AMD goes fermi

[Lonbjerg]

"Rated TPD" means far less than what type of transistors are used(leaky vs. none-leaky(GF110 actually uses 3 types)) and how the architechture acts at higher frequencies, voltage and leaking.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/nvidias-geforce-gtx-580/3

I am amazed how posters will post pure...well...rubbish...when they are using the forum of a technical sites that has provided the answers.

GTX480 = 250 watt TDP
GTX 580 = 244 watt TDP.

Now one could look up the performance and overclocking abilities of the 2 GPU's and compare them to their respective TDP's..."rated" or not...or one could continue to posts against known facts :hmm:

 

[notty22]

You are confused if you think your overclocked 6950 could keep up with even a mildly o/c gtx 580. And I believe you have intentionally omitted your total power usage of your system o/c with this 1000mhz 6950. A stock 6950 to a stock 6970 pulled 50 watts more.
By the way, you mocked referencing Wikipedia here, and you just did that.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I guess MrK6 point is "what is the performance at a given power consumption"?

4870/4890/GTX285 ->5870/5850 - higher performance, lower power consumption.
4870/4890/GTX285 -> GTX480 - even higher performance, much higher power consumption

5870 -> 6950 - higher performance (and double ram), lower power consumption.
GTX580 -> GTX 480 - higher performance, lower power consumption.
6970/5970/GTX580 ->7970 higher performance, lower power consumption.

Of course power consumption is only a factor when performance and prices are similar.

When GTX470 was similarly priced to the 5870, performed similarly and consumed much power, why would you buy a GTX570?

Once the GTX470 lowered in price to somewhat more expensive than the 5850 but cheaper than the 5870, the power consumption of the 5870 vs GTX470 was a much hard selling point. Then the doubt was "5850 with less performance, cheaper but a better balanced gaming card or GTX470 for sheer performance at slightly higher price and heat/power consumption drawback".

 

[RussianSensation]

Now one could look up the performance and overclocking abilities of the 2 GPU's and compare them to their respective TDP's..."rated" or not...or one could continue to posts against known facts :hmm:

It goes deeper than that. Apparently, if one bought a (1) cooler running GPU, (2) with lower power consumption, (3) superior performance/watt and (4) lower "real TDP" or (5) specified TDP from Brand A, it would overclock better than a GPU from Brand B that runs hotter, consumes more power, has worse performance/watt and has higher specified TDP.

Brand A = HD6870
Brand B = GTX470

If the above was true, an HD6870 would smash GTX470 in overclocking. :hmm:

I guess MrK6 point is "what is the performance at a given power consumption"?.

1) Ok, then how do you determine optimal power consumption level for each gamer? Intel HD3000 is fast enough to play Limbo. So it's better than 7970?

2) How can anyone look at GPU power consumption in the absence of total system power consumption? Can you play a game without CPU, motherboard, RAM, hard drives and monitor? Those are not "sunk" power consumption costs. They are very real. If I care about power consumption costs, I can't afford to play as often, or I play less games. Does that apply to enthusiasts who buy $500 GTX580 and $550 HD7970?

For example, a modern gaming system with a GTX580 consumed just 7.8% more power compared to the same system with an HD6970, and provided 20% more performance. And yet GTX580 (as a standalone card) was criticized for being power hungry? How does that make sense?

It's nice to have lower power consumption, no doubt. But if tomorrow, NV releases an HD7980 with 280W power consumption and 15% more performance than 210W HD7970, many enthusiast gamers will buy it and not care at all about the added power consumption, because first and foremost they want the best performance from a single-GPU card.

3) If we look at performance at a given level of power consumption, should performance/watt matter more than performance/price? HD6950s have lower performance/watt than HD7970 but are $150 less than a single HD7970 for similar performance.

