to determine the impact on performance. This also only occurs on "ULTRA" setting, at High the game will not dynamically load better/more stuff.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
0
0

I had the same debate at Rage and depends on settings -- thanks for the links!:)
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,597
1
81
I won't dispute that 4-way SLI can require some customization to scale really well. I see that often in my custom SLI bit thread at 3dcenter. But in general you will get a 3.5+ factor out of 4 cards if you know what you're doing.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
I won't dispute that 4-way SLI can require some customization to scale really well. I see that often in my custom SLI bit thread at 3dcenter. But in general you will get a 3.5+ factor out of 4 cards if you know what you're doing.
I didn't say it didn't scale well, just that it doesn't generally scale as well as 1->2 or 2->3. Across the board, it is much harder to get good scaling (and no I am not talking about benchmarks).
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
you are thinking like other customers would. they would think oh I can save 75 bucks or so and all common sense goes out the window. if you game at a res and settings that need the power of a 7970 then you also can use more than 1.5gb in some cases. I peg or almost peg my 1.25 gb of vram in some games at just 1920x1080. an oced 7970 would blow my card away and could run higher settings and res smoothly. also throw in vsync with triple buffering and install some mods and you will be using even more and more vram. 1.5gb makes NO sense at this point for a top of the line card.
I think a 'budget' 7950/7970 would be a fantastic idea. 1.5GB 7950 at say $300 would be a great price for a great GPU for 1080P or less. Definitely.
 

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
I think a 'budget' 7950/7970 would be a fantastic idea. 1.5GB 7950 at say $300 would be a great price for a great GPU for 1080P or less. Definitely.
AMD is being pretty stupid when it comes to lowering prices right now, though.

I mean, seriously:

GTX 670=HD 7970
$400 and $450

GTX 670>HD 7950
$400 and 380

Who would pay $50 more for the same performance and higher power consumption or $20 less for noticeably lower performance? I think AMD are pricing themselves out of contention. They'll have to drop the HD 7950 to $350 and the HD 7970 to $400.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,331
759
136
Who would pay $50 more for the same performance and higher power consumption or $20 less for noticeably lower performance? I think AMD are pricing themselves out of contention. They'll have to drop the HD 7950 to $350 and the HD 7970 to $400.
People who want more VRAM? People interested in compute? I'd take the 7970 over the 670 just to be more future proof. I don't think either are amazing deals though.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,597
1
81
I didn't say it didn't scale well, just that it doesn't generally scale as well as 1->2 or 2->3. Across the board, it is much harder to get good scaling (and no I am not talking about benchmarks).
To be honest, you said exactly that ;)
I think one of the main problems is that it takes insane settings that even 90% of the so called enthusiast don't know or care about to really get rid of the CPU bottleneck. So generally, people assume it doesn't scale well although it surely can.

One would surely concur that a 7970 is (depending on the game) almost overkill for 1080p. Then with 4x 7970/680 and Eyefinity/Surround it is even worse. 4x the power but only 3x the pixels. Add to that that the performance loss with higher resolutions is not completely linear (i.e. 4x the pixels but a little more than 25% of the original performance) and one will most certainly bump into a CPU bottleneck.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,080
1,218
126
I can attest that this is simply untrue. I game at 2560x1440 on CF 6970s 2GB reference cards. At ultra the game uses 2500MB+ in gulf of oman. It may swap vram sufficiently if you're running around on the streets but hop into one of the choppers and fly up to see the whole map and I get stutter city. This very experience makes me want to go with a 4GB or 6GB video card for my next card. 3GB might be obsolete in 6 months! If a 6 month old map on an 8 month old game is already using 2.5GB on my non-eyefinity, single monitor setup, whats in store for the next gen of games? My solution for now is bumping it down to merely "high" when I play gulf and a few other maps. It only takes a moment but it annoys me that my (still valued at ) $500 worth of hardware is insufficient due to at most $30 worth of video ram.
This is bull. I play at 2560x1600P with 2GB VRAM and get no slowdowns or stutters. Your cards may simply lack the horsepower to run the settings you're using.
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,597
1
81
Might be just microstuttering that he is experiencing. What fps can CF 6970s do at that res? 30-50? I wouldn't be surprised if that was the problem.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
Might be just microstuttering that he is experiencing. What fps can CF 6970s do at that res? 30-50? I wouldn't be surprised if that was the problem.
Its not MS. I've played it pretty extensively on 7970CF in the past and there is no MS, so it stands to reason that MS and VRAM isn't the issue on the cayman. Anyway, the cayman just sucks at tessellation and DX11 in general in comparison to Fermi and Kepler.

Lack of DX11 horsepower is the correct answer, IMO
 

boxleitnerb

Platinum Member
Nov 1, 2011
2,597
1
81
Its not MS. I've played it pretty extensively on 7970CF in the past and there is no MS, so it stands to reason that MS and VRAM isn't the issue on the cayman. Anyway, the cayman just sucks at tessellation and DX11 in general in comparison to Fermi and Kepler.

Lack of DX11 horsepower is the correct answer, IMO
He has a 6970CF, that is slower. BF3 isn't particularly tessellation heavy, that was Crysis 2. Maybe he is more sensitive to MS, I wouldn't outright exclude it just because you don't seem to notice it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY