AMD Radeon HD 9970 Specifications Leaked – Twice as fast as GTX 780 (ChipLoco rumor)

[BoFox]

Sure hope not. 15% is rather pathetic after almost two years (or 15 months since the Ghz edition).

Trust me, it *has* to be more than 20% this time. AMD isn't that dumb to do it just 10% like with HD 4890 or 15% like with HD 6970. AMD knows that they have to do at least 20% this time.... ^_^

 

[RussianSensation]

that's kind of what happened with the 6850 and 460 and if memory serves 7970 and 580

Granted the EVGA GTX460 FTW cost about the same as an HD6870 so it was somewhat reasonable to include it in the review since that overclock was warrantied. However, AT never included after-market HD7950 V2s in their reviews for more than 1 year since they came out, even after 760 launched. They also continued to use a "reference" 7970GE in all 680 reviews despite no such card ever selling in retail. AMD might as well send the fastest after-market R9 card to make it fair from now on.

 

[raghu78]

Granted the EVGA GTX460 FTW cost about the same as an HD6870 so it was somewhat reasonable to include it in the review since that overclock was warrantied. However, AT never included after-market HD7950 V2s in their reviews for more than 1 year since they came out, even after 760 launched. They also continued to use a "reference" 7970GE in all 680 reviews despite no such card ever selling in retail. AMD might as well send the fastest after-market R9 card to make it fair from now on.

RS this entire HD 7000 generation almost the majority of review sites have underplayed the HD 7950's value for money. hardocp is one such major offender. There was not a single custom HD 7950 boost review from the launch in Aug 2012 to date. What you have at that site is an endless list of Nvidia AIB card reviews. the best reason they gave was "We review partner cards of newly announced products". GTX 760 is nothing but a GK104 with 1 more SMX disabled compared to GTX 670. those guys at hardocp would have us believe its the next best thing to sliced bread. all the while when HD 7950 boost cards are matching GTX 670 at stock with 1 GB more VRAM which is important for next gen games like BF4. HD 7950 boost cards are also selling for less and are on par with GTX 670 OC and put the hurt on GTX 760 OC when all cards are overclocked :whiste:

also hardocp pick specific AMD partner cards which are priced badly. eg: ASUS HD 7870 was pitted against GTX 660 Ti. HD 7790 against GTX 650 Ti boost. hardocp would have easily found HD 7870 cards selling for prices on par with GTX 660 and same for HD 7790 wrt GTX 650 Ti. both are in favour of AMD.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/05/15/asus_radeon_hd_7870_directcu_ii_v2_review/#.UjqIdn_3x8E

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...7790_turboduo_video_card_review/#.UjqIoX_3x8F

I feel the initial positive impressions of GTX 680 / GTX 670 on the tech press led to many of them carrying a certain inherent bias towards the entire Kepler product stack or generation.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Honestly the worst offenders about not pitting stock cards against stock cards all seem to have access to FCAT as well. Strange coincidence if you ask me.

 

[Arzachel]

Has any HD7850 review included overclocking results with unlocked voltage for that matter? GTX460 was lauded for its overclocking headroom but the 7XXX series can overclock as high/higher over pretty much all the GCN product line and the only way you'd know is from forums like this.

 

[raghu78]

Has any HD7850 review included overclocking results with unlocked voltage for that matter? GTX460 was lauded for its overclocking headroom but the 7XXX series can overclock as high/higher over pretty much all the GCN product line and the only way you'd know is from forums like this.

true :thumbsup: HD 7850 cards are still considered as equal to GTX 650 Ti boost by the review sites. the stock HD 7850 at 860 mhz is on par with a GTX 650 Ti boost runing at 1033+ mhz. what they forget is the HD 7850 factory overclocked models run upto 1000 mhz. the avg OC for HD 7850 factory OC cards is around 1100 - 1150 mhz and at those speeds its perf is on par with HD 7870 and HD 7850 OC is trading blows with GTX 660 OC.

Once you hit 1200+ mhz the HD 7850 cards by virtue of their 256 bit memory and 32 ROPs start edging ahead of equally clocked GTX 660s which run out of scaling due to 192 bit memory at 24 ROPs. but those reviewers keep peddling the same crap of HD 7850 and GTX 650 Ti boost being equal.

 

[parvadomus]

Well, if this is true, AMD may have a winner:
http://www.techpowerup.com/191074/amd-hawaii-r9-290x-gpu-specifications-revealed.html

"2,816 SPs spread across 44 clusters with 64 SPs each" @ 900Mhz (good OC headroom?)

 

[blackened23]

Looks like nvidia isn't standing still either lols, a classy marketing campaign kicks off:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...rketing-offensive-ahead-of-hawaii-launch.aspx

Nvidia Launches "AMD Has Issues" Marketing Offensive ahead of Hawaii Launch

Expect certain forum posts to go all out, I guess?

 

[The Alias]

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2460/radeon-r9-290x.html

about time if you asked me

 

[wand3r3r]

Who can translate those fairly accurately into performance?

It appears there will be some gains not just 10% either.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Who can translate those fairly accurately into performance?

It appears there will be some gains not just 10% either.

If we look away from the memory bandwidth. Then it would roughly be 24% faster than a HD7970GE if boost is not used. And some 18% if boost is used on the GE. But since memory bandwidth is not increased, it will scale even less.

 

[Leadbox]

Who can translate those fairly accurately into performance?

