What's so bad about reading faudzilla. In here I notice alot of users get all emotional when a faudzilla news us posted.
Hes not in the loop in any sense, he posts rumors off of forums, and hes almost always wrong about stuff.
Ontop of that, hes heavly nvidia biased... never says anything good about amd if he can twist it to look bad.
Semi-accurate atleast has inside sources... so its not just all forum rumors, and hes right alot more often than fud is. People here comment... oh but its charlie... yeah we ll... fud is like 10 times worse.
I would agree with this statment. AMD has such a large headstart, I would think they could not let Nvidia catch up so quickly.
A 6970 with only 1536 sp's though? That just does not seem to cut it.
It looks to me like another 4890 vs gtx 285 all over again.
Old cayman had 5D setup... problem was the 1 complex shader wasnt being used.
So 1600 shaders on the cayman, worked like 1600 shaders - (1600/4) = 1200 effective shaders.
Also look at barts, even with 5D setup, and ONLY 1120 shaders! yet its only like 5-10% slower than the 5870s at 1600.
Barts 6870's 1120 - (1120/4) = 840 effective shaders.
Now compair barts 840 effective shaders (what it has without the complex shader unit, thats never used) vs 1536 shaders of the 6950 or 6970, its almost a double up.
*IF* true, then the card (6950? 6970?) will run at:"The card runs at 880MHz and the card has the memory that runs at quite impressive 5.5GBps"
5.5GB / 4 = 1375.
256x1.375 / 8 x 4 = 176 GB/s memory bandwidth.
Last edited:
