TPU: NVIDIA Readies Non-Ti GeForce GTX 560 To Ward Off HD 6790 Threat

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
Who are you talking to? what argument is that countering? whatever it is it hasn't been discussed for pages, I don't mind going back to it but I am just not sure in what context to take what you say.
I belive the arugment was that the 6870 was a bad gpu, because it was slower than a 5870.

the 5870 is faster, but its also a bigger chip than the 6870 (~32%), uses more power (~20%), and its only about 9% faster than a 6870.

So Id argue that the 6870 is a decent chip... its performance/mm^2 is high, as is its performance/watt.
In that reguard its a better chip than the 5870.


@krumme

I only really compaired the 6870 to the 470, because the size differnce is obvious, and their performance simular. It was just to make a point, that the 6870 isnt pr say a bad gpu, even if it is slower than the 5870.
 
Last edited:

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Die size is mostly transparent to the end user, and to see it again and again used as a debate tactic is not useful, especially when AMD is all over the place themselves. Barts(255mm)got smaller than Cypress(334), but Cayman(389) got larger. Cayman also came out 14 months after Cypress, and this is the performance per mm difference ?

edit: So AMD performance per mm went down, and they charge less at launch for thier high end gpu's just to compete with Nvidia's 'huge' dies.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/22.html
perfrel.gif
 
Last edited:

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Die size is mostly transparent to the end user, and to see it again and again used as a debate tactic is not useful, especially when AMD is all over the place themselves. Barts got smaller than Cypress, but Cayman got larger. Cayman also came out 14 months after Cypress, and this is the performance per mm difference ?
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_6950_1_GB/22.html
perfrel.gif

I'd argue the same for Uni's synthetic Tessellation test. It does nothing for the end user as it doesn't stack their card's performance properly in real world usage. If the GTX 5 series scores 50% more in tess heavy Uni, that doesn't correlate to Metro 2033 where the differences are smaller.

I agree with Taltamir at this point arguing tessellation is pointless as the games that have it don't push are hardware (HAWX) or completely destroy our hardware (Metro 2033). By the time it is a staple the equipment on hand will handle it more gracefully.
 

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
but Cayman got larger. Cayman also came out 14 months after Cypress, and this is the performance per mm difference ?
You arnt the only one to voice that... and I agree... something didnt turn out right with the Caymans.
Their die size / performance ratio went down alot...

As you can see from that TPU chart...

the 6970 is 111% vs 6870's 89%, which means its roughly 25% faster.

BUT size wise...

389 vs 255 is a differnce of 52%!

52% bigger for only 25% differnce in performance?
Yeah something went wrong/didnt turn out as well as planned with the 69xx cards.

Hopefully its fixed when next gen comes... or maybe the new road amd is takeing is just not as effecient?
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
I belive the arugment was that the 6870 was a bad gpu, because it was slower than a 5870.

the 5870 is faster, but its also a bigger chip than the 6870 (~32%), uses more power (~20%), and its only about 9% faster than a 6870.

So Id argue that the 6870 is a decent chip... its performance/mm^2 is high, as is its performance/watt.

I see. I would say that the 6870 is a better chip. It is more efficient per watt and per mm^2 of space.
Yes the 5870 is faster overall, but that is more of a case of unfortunate naming. They should have named the 6870 the 6860 or something.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
found it.. (the name of the bench's in your links)

its odd that Anandtech scores variate from the ones from Techpower up.


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_6970_PCS_Plus/20.html

TPU - extreme? tes heaven 2.0 2560x1600 4xAA
580 ~ 31.9 fps
6970 ~ 32.1 fps

^above with NVIDIA: 266.58 and ATI: Catalyst 11.1


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU11/225

Anandtech - extreme tes heaven x.x? res? AA? ect
580 ~ 35.2 fps
6970 ~ 25.7 fps

what driver versions? are they useing? ect ect.

Heaven benchmark is backed by Nvidia. Be aware of possible bias.
 

PingviN

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2009
1,848
13
81
52% bigger for only 25% differnce in performance?
Yeah something went wrong/didnt turn out as well as planned with the 69xx cards.

New architecture was implemented. Architecture probably meant for 32nm to begin with.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Heaven benchmark is backed by Nvidia. Be aware of possible bias.