 

[MrK6]

I am not confused at all. C-states and other power savings technologies allow the CPU to run below its nominal frequency in idle states. Since none of these technologies affect operating frequencies at load states, the 2500k @ 3.4ghz will always consume less power at load in games than 2500k @ 5.0ghz would, regardless of C-states, EIST, etc.. C-states and power saving technologies do not help a processor when its being loaded by a game if the game actually needs the CPU's resources. You can try to minimize the power consumption at load by specifying the overclocking by using Turbo multipliers on a per core basis, but once the game loads a core, it's going to 5.0ghz when in use, which means that your CPU will always consume more power at load than a stock 2500k.

And I get 5.0GHz of performance when the core is fully loaded for an instant. What I don't get, is 140-150W more power, which you erroneously insisted I would, twice:

Obviously, especially since HD7970 bottlenecks a stock 2500k in modern games at 2560x1600 4AA. It's like throwing 140-150W of extra power into nothing.

And what exactly is 2500k @ 5.0ghz getting you for 140-150W of extra power consumption in games?

But no, you aren't confusing anything. Games simply don't apply the load to a CPU that a program like Prime95 does, and you won't get the same power consumption either. After flubbing up such a basic concept, I'm surprised you're still actually posting in this thread.

But more so, you already stated that 30-36 fps is perfectly playable for you in a FP game. Since 2500k/2600k can easily achieve that without overclocking, why would you overclock your CPU to 5.0ghz? Surely for someone who absolutely cares about 50-55W of power, this would prohibitive? You said yourself you don't care to game at 60 or even 120 fps where the CPU performance actually makes a huge difference.

Perhaps you believe that your CPU uses 5-10W of power more at load when it's overclocked and running a game at 5.0ghz?

I think it's cute that you're trying to be witty after showing a blatant lack of understanding of the argument at hand. That only works when everyone reading the thread still thinks you have an idea of what you're talking about. Right now you're desperately trying to marry any ad hominem to my argument since you haven't been able to properly refute it despite trying half the night. If I cared about absolute power consumption numbers, I wouldn't be overclocking, would I? I've mentioned several times already that it's the concept of what performance is gained per watt, but you're conveniently ignoring this because you've injected too much personal loathing into what could have been an enlightening discussion for you. But please, continue to show off how little you know about the subject.

I didn't have any intent, it's the only remaining logical conclusion left after 3-4 pages of seeing your side. You thought GTX480's 15-20% performance advantage over 5870 was "meaningless". You thought GTX580's 20% performance advantage over HD6970 was unimportant even though GTX580 had that lead for 14 months. You argued that HD6970 can be overclocked to GTX580 speeds, but when a fully overclocked GTX580 was put head-to-head against an overclocked HD6970 and crushed it, you then claimed that GTX580's performance advantage in overclocked state didn't add to playability, but in fact it easily cleared 30 fps in games where HD6970 could not.

1) The GTX480 was only ~10% faster than the 5870 - http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/32.html . Use facts when you talk to me or I will just end up ignoring you because you're wasting my time.
2) You link a review which I've already pointed out did not do an equal overclock when comparing the cards. So a highly overclocked GTX 580 pulls ahead of a slightly overclocked HD6970; bravo, next you'll tell us overclocking causes power consumption to rise.
3) Nowhere did I claim that the GTX 580's performance advantage didn't add to playability. Go quote it.

If all you want is 30 fps in games on the PC, then GTX580 was perfectly fast for that for 14 months. Suddenly, HD7970 is a must buy at $550 with only 20% more performance over GTX580. Really?

I've noticed you've conveniently stopped quoting my posts, even though you scurried off to go re-write your own. So what, after your ad hominem attacks fail you're just going to blatantly put words in my mouth? The GTX 580 wasn't impressive because my overclocked 6950 was just as fast for half the cost. Overclocking a GTX 580 would have netted another 20% performance for a lot more heat and money. Early reviews show an overclocked 7970 performing as well as and even surpassing a GTX 590 on air, nevermind what it'll do when I put it under water. 60%+ more performance is impressive, 20% is not.

I understand the argument clearly. In all situations where you cannot logically defend your view, you attack the poster (like Notty22's statistical knowledge which has no relevance, or my monitor (again no relevance), or dismiss any enthusiast's desire to game at 50-60 fps in a FPS or a racing game as not the norm, etc.). You dismiss most websites anyone links unless they show what you want to see (like H and TPU only) as not counting since they are running "canned benchmarks". Ironic, because completely ignore facts such as GameGPU.ru and Bit-Tech.net running manual runs, and well in your mini-HD6950 to HD7970 review, you yourself plan to use canned/in-game benchmarks. Really?

Like I said, keep up the ad hominem and maybe it'll detract from your lack of argument. When you continually show your own ignorance on the subject, I didn't really have much part in it, you did it yourself. Bravo.

You make a big deal about 50-55W of power consumption, while ignoring that HD7970 is already a very high power consuming card to begin with.

Who made a big deal of it? Where's the quotation? I belittled the difference in my first post on the matter:

First off, if you look at the charts from the last dozen posts, the difference between a GTX 580 and HD6970 isn't even 50-60W, it's more 29-33W from those charts.

You're still clearly missing the point though, I guess I should just repeat it again and again though - it's performance per watt and what performance you get at said power consumption.

The best part you discuss how important power consumption is while coming from a previous generation i5 760 @ 4.1ghz and an HD5850 @ 1000mhz+.

I think this graphs speaks for itself:

Source

And that shows how much you don't understand the discussion or my argument. Since the 5850 consumed so little power at stock (127W), it was easy enough to clock it with volts and still maintain a decent TDP ceiling to keep my computer cool and quiet. I could also point out how that test is incorrect and the 5850 doesn't consume anywhere near that amount of power at 1000MHz, but I already did that last year.

Everyone knows that I am a price/performance guy and I don't hide it. People might not agree with me and I am 100% OK with that. At least I consistently ripped GTX580 for being overpriced vs. GTX570 and HD7970 for costing $550 and bringing so little over 580 after 14 months. I also said power consumption wasn't a big deal for high-end cards like GTX480/6970, even if people didn't agree, I was consistent.

In your case, you throw arms in the air over 50-55W of power in some cases, and in other cases (like i5 @ 4.1ghz and 5850 @ 1000+ mhz), it's not important. In other cases 30 fps is fast enough for enthusiast PC gamers, and you seem to think that HD7970 provides a whole new world of playability when the card can't even break 30 fps in Metro 2033, or Dragon Age 2, or Crysis 2 with AA at 2560x1600?

Notice a pattern of inconsistency?

The only inconsistencies are that you change your argument every 10 posts or so, as well as go back and edit your older ones, in some lame attempt to save face. I think I've rebutted several times any argument you put forth, as well as showing the forum your blatant lack of understanding of even the most basic physics/engineering principles. And seeing that video made me realize I've been doing this for longer than I thought. This discussion is ended, stop wasting my time.

 

[blastingcap]

snip

Many people leave their PCs on 24/7. They only have load on them for a couple of hours, though. For them idle power draw matters more than load power draw. And that power draw can be quite significant and add up to quite a bit over the course of the card's lifetime. Fortunately most cards have quite low idle power draws now.. but it still costs something. As a rule of thumb, each 1 watt of idle power draw will cost you a little over $1 over the course of a year, if you leave it on 24/7.

For those who dutifully turn their PCs off and do not leave them running 24/7, the extra wattage from a couple of hours of gaming every day or every other day, probably isn't that much money. A delta of, say, 40 watts, times 2 hours, times 1.25 (assuming 80% efficient PSU) is 0.1 kilowatt hours, or about 1.5 cents for a typical household. Over the course of a year, that's $0.015 x 365 = $5.48.

