GTX680 to arrive at the end of February!

[spankingtexan]

errrrrrr that statement is just WRONG

Chill out man.

 

[Duff-Man]

Now, the question is, why did AMD do this? TDP = absolute rubbish. Perhaps they were worried about longevity at higher clocks. Maybe they thought their PCB design is crap. Maybe maybe whatever whatever.

I don't believe it was for reasons of power draw either. For example, Hard|OCP showed that, at stock volts, increasing the card to 1125Mhz came with an increase in power draw of only 24W! A 22% increase in clockspeed for a 10% increase in power draw certainly suggests that the chip is clocked below the power-performance "sweet-spot" at stock.

As for why AMD chose stock clocks of 925Mhz... Well there are certainly a number of technical reasons why AMD may have been uncomfortable running at 1Ghz+ on TSMCs new 28nm process. But this seems unlikely, given how easily 7970s are hitting 1100Mhz on stock clocks. I strongly suspect that 925Mhz was chosen in order to allow AMD to follow up with a higher-clocked part to compete with Kepler.

It's also telling that we haven't seen any manufacturer-overclocked 7970s with clockspeeds greater than 1Ghz, when we know full well that must are capable of hitting 1100Mhz+ without any voltage increase. I suspect that AMD want to limit the core frequency of 7970 card, so as not to encroach on the territory of the higher-clocked "7980" when it arrives.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Reminds me when I was a kid, seeing who had the most pubic hairs.

I dont remember doing that lol. Must be something that only happened where you grew up.

 

[spankingtexan]

I dont remember doing that lol. Must be something that only happened where you grew up.

LOL! yeah it was just this guy I knew, he was obsessed with his pubic hairs, he,he

 

[Ghøst]

I don't believe it was for reasons of power draw either. For example, Hard|OCP showed that, at stock volts, increasing the card to 1125Mhz came with an increase in power draw of only 24W! A 22% increase in clockspeed for a 10% increase in power draw certainly suggests that the chip is clocked below the power-performance "sweet-spot" at stock.

As for why AMD chose stock clocks of 925Mhz... Well there are certainly a number of technical reasons why AMD may have been uncomfortable running at 1Ghz+ on TSMCs new 28nm process. But this seems unlikely, given how easily 7970s are hitting 1100Mhz on stock clocks. I strongly suspect that 925Mhz was chosen in order to allow AMD to follow up with a higher-clocked part to compete with Kepler.

It's also telling that we haven't seen any manufacturer-overclocked 7970s with clockspeeds greater than 1Ghz, when we know full well that must are capable of hitting 1100Mhz+ without any voltage increase. I suspect that AMD want to limit the core frequency of 7970 card, so as not to encroach on the territory of the higher-clocked "7980" when it arrives.

Apparently the HD7980 with the new Hyperlane geometry is being released at the end of April a leaked AMD factsheet has just been published online.

 

[Duff-Man]

Apparently the HD7980 with the new Hyperlane geometry is being released at the end of April a leaked AMD factsheet has just been published online.

Interesting... got a link?

 

[Ghøst]

Interesting... got a link?

Nah, it's top secret...

 

[spankingtexan]

Nah, it's top secret...

lol

 

[Duff-Man]

Nah, it's top secret...

Ouch...

 

[555BUK]

Intel didn't release the I5 2500K with a stock clock of 4.6ghz but these chips easily clock to this on air. did they mess up also?

Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of CPU owners never overclock. Intel simply released the processors at a speed that was 100% reliable, energy efficient, beat the opposition comprehensively, and allowed room for future faster refreshes without additional development cost to them. They can effectively release a slightly faster variant every few months without having to cut prices.

AMD may be trying a similar strategy, but it is not working. There is apparently a shortage of 28nm silicon and the 7970 is currently the fasrest GPU in