Actually when ATI Cypress launched with the first DX11 cards, the only thing on display of dx11 was the Heaven Benchmark and the Dirt 2 demo.

And if you click on Company Info for Unigene this is the correct information : http://unigine.com/company/
Partners

Unigine Corp. is a registered developer of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (previously ATI Technologies Inc.), NVIDIA Corporation and Creative Labs Inc. Being a registered developer we work closely with hardware vendors in order to provide the best level of performance and stability of Unigine technologies.
logo_amd.gif
logo_creative.gif
logo_nvidia.gif
Metroidx2, click on the link the %'s are very similar for 1900x1200 , for the point I was making.

perfrel_1920.gif
 
Last edited:

badb0y

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2010
4,015
30
91
Cayman was never intended to be released on 40 nm, by now 32 nm was supposed to be out hence the increase in die size.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Actually when ATI Cypress launched with the first DX11 cards, the only thing on display of dx11 was the Heaven Benchmark and the Dirt 2 demo.

How about you check out the companies' blog, where they talk about the very swanky party Nvidia threw them for finishing Heaven.

It raises questions of bias.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
You arnt the only one to voice that... and I agree... something didnt turn out right with the Caymans.
Their die size / performance ratio went down alot...

As you can see from that TPU chart...

the 6970 is 111% vs 6870's 89%, which means its roughly 25% faster.

BUT size wise...

389 vs 255 is a differnce of 52%!

52% bigger for only 25% differnce in performance?
Yeah something went wrong/didnt turn out as well as planned with the 69xx cards.

Hopefully its fixed when next gen comes... or maybe the new road amd is takeing is just not as effecient?

I think you need to read up on the difference between Cayman and Cypress. Cayman at times can be much faster than Cypress and still has some major driver improvements to come. It also has a lot more compute potential, if you read the AT launch article, than Cypress.
 

Skurge

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2009
5,195
1
71
How about you check out the companies' blog, where they talk about the very swanky party Nvidia threw them for finishing Heaven.

It raises questions of bias.

HEAVEN only had a normal tessellation mode when it came out with the 5800 series, then when the 400 series launched, HEAVEN 2.0 came out with extreme tessellation. The tess in regular heaven was overdone in some places anyway. I've never run the extreme setting, so I can't say if it looks any better.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
Interesting how you grab the cheapest AR prices from Newegg for your nVidia cards, and then add $5.00 to what we've been told is the full suggested retail of the 6790. Those 2 nVidia Sku's retail for $150.00 while the HD6790 is reported to retail for $20.00 less than that. You keep spinning it to make the nVidia cards sound cheaper and the AMD card to sound more expensive. While nVidia makes fine cards, they almost always punch below their weight class.

I also have a feeling you'll have to eat those words regarding the TDP of 150W.

The reports on the 6790 releasing at 20$ less were wrong. If fact even I was 15$ too cheap. 150$ for that turd of a card is ridiculous.
Like I said the 6790 and gtx550 is a waste when the gtx460 768mb is faster and cheaper.

The 6790 uses more power then a 6850 and is slower, looks like I won't be eating those words as per the Anand review.
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
The reports on the 6790 releasing at 20$ less were wrong. If fact even I was 15$ too cheap. 150$ for that turd of a card is ridiculous.
Like I said the 6790 and gtx550 is a waste when the gtx460 768mb is faster and cheaper.

The 6790 uses more power then a 6850 and is slower, looks like I won't be eating those words as per the Anand review.

Nah...your not eating any words happy, except about the GTX590 being a turd. But in the meantime, you can gnaw on this :)

HD6790-35.jpg

HD6790-53.jpg

HD6790-66.jpg


So, it all depends on what is being played, and who has the card.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
So, it all depends on what is being played

while that is true when comparing between teams (aka, amd vs nvidia), you can still draw an overall conclusion. just because there are games where it is slightly faster (due to AMD advantage in those games) doesn't mean its faster overall.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Nah...your not eating any words happy, except about the GTX590 being a turd. But in the meantime, you can gnaw on this :)

HD6790-35.jpg

HD6790-53.jpg

HD6790-66.jpg


So, it all depends on what is being played, and who has the card.
I think BFBC2 results are telling. The 6850 stock clocks are 775, so the 981mhz 6790, a 200mhz overclock made it about equal to a stock 6850. Its not a very good option.