(Caveat: if power draw at load is enough to warrant getting a new PSU, then it's more expensive. Also, noise and thermals are not considered but those matter to some people... so for them, they will STILL want to avoid a high-wattage PSU or else resort to watercooling. I am also not adding in the secondary thermal effects of higher power draw: more heat regardless of whether it is dissipated inside the case or outside of it, which is good in winter and bad in summer, but that may influence the decisions of some purchasers.)

So power draw can be used as a tiebreaker between two similar cards of similar performance and price, when considering perf/price, and especially if the power cost is a significant fraction of the card's cost. Otherwise it is probably a tertiary factor when comparing 2 cards.

Also consider getting a more efficient refrigerator or fixing insulation, if you want to quickly knock down your power bill....

 

[MrK6]

"Rated TPD" means far less than what type of transistors are used(leaky vs. none-leaky(GF110 actually uses 3 types)) and how the architechture acts at higher frequencies, voltage and leaking.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/nvidias-geforce-gtx-580/3

I am amazed how posters will post pure...well...rubbish...when they are using the forum of a technical sites that has provided the answers.

GTX480 = 250 watt TDP
GTX 580 = 244 watt TDP.

Now one could look up the performance and overclocking abilities of the 2 GPU's and compare them to their respective TDP's..."rated" or not...or one could continue to posts against known facts :hmm:

So stop posting rated TDP's like they're worth something.

You are confused if you think your overclocked 6950 could keep up with even a mildly o/c gtx 580. And I believe you have intentionally omitted your total power usage of your system o/c with this 1000mhz 6950.

The argument made was a 6950 vs. a stock GTX 580, which it is faster than, check the link in my signature.

A stock 6950 to a stock 6970 pulled 50 watts more.
By the way, you mocked referencing Wikipedia here, and you just did that.

I pointed out an article that summarizes the definition of TDP per common knowledge. You clearly didn't go to college or don't understand how referencing works.

 

[MrK6]

I guess MrK6 point is "what is the performance at a given power consumption"?

I didn't think it was that difficult of a concept either :thumbsup:.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Ok, then how do you determine optimal power consumption level for each gamer? Intel HD3000 is fast enough to play Limbo. So it's better than 7970?

How do you determine the optimal performance? HD7970 has better performance/watt than 2x HD7970s, but what if you want 60 fps in a game instead of 35 fps? In that case if HD7970 may be the best performance/watt card, but would still be insufficient.

How do you determine the most optimal performance/watt and why does performance/watt matter more than performance/price? HD6950s have lower performance/watt than HD7970 but are $150 less than a single HD7970 for similar performance.

It has to be on a basis to basis card and situation, doesn't it?

Price varies, performance/price varies, performance can vary. Power consumption is set in stone. Power consumption isn't the most important factor (except if you are PSU limited) but if everything else is similar, smaller power consumption can be the deciding factor.

Now about your discussion with MrK6, that discussion is a bit irrelevant, isn't it?

One is saying heat/temperature/voltage between cards isn't determinant to their OC and other is saying that heat/temperature/voltage is determinant to compare overclocks between similar cards. I don't see any contradiction between those statements, if we are assuming conventional heat dissipating methods.

For example, your 6950 CF vs 7970. Sure the 7970 is more expensive, it is more power efficient and scales better with OC (apparently) and it might even reach higher OCs. 6950 CF is cheaper ($460-500 for 2GB models@newegg vs $550) but it also is a multi-gpu solution, with its own quirks, and does indeed consume more power and dissipate more heat.

 

[GaiaHunter]

For example, a modern gaming system with a GTX580 consumed just 7.8% more power compared to the same system with an HD6970, and provided 20% more performance. And yet GTX580 (as a standalone card) was criticized for being power hungry? How does that make sense?

Does it justify the higher power consumption (which in here is 14% more and ignoring that PSUs have a different efficiency curve)?

Or what about here where it is more like 20%?

