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

[boxleitnerb]

I am not dragging you into anything. I am only using an example that 3% of the market that ignores price/performance wrt to $400-600 pricing gaps between lower level cards and ultra-enthusiast segment are not indicative of the general market. You seem to have trouble understanding this point time and time again. Based on this AMD does not need to beat 780/Titan or it somehow fails. Many posters in this thread continue to insinuate that unless AMD somehow beats 780/titan, then it has failed. There are plenty of other ways that AMD can deliver a competitive offering through game bundles and price/performance. And threatening to report me every time I post something that you disagree with makes you sound very immature. If you do not agree with something - i.e., SLI vs. CF vs. single GPU comparisons, please point it out. There is no need to make threats if you do not agree with an opinion of another poster. Furthermore, you often pick and choose what you want to address. You still didn't address the 770 vs. 7970GE pricing disparity in the US instead deflecting this point that in Germany this isn't the case. That doesn't explain why NV continues to charge such large premiums for its cards in the US, a market far larger than Germany for GPU purchases.

The point is AMD doesn't need to do anything with R9 single GPU against a $1,000 Titan. Their engineering and financial resources are better spend on the $550 and below line-up and saving whatever they have to compete with Maxwell.

I in fact did point it out. And it has nothing to do with the participants of that comparison or their value, but is a general concern which holds true for any graphics cards. Did you already forget? And since when is it required to address all parts of a post? This is just an excuse for not having to admit that you're wrong about the point I addressed. You can reiterate the rest of your post as long as you like, I really don't care. Did it ever occur to you that I might agree with those parts of your post that I don't contend? Probably not...Either be able to respond to specific criticism or don't respond at all since that is wasting both our time.

 

[DownTheSky]

If there is a card that delivers 90% of the gaming/DP performance of the Titan for $550 with BF4 bundle, it's not a Titan killer? That's an interesting observation considering so many posters on our forum claimed 7970 to be a failure when 680 undercut it by only $50 at launch and beat it by less than 10%.

It will be faster than Titan, though not by much. It won't be faster than 780 HOF and other crazy OC editions. 430sqmm is just enough for +50% SP and ROPs. You forget a large portion of the die is dedicated to stuff like UVD, Mem Cntrlr, Compute, redundancy; things that probably won't get upgraded. Still disappointing.

 

[Jacky60]

I'm appalled AMD didn't bring more performance to the table. I've been expecting something significant and instead they deliver this pathetic excuse of a GPU. I've never been so underwhelmed and disappointed in my life. No wonder they're losing money. OK they haven't launched yet but I for one will not buy AMD again after this fiasco.

 

[Crap Daddy]

It will be faster than Titan, though not by much. It won't be faster than 780 HOF and other crazy OC editions. 430sqmm is just enough for +50% SP and ROPs. You forget a large portion of the die is dedicated to stuff like UVD, Mem Cntrlr, Compute, redundancy; things that probably won't get upgraded. Still disappointing.

If you haven't bothered to read what the AMD rep says in Forbes I'll quote it for you: "We’re not targeting a $999 single GPU solution like our competition because we believe not a lot of people have that $999."

Does it look like it will be faster than Titan? Or maybe you think they'll ask $550 for a better card that Titan?

 

[Erenhardt]

I'm appalled AMD didn't bring more performance to the table. I've been expecting something significant and instead they deliver this pathetic excuse of a GPU. I've never been so underwhelmed and disappointed in my life. No wonder they're losing money. OK they haven't launched yet but I for one will not buy AMD again after this fiasco.

Where do I find "well...that escalated quickly..." meme?
The card is not even announced. Reviewers didn't even see how does it looks, but you already made an X on whole AMD lineup for the next 10 years?

 

[Erenhardt]

If you haven't bothered to read what the AMD rep says in Forbes I'll quote it for you: "We’re not targeting a $999 single GPU solution like our competition because we believe not a lot of people have that $999."

Does it look like it will be faster than Titan? Or maybe you think they'll ask $550 for a better card that Titan?

Would you buy AMD card for $1000 if it is 10% faster than a Titan?

 

[nurturedhate]

This seems to have gotten boring rather fast. Been looking for something to replace my 580 for awhile now. Can we start a Maxwell rumor thread?

 

[Jacky60]

Where do I find "well...that escalated quickly..." meme?
The card is not even announced. Reviewers didn't even see how does it looks, but you already made an X on whole AMD lineup for the next 10 years?

Lol

 

[hyrule4927]

I'm appalled AMD didn't bring more performance to the table. I've been expecting something significant and instead they deliver this pathetic excuse of a GPU. I've never been so underwhelmed and disappointed in my life. No wonder they're losing money. OK they haven't launched yet but I for one will not buy AMD again after this fiasco.