If you took that stock 6850 and added 200mhz it would probably return #'s similar to the gtx560 in that test.
 

Gloomy

Golden Member
Oct 12, 2010
1,469
21
81
Die size is mostly transparent to the end user, and to see it again and again used as a debate tactic is not useful, especially when AMD is all over the place themselves. Barts(255mm)got smaller than Cypress(334), but Cayman(389) got larger. Cayman also came out 14 months after Cypress, and this is the performance per mm difference ?

comparing the 6950 to the 5870 (same performance). AMD then made the 6970 20% faster than the 5870

would be equivalent to comparing the 570 to the 480 (same performance). Nvidia then made the 580 20% faster than the 480.

so

did nvidia fail as well? or just AMD? :sneaky:
 

cusideabelincoln

Diamond Member
Aug 3, 2008
3,274
41
91
The 6790 uses more power then a 6850 and is slower, looks like I won't be eating those words as per the Anand review.

LOL you kept saying it would draw 150W. You are eating those words whether you believe you are or not, because it's no where near 150W. And now you're changing your argument. So transparent.

And you are comparing Nvidia's last generation gtx460 with the newer 6790.
We shall see who's gnawling when the non ti gtx560 hits in a few weeks.
? I struggle to see the point your making outside of straight up cheerleading. The vanilla 560 is going to be slotted against the 6850, 6870, or both. Not intended for the same market as the 6790. But... "we shall who's gnawling (wtf?) when the non ti gtx560 hits in a few weeks and completely DEMOLISHES THE RADEON HD 6450. THE 6450 JUST CANT COMPEET! I hope I don't see this 'but it costs less' excuse. Big whoop if the 6450 cost less if it cant compeet it can't compeet."
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
Like I said the 6790 is a waste when the gtx460 768mb is faster and cheaper.


And you are comparing Nvidia's last generation gtx460 with the newer 6790.
We shall see who's gnawling when the non ti gtx560 hits in a few weeks. :)

Bolded above from one of your previous posts, are you or are you not comparing the 6790 against a GTX460, which of course is Nvidia's last generation ? Because it sure looks like you did.

Of course, if you want to get technical, it could also be argued that the 6790 is AMD's last generation. Since it is a cut down "6870". And the 69xx series is the new generation.

Do you think the GTX560 "non TI" is next generation ? Because isnt it nothing more than a overclocked "renamed" GTX460 from "last generation" ?

I mean who really cares ? Because when the non-relevant 560 is launched, the only thing it will do is maybe lower the prices of the 6790 and hopefully the 68xx series.
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
while that is true when comparing between teams (aka, amd vs nvidia), you can still draw an overall conclusion. just because there are games where it is slightly faster (due to AMD advantage in those games) doesn't mean its faster overall.

Yes, you are exactly right. I could have also posted some charts where the 460 768 was faster than the 6790 because it favors NV. It can go both ways. But overall, I think the two cards are about equal. There are games that are favored for AMD and some favored for NV. And a bunch of those games...I dont even play.

Honestly, when I purchase a card, it is always for single player games...and games I currently own. I cant stand playing online. I "only" look at charts that has the games "I" play. But that is irrelevant anyway, since I am not looking to purchase neither of these. But may be a nice upgrade for the 9800GTX the wife is running.
 

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
The vanilla 560 is going to be slotted against the 6850, 6870, or both

Yes I told you guys that the 10th of December, thats old news.

But there will be/ should be another card called the gtx560 se, thats the one the 6790 needs to look out for and the one I was talking about.This card will be faster then a 6790 and just a tad slower then the 6850.

The vanilla gtx560 will be a tad slower then the 6870.
 

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
Which make the 6790 seem even more sad doesn't it?

This doesn't answer the question I asked. I can't compare the two because one is newer than the other ? But you can ? :thumbsup:

Come on....so now we are going to have....

GTX560 SE
GTX560
GTX560 Ti

So if a 6790 is "sad" because it is a cut down version of the 6790, what does that make a 560 SE ?

Anyway, if the 560 SE is faster than the 6790, it cannot be compared. One is newer than the other. It doesn't matter if it is a cut down version does it ?