It appears there will be some gains not just 10% either.

Assuming these specs are accurate and that they doubled the front-end units like they did with Bonnaire, I can see ~30% maybe

 

[Face2Face]

Has any HD7850 review included overclocking results with unlocked voltage for that matter? GTX460 was lauded for its overclocking headroom but the 7XXX series can overclock as high/higher over pretty much all the GCN product line and the only way you'd know is from forums like this.

Linus over at Linus Tech Tips runs all of his cards with a small overclock on all of his benchmarks. I think his reviews paints the 7950 in a different light compared to most other sites. Granted his 7950 is only running 1100/1575, but it hangs right with the 7970 and GTX 770 with small overclocks in most benchmarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmGWyAyO9mc

 

[HurleyBird]

Assuming these specs are accurate and that they doubled the front-end units like they did with Bonnaire, I can see ~30% maybe

I think it really depends on how aggressive the turbo is. 900MHz could mean a lot of turbo head room, but it could also point to thermal/power constraints. That is, assuming this new realistic sounding leak is legitimate.

 

[parvadomus]

30-35% faster, it all depends on turbo.

 

[The Alias]

37.5% more shaders
37.5% more tmus
50% more rops
for a pixel rate increase of 35% and 46% over the 7970ghz and reg
a texture rate increase of 23.4% and 34% over the 7970ghz and reg
and a flops increase of 23.7% and 34% over the 7970ghz and reg

 

[thilanliyan]

Whatever the specs are, I hope it at least matches a 780, for a bit less money.

 

[Keysplayr]

Can't wait til this thing launches.

 

[wand3r3r]

37.5% more shaders
37.5% more tmus
50% more rops
for a pixel rate increase of 35% and 46% over the 7970ghz and reg
a texture rate increase of 23.4% and 34% over the 7970ghz and reg
and a flops increase of 23.7% and 34% over the 7970ghz and reg

Clearly it'd be hard to expect more than those numbers, and likely somewhat less in real life.

I want some more data already.

I think 7 GHz memory has been speculated too, which could boost those a little?

 

[Elfear]

3DCenter weighed in on Hawaii's projected performance based off the latest specs.

7990 - 600%
690 - 580%
Titan Ultra - 530-550%
R9 290X (2816 shaders) - 485-510%
R9 290X (2560 shaders) - 465-490%
Titan - 480%
780 - 440%
7970Ghz - 390%

or with the 7970Ghz at 100%

7990 - 154%
690 - 149%
Titan Ultra - 136-141%
R9 290X (2816 shaders) - 124-131%
R9 290X (2560 shaders) - 119-126%
Titan - 123%
780 - 113%
7970Ghz - 100%

Of course that isn't taking into account overclocking or user tweaks for performance (i.e. an aftermarket 780 with sliders maxed would probably perform a lot higher than shown above).

 

[BoFox]

2816 shaders? hmmmmmm...!!! I hope so!!!

And they project 2560sp to have a chance at beating Titan overall?

Well well... I hope so too!!

But they're dead wrong with the 780 being only 13% faster than 7970GE.

Blah...

 

[Elfear]

2816 shaders? hmmmmmm...!!! I hope so!!!

And they project 2560sp to have a chance at beating Titan overall?

Well well... I hope so too!!

But they're dead wrong with the 780 being only 13% faster than 7970GE.

Blah...

They actually compiled their results from 6-8 different review sites. I'm sure with sliders all maxed out the 780 would probably be a lot faster.

 

[BoFox]

They actually compiled their results from 6-8 different review sites. I'm sure with sliders all maxed out the 780 would probably be a lot faster.

True, dat - many of these are European sites who ensured that the card was properly warmed up, to avoid "cold starts" at each benchmark with Boost2.0. But most of us here are not stubborn NON-overclockers, and simply changing the default Temperature target from 80C to 85C (only 5 degrees) makes it much less likely to "throttle" after warming up (at least for stock cards whereas most retail 780s have better cooling in the first place - these initial reviews usually only cover stock cards).

"Caveat emptor" - AMD might just do the same thing as Boost2.0 with Hawaii... :biggrin:

Only a problem for stubborn NON-overclockers with reference cards.

 

[Elfear]

True, dat - many of these are European sites who ensured that the card was properly warmed up, to avoid "cold starts" at each benchmark with Boost2.0. But most of us here are not stubborn NON-overclockers, and simply changing the default Temperature target from 80C to 85C (only 5 degrees) makes it much less likely to "throttle" after warming up (at least for stock cards whereas most retail 780s have better cooling in the first place - these initial reviews usually only cover stock cards).

"Caveat emptor" - AMD might just do the same thing as Boost2.0 with Hawaii... :biggrin:

Only a problem for stubborn NON-overclockers with reference cards.

You're right. It sure makes it hard to compare Nvidia and AMD these days though because those considered overclockers or enthusiasts are going to max their AMD cards out too. The 7000 series has a lot of headroom and so then you have to caveat any mention of Radeon review performance with "it's actually a lot faster than that for enthusiasts".

It used to be you'd compare out-of-the-box performance and overclocked performance but the waters have been muddied with Nvidia's Boost.

 

[Z15CAM]

So what's this all boiling down too other then the AMD HD 7990 is the TOP Card and $300 cheaper then the GTX 690.

I want an AMD 512 Bit/4GB VRAM in a Single GPU Card that will do 4K Gaming and cheaper then a GTX 780.