Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,114
- Location
- Gibraltar
Hope they don't hold back on the performance like they did with the 7970
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Hawaii will be priced below US $600
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
I thought ATI was bought in 2006 and the 4870s came out in 2008 under AMD?
I did
An overclocked 7970 can beat a stock 780 so i would imagine the target for Amd will be the Titan which seems to hold a 30% lead or more in almost all situations, synthetic or in-game, stock or overclocked.
Nope, 5870 was the last high end gpu from ATI (and at £300 was a crazy deal given the 480 was nowhere to be seen)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,563
- Location
- Dormanstown.
He's not wrong.
It's just that they didn't remove the ATI brand until 6XXX (And even then it said ATI for a while until really the 7XXX)
I think they need another 5870 to be honest, which is why the 7970 was so meh at launch, at least in my opinion.
Last edited:
stock is one thing, OC ability is the judge.
Sure but My 7970s can generally beat an overclocked 780 as long as the 780 is a reference 6+8 pin card and the base clock on the 780 is average (1100ish) 7970s just need to be running in the 1340-1360 range which, is only doable under water with cherry picked cards.
Generally the 780 is not really a good card for overclockers and the 7970 is close to it once under water. The only real upgrade for me is a mildly overclocked Titan which offers well in excess of 7970 performance with normal clock speeds.
I can't see AMD offering a card which is less than 30% out of the box quicker than the 7970, if they do this and maintain the voltage control, it's well on its way to eating nvidias lunch at half the cost.
Generally the 780 is not really a good card for overclockers and the 7970 is close to it once under water. The only real upgrade for me is a mildly overclocked Titan which offers well in excess of 7970 performance with normal clock speeds.
I can't see AMD offering a card which is less than 30% out of the box quicker than the 7970, if they do this and maintain the voltage control, it's well on its way to eating nvidias lunch at half the cost.
Saying things like that is stupid. You either directly compare two cards equally or you don't. Saying a high OC 7970 under water can beat a 780 running a low OC is pointless. Its like saying a Ford Focus with nitro can beat a Porsche Cayman S as long as the Porsche only uses first gear.
I hold no loyalty to either company and I'm really interested to see what AMD bring to the table. Would be awesome if the bring a card like 4850 which was extremely good value for money.
Precisely. I roll my eyes every time this tired old chestnut is brought out. Either compare stock vs stock, or overclocked vs overclocked (to the same kind of degree). Anything else is done for self-justification purposes.
Aside from the tired old "stock vs clocked" argument - is a 7970 running at 1350Mhz *really* faster than a GTX780 running at 1100Mhz?!
If so - in what application? I'm sure there is the odd game or two where the 7970 would pull ahead, but I can't see it matching the performance of an 1100Mhz 780 overall. Consider the numbers:* At stock (comparing boost clock to boost clock) the 7970 runs at 16.4% higher clockspeed, with GTX780 ahead by around 20-25% in overall performance.
* In the 1350Mhz vs 1100Mhz scenario, the 7970 is running 22.7% faster than the GTX780. There is no way that this small increase in clockspeed advantage (6.3% gain over the stock scenario) is going to make up for a 20%+ gulf in performance. The 7970s will still be behind by a good 15-20%.
To a lot of AMD owners, nVidia have the image of big hot chips with no OC headroom and a decent OC is usually "free" with AMD cards. Plus they used to be a lot cheaper so it became popular to OC and xfire and then say "faster for less money LOL!" at GTX x80 owners.
Well the numbers suggest that, even with "cherry picked" chips under water, it still isn't possible.
Where do you pluck 10% from? You have access to OCUK's operating costs do you?
If you look a few threads down you can see that my 7970 with a 1340 clock is enough to turn over a 780 with a 1150 base clock in Tomb Raider in one or two card configs. ill be running last light benches tonight to see what kind of performance I get, I will be surprised if the difference is more than 10%. It won't be visible.
This is an overclocked 780 configuration and this is a real world bench.
Looking at the fire strike runs, you really need the 780 boosting well into the high 1200s on its core to see clear water between the two. Due to the voltage limitations placed by nvidia, this is not a common acheivement, as you can see from the valley and heaven charts.
This is an overclocked 780 configuration and this is a real world bench.
Looking at the fire strike runs, you really need the 780 boosting well into the high 1200s on its core to see clear water between the two. Due to the voltage limitations placed by nvidia, this is not a common acheivement, as you can see from the valley and heaven charts.
Unsurprising that the 7970s are able to catch / pass the 780s in Tomb Raider - especially if with TressFX enabled. You would almost certainly find the same in Dirt: Showdown as well. The AMD cards do extremely well in these benchmarks.
Over a full suite of benchmarks the difference will be around 15-20%.
Over a full suite of benchmarks the difference will be around 15-20%.
I said I "expect"
From experience in selling large volumes of items 10% is decent on high value items.
Read what I wrote
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,657
Getting wee bit confused here! Why are folk continually posting the lie that nvidia currently produce the fastest gpu gpu solution currently available?
That honour belongs to the 7990. Whether its a dual gpu or not, the fact is idlt destroys both the 780 and Titan and unless nvidia release a 790 or Titan Ultra or X2 then they are in 2nd place.
Dont misunderstand me, clearly nvidia currently produce the fastest gpu core available, but people dont buy gpu cores, they buy graphics cards - and the 7990 is currently the king of the single card solutions (regardless of it being a crossfire on single card solution).
That honour belongs to the 7990. Whether its a dual gpu or not, the fact is idlt destroys both the 780 and Titan and unless nvidia release a 790 or Titan Ultra or X2 then they are in 2nd place.
Dont misunderstand me, clearly nvidia currently produce the fastest gpu core available, but people dont buy gpu cores, they buy graphics cards - and the 7990 is currently the king of the single card solutions (regardless of it being a crossfire on single card solution).
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Because fastest GPU not equal fastest graphic card. There are many non-mainstream games or games that are not from big publishers such as EA simply don't scale well with SLI/Crossfire at all.
But to be honest though, the GTX780 charging such as high price and released nearly 2 years after the 7970, there should be no reason that the 7970 can even touch it...regardless of overclocking or AMD titles what not. The performance gain that the GTX780 has over the previous gen simply don't match the price premium it demands.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,657
I was pretty clear that I do understand that. And I accept that SLI and Crossfire do not always scale very well, but then if you are buying a $700+ gpu to play older games I would suggest it is slight overkill, with the greatest of respect.
If you are buying a gpu today the most powerful single card solution is from AMD. That would change overnight if a 790 or a Titan X2 were to come out, but as it is at the high end, single CARD market the 7990 is the boss!