It took me a second to realize this was sarcasm (I hope).

 

[Kenmitch]

I'm appalled AMD didn't bring more performance to the table. I've been expecting something significant and instead they deliver this pathetic excuse of a GPU. I've never been so underwhelmed and disappointed in my life. No wonder they're losing money. OK they haven't launched yet but I for one will not buy AMD again after this fiasco.

I'm sure AMD is heartbroken the rumors didn't live up to your expectations.

No official specs, no reviews, no pricing, no performance numbers, but you condemn the cards.

All it took was rumors to twist your nipples....Go figure!

I guess it's possible you were being sarcastic.

 

[3DVagabond]

Very weak decision by AMD, 500mm2 would have beaten Titan but they didn't have the balls to go for it.

Understand how long it takes to design a chip. This is not a response to Titan. AMD can't, at the last minute (or even in the last year), decide to make a chip that's 500mm².

I'm appalled AMD didn't bring more performance to the table. I've been expecting something significant and instead they deliver this pathetic excuse of a GPU. I've never been so underwhelmed and disappointed in my life. No wonder they're losing money. OK they haven't launched yet but I for one will not buy AMD again after this fiasco.

Don't complain about prices then if you are going to support these niche chips that target ~1% of the market.


My take on this is if it's not competing with GK110 then it better be priced in the $400 range.

If the want to get $500-$600 for it, it's going to have to compete with the GTX 780. While Titan will be mentioned because at it's price point it's such an easy target for perf/$. The 780 has already removed it from the market because 99.99% of the market won't buy Titan over the 780 anyway.

Also curious what took them so long to get it out. This sounds like the chip we all were expecting in January.

 

[Jacky60]

Of course I'm being sarcastic. We don't know anything about it other than its new and going to launch soon and it's from AMD.:whiste:

 

[Hdgamer]

All they need to do is put a gazillion gigs of vram on this thing to make the morons on the forums happy. Doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people on forums how fast the gpu is anymore, but how much vram it has. Looks like I'll be getting some sli GTX 760's now while I wait out the true next gen. :whiste:

 

[el etro]

If there is a card that delivers 90% of the gaming/DP performance of the Titan for $550 with BF4 bundle, it's not a Titan killer? That's an interesting observation considering so many posters on our forum claimed 7970 to be a failure when 680 undercut it by only $50 at launch and beat it by less than 10%.

They can still beat or match Titan with the 30% minor die. Once we know AMD is not gonna praise us with a "Nvidia Killer", let's wait that AMD made a GPU that achieve the efficiency crown at every metter, it's their job now. Maxwell can still come at 28nm.


------------------------------------------------


EDIT: For the info we know now, it seems to be like this:

R9 290X: Hawaii XT - Faster than Titan, maybe at par with 780 HOF;
R9 290: Hawaii PRO - Faster than 780;
R9 280X: Tahiti XTL - Around to 7970 Ghz performance(hope to be tweaked to reduce power consumption);
R9 280: Tahiti ???(Sufix shows XTL sufix too) - Around to 7950 performance;
R9 270X: Curacao XT - Performance higher than 7870;
R9 270: Curacao PRO - Performance higher than 7850;
R7 260X: Bonaire XTX - Will replace the 7770s;
R7 250: Oland XT - GCN Replacement for 6670(the naming scheme suggests 3 tiers down(7790-7750-7730) to 260X);
R7 240: Oland PRO - Replaces 6570(?????).

Or judging by positioning(Like Nvidia made the 680 and lower tiers to compete against radeons)(take a look how it will make all the sense here):

R9 290X: Titan;
R9 290: 780;
R9 280X: 770;
R9 280: 760;
R9 270X: 660Ti;
R9 270: GTX 750Ti;
R7 260X: (If it is a improved Bonaire - i'm supposing this once it haves the XTX sufix)GTX 650TiB;
R7 250: GT 640v2 (gk 208 edition);
R7 240 GT 630;






EDIT(2): TPU's GPUdb entry for the R9 290(ponits 2304 CUs at 900Mhz): http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2397/radeon-r9-290.html

 

[LegSWAT]

It will be faster than Titan, though not by much. It won't be faster than 780 HOF and other crazy OC editions. 430sqmm is just enough for +50% SP and ROPs. You forget a large portion of the die is dedicated to stuff like UVD, Mem Cntrlr, Compute, redundancy; things that probably won't get upgraded. Still disappointing.

You're making a highly optimistic performance estimate and call this very estimate of yours disappointing? What's wrong with your logic unit?

 

[bystander36]

GTX760 SLI beats both the 780/Titan for less $. Also, does not explain how 770 commands such an unreasonable price premium over 7970 Ghz versions in the US.

GTX 760 SLI has higher FPS than the 780, it doesn't necessarily perform as well. Crysis 3, for example, is described as creating a sort of sea saw effect in frame variance in SLI. While the FPS is higher, that doesn't make it feel better.

If someone wants top performance, a 780 is better. If they want the ultimate performance, they may want 2 or 3. Is it the best value? Probably not, but it is the best performance and if someone wants the performance, that is what they will want to buy.

Am I recommending them to buy 780's? No, unless they want top performance, and willing to pay for it.

There are a lot of different performance levels and some come with different quirks you have to live with.

Edit: Just so we are clear, I'm not calling a 780 or Titan a good value. I was directing this towards your insults towards Nvidia users as being too loyal or stupid to know better. Many know exactly what they are getting, and do so willingly, because they don't like to compromise performance to save money.

 

[3DVagabond]

GTX 760 SLI has higher FPS than the 780, it doesn't necessarily perform as well. Crysis 3, for example, is described as creating a sort of sea saw effect in frame variance in SLI. While the FPS is higher, that doesn't make it feel better.

If someone wants top performance, a 780 is better. If they want the ultimate performance, they may want 2 or 3. Is it the best value? Probably not, but it is the best performance and if someone wants the performance, that is what they will want to buy.

Am I recommending them to buy 780's? No, unless they want top performance, and willing to pay for it.

There are a lot of different performance levels and some come with different quirks you have to live with.

Edit: Just so we are clear, I'm not calling a 780 or Titan a good value. I was directing this towards your insults towards Nvidia users as being too loyal or stupid to know better. Many know exactly what they are getting, and do so willingly, because they don't like to compromise performance to save money.

Seems to me if SLI has issues you wouldn't want to SLI 780's either. How can you recommend it for 780's but not for 760's?

 

[bystander36]

Seems to me if SLI has issues you wouldn't want to SLI 780's either. How can you recommend it for 780's but not for 760's?

Most the time SLI works well, but it may not be perfect either.

As I mentioned later, SLI has compromises to make, Crossfire has more compromises.

I personally never recommend SLI on mid-ranged products as you'll likely enjoy a single top in card better, but if you want even more performance than a single high end card can give, then you'll have to compromise and go with multiple GPU's.

What I hope you can understand is that performance has many layers and people are going to have a different opinion on what is best for them. Just because they choose a 780 doesn't make them a moron, it just means they don't want the hassle of multiple GPU and have top end performance. If they want more performance, they may opt for 2 or more.

 

[3DVagabond]

Most the time SLI works well, but it may not be perfect either.

As I mentioned later, SLI has compromises to make, Crossfire has more compromises.

I personally never recommend SLI on mid-ranged products as you'll likely enjoy a single top in card better, but if you want even more performance than a single high end card can give, then you'll have to compromise and go with multiple GPU's.

What I hope you can understand is that performance has many layers and people are going to have a different opinion on what is best for them. Just because they choose a 780 doesn't make them a moron, it just means they don't want the hassle of multiple GPU and have top end performance. If they want more performance, they may opt for 2 or more.

Just talking SLI, not crossfire, because you can't crossfire 760's

GTX 760 SLI has higher FPS than the 780, it doesn't necessarily perform as well. Crysis 3, for example, is described as creating a sort of sea saw effect in frame variance in SLI. While the FPS is higher, that doesn't make it feel better.

Specifically you say this above.^ Even with 780's in SLI you would still have this sea-saw effect you are describing. In which case the higher FPS still wouldn't be superior to the single GPU that doesn't exhibit the sea-saw effect. We would have "slower but smoother", which was all the rage last year and what makes many say crossfire is worthless/broke/cheating/etc..., or for a while even single AMD GPU's. If SLI exhibits this I don't know how you could recommend it at all.

Personally I haven't seen this issue reported with SLI. All of the reviews I've seen show it being pretty damned smooth. I'm assuming you know something here that I don't.

 

[Hdgamer]

If you guys want to argue the seasaw effect, single card gpu's don't put out perfect frame times either. Although much smoother and less seasawish, still not perfect. I've been running single and multi-gpu's for years now. SLI is superior, although not perfect while crossfire just gave me headaches and would take an sli rig that is pegged at 60 fps than a single gpu that drops into the 30's and 40's. When the sli rig drops below 50 fps then the seasaw effect becomes a problem. I just turn down settings to compensate and wait until I can upgrade to the next gen.

 

[tviceman]

Interesting revelation with the die size. I wonder if the exec got his facts straight.

 

[bystander36]

Just talking SLI, not crossfire, because you can't crossfire 760's



Specifically you say this above.^ Even with 780's in SLI you would still have this sea-saw effect you are describing. In which case the higher FPS still wouldn't be superior to the single GPU that doesn't exhibit the sea-saw effect. We would have "slower but smoother", which was all the rage last year and what makes many say crossfire is worthless/broke/cheating/etc..., or for a while even single AMD GPU's. If SLI exhibits this I don't know how you could recommend it at all.

Personally I haven't seen this issue reported with SLI. All of the reviews I've seen show it being pretty damned smooth. I'm assuming you know something here that I don't.

You are getting pretty hung up on the SLI comments. I said that SLI isn't necessarily better. I did not say it is never better, or usually not better, just that it isn't always better.

Read the whole post, and consider it all as a whole. The point is, SLI is not perfect, even if it is generally pretty good. If you jump on board with SLI, you have to make concessions on some inconsistencies. I gave an example, one which I cannot find the source of any longer, but it was one of the video reviews during the early stages of FCAT testing.

Tell me, so we can end this. Do you want me to say SLI is perfect, or horrible and not worth ever using? I think it is in a gray area, personally.

EDIT: Here is an example of where it isn't perfect, in particular the surround example: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...0-6GB-Review-Malta-Gets-Frame-Rated/Far-Cry-3

You may also find that games that aren't AAA titles, tend to have more issues, but are not tested, due to them not being so popular.

 

[bystander36]

If you guys want to argue the seasaw effect, single card gpu's don't put out perfect frame times either. Although much smoother and less seasawish, still not perfect. I've been running single and multi-gpu's for years now. SLI is superior, although not perfect while crossfire just gave me headaches and would take an sli rig that is pegged at 60 fps than a single gpu that drops into the 30's and 40's. When the sli rig drops below 50 fps then the seasaw effect becomes a problem. I just turn down settings to compensate and wait until I can upgrade to the next gen.

You aren't required to play at max settings. You can play the game at the same FPS with a single card, just with reduced settings, unless that single card is faster than the dual cards.

Asked which produces the best experience between 760 SLI and a 780, it might be closer. Though if you are going to compare 780 vs 780 SLI, I'd take the SLI any day and disable SLI when it is a problem.

I have had 680 SLI for over a year, so I am familiar with SLI. It seems good to me almost all the time, but not all the time.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm appalled AMD didn't bring more performance to the table. I've been expecting something significant and instead they deliver this pathetic excuse of a GPU. I've never been so underwhelmed and disappointed in my life. No wonder they're losing money. OK they haven't launched yet but I for one will not buy AMD again after this fiasco.

Why would you expect AMD's flagship single GPU to beat NV's flagship GPU when it hasn't happened since X1900XTX beat 7900GTX? After NV created the GPGPU market segment, it is now able to create 520-560mm2 die chips and due to such a profitable Quadro/Tesla line market segments, they can continue with this strategy.

It should be a foregone conclusion that the only ways AMD can beat NV is if (1) NV makes a mistake architecturally (GF5/7), (2) AMD adopts a similar large die monolith strategy, (3) AMD's engineers pull a miracle of performance/mm2. Otherwise, every generation that NV should continue to have the fastest single GPU simply because they have a lot more die space available to them. It's not as if NV's GPUs are like AMD's CPUs from an IPC perspective either. They are excellent as well which makes it nearly impossible for AMD to beat a 530-560mm2 die chip unless they fuse off double precision capability and make a pure 470-480mm2 gaming chip.

EDIT: Now I see your post was sarcasm

 

[The Alias]

Why would you expect AMD's flagship single GPU to beat NV's flagship GPU when it hasn't happened since X1900XTX beat 7900GTX? After NV created the GPGPU market segment, it is now able to create 520-560mm2 die chips and due to such a profitable Quadro/Tesla line market segments, they can continue with this strategy.

It should be a foregone conclusion that the only ways AMD can beat NV is if (1) NV makes a mistake architecturally (GF5/7), (2) AMD adopts a similar large die monolith strategy, (3) AMD's engineers pull a miracle of performance/mm2. Otherwise, every generation that NV should continue to have the fastest single GPU simply because they have a lot more die space available to them. It's not as if NV's GPUs are like AMD's CPUs from an IPC perspective either. They are excellent as well which makes it nearly impossible for AMD to beat a 530-560mm2 die chip unless they fuse off double precision capability and make a pure 470-480mm2 gaming chip.

I thought gk110 actually was somewhat bad when it came to gaming perf/mm2 which kind of left the door open for AMD