This is ignoring if any of these GPU could reach same frame rate with lower consumption CPUs while others couldn't. This is also ignoring exactly how much does a game benefit from the increase OC on the CPU (especially when you start adding voltage) that is increasing total power load.

And critics over the GTX580 power consumption were much smaller than those thrown at the GTX480.

 

[Grooveriding]

seriously? You cannot buy it! The only proof you gave otherwise is that a forum poster in HardOCP forum claims to have bought on via phoine from a greek web-store... the webstore he claims to have bought it from does NOT list it as a product they carry...
All I asked for is one single link to a product page where there is an actual buy option. (not preorder, buy now).

Also, please avoid personal attacks

Someone bought it, it's easy for you to accuse them of being a liar because it showed you as being completely wrong, and you can toss out accusations like that with no repercussions as you are discussing someone on another forum. Shameful.

Please link me to your equally tear ridden, angst filled and whiny post about the 480/470 paper launch. That must of equally outraged you I guess.

Sad. When you look at the thread on [h] it's nothing but people excited about a new launch and asking how the card does. Over here it's four or five whiners coating their sour grapes about AMD having the best card out currently with irrelevant nonsense.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So stop posting rated TDP's like they're worth something.

You used "rated TDP" as an argument, don't try and wipe that off on me?! :\

The argument made was a 6950 vs. a stock GTX 580, which it is faster than, check the link in my signature.

I pointed out an article that summarizes the definition of TDP per common knowledge. You clearly didn't go to college or don't understand how referencing works.[/QUOTE]

Personal attacks disguised as argument != an argument.

TDP means nothing as to how a CPU/GPU overclocks.
Just like power draw dosn't matter in regards to how a CPU/GPU overclocks.

TDP only relates to how much watt you need to dissepate in order to cool it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Someone bought it, it's easy for you to accuse them of being a liar because it showed you as being completely wrong, and you can toss out accusations like that with no repercussions as you are discussing someone on another forum. Shameful.

Please link me to your equally tear ridden, angst filled and whiny post about the 480/470 paper launch. That must of equally outraged you I guess.

Sad. When you look at the thread on [h] it's nothing but people excited about a new launch and asking how the card does. Over here it's four or five whiners coating their sour grapes about AMD having the best card out currently with irrelevant nonsense.

That is quite fatacious as the retail date given by AMD is Jan 9th.
So according to AMD it's not for sale.

That you find examples (2 for now?) of people violating the sale date dosn't alter this fact.

Can YOU or ME buy this now?

 

[Grooveriding]

fatacious

Does this mean passing gas ?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Does this mean passing gas ?

A red herring fallacy isn't an argument.

Your argument is based on a fallacy.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review

For those of you trying to decide whether to get a 7970, you will have some time to decide. This is a soft launch; AMD will not make the 7970 available until January 9th (the day before the Consumer Electronics Show), nearly 3 weeks from now. We don’t have any idea what the launch quantities will be like, but from what we hear TSMC’s 28nm process has finally reached reasonable yields, so AMD should be in a better position than the 5870 launch. The price premium on the card will also help taper demand side some, though even at $550 this won’t rule out the first batch of cards selling out.

If you disagree, consult with AMD..they will confirm this.

 

[Arkadrel]

We don’t have any idea what the launch quantities will be like, but from what we hear TSMC’s 28nm process has finally reached reasonable yields, so AMD should be in a better position than the 5870 launch.

^ heard that other places too, the 7970 supply will be big/good.

On Jan 9th, you will be able to buy one, because they have made ALOT of them. Normally a soft launch if when there is little cards made, thats not the case for the 7970, their just not allowed to sell you cards yet (but their are lots and lots of them, laying around in hardware shops ect by now).

 

[AtenRa]

An insider from PLAISIO computers have said a few days ago they had received 5 Sapphire HD7970 last week and they have sold all of them. They dont have them on their side as of yet because it would be a violation of AMD's selling policies (HD7970 will sell on January 9th 2012).

That doesnt mean that HD7970 could be purchased on the shops as of yet and they actually did a paper launch on the 22 Dec 2012. On the HD7970 call i have attended, AMD have said availability will be good on the launch day January 9th 2012.

 

[Grooveriding]

AMD Is Ready With Huge Stocks Of Radeon HD 7970

Some sources reported that AMD is ready with more than ample amount of the new Radeon HD 7970 graphics cards to be shipped on January 9. AMD’s partners are pretty confident that they’ll sale good deal of cards and alot of people will be willing to buy it when it’ll launch.

Situation of market will also depend upon actual allocation plan and which market will get how many cards but no details about that are available right now.

It’ll launch with a price tag of US $549.99 in United States but there is no official statement about pricing in Europe. According to some early listings, its around €600 with VAT but its expected to settle at €500 with VAT after launch.

 

[Lonbjerg]

AMD Is Ready With Huge Stocks Of Radeon HD 7970

So can YOU or I buy one now?

The answer to that question show why you were intellectually dishonest in your posts towards taltamir on a simple yes and no question...where you were wrong :thumbsdown:

 

[Grooveriding]

So can YOU or I buy one now?

The answer to that question show why you were intellectually dishonest in your posts towards taltamir on a simple yes and no question...where you were wrong :thumbsdown:

Why do you care ? Why are you in this thread. You're not in the market for an AMD card. What exactly is your point in this thread ? Beyond trolling an AMD thread out of rage over AMD being on top for the moment.

Such worthless drivel from you consistently. Seriously, you have the most robust case of verbal diarrhea I've seen on these forums.


Personal attacks and insults are not acceptable in VC&G.

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following portions of the AnandTech Forum Guidelines:

1) No trolling, flaming or personally attacking members. Deftly attacking ideas and backing up arguments with facts is acceptable and encouraged. Attacking other members personally and purposefully causing trouble with no motive other than to upset the crowd is not allowed.

We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Lonbjerg]

Why do you care ? Why are you in this thread. You're not in the market for an AMD card. What exactly is your point in this thread ? Beyond trolling an AMD thread out of rage over AMD being on top for the moment.

Such worthless drivel from you consistently. Seriously, you have the most robust case of verbal diarrhea I've seen on these forums.

It's a simple yes and no question.
You "cared" a lot about when you found 2 users who had their supplier break the sales-embargo.

You cared enoguh to write semi-long posts about (with pictures).

Now you don't care..and turn into a personal attack, that is longer than the answer I asked for

Can YOU or I buy a 7970 now?

/checkmate

 

[Arkadrel]

@Grooveriding

Eloquent ownage is pure awesum.
If you gotta, might as well do it in style.

Can YOU or I buy a 7970 now?

Not unless you find some shop, willing to sell you one before Jan 9th.
I expect most of them wouldnt, however some clearly will.


Please don't high-5 and bait a flamer for their flaming. This is not what these forums are for. If you can't understand this then there are plenty of other forums that will cater to your needs for bashing on members.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Grooveriding]

snip

More of the same ramblings from Lonbjerg, angry over yet another successful AMD launch.

 

[tviceman]

Why do you care ? Why are you in this thread. You're not in the market for an AMD card. What exactly is your point in this thread ? Beyond trolling an AMD thread out of rage over AMD being on top for the moment.

Such worthless drivel from you consistently. Seriously, you have the most robust case of verbal diarrhea I've seen on these forums.

So is this how to concede an argument? Don't admit to be wrong, but instead attack the reasons of points the other person is making by going after what you believe is their motives in a derogatory fashion? Is this not a personal attack?

 

[GaiaHunter]

It isn't technically a soft launch because they didn't say these cards were available for public and then there was only a token supply in a few places.

It can be called a paper launch if one wants.

It was said these cards will be available for sale on the 9th January and this is a teaser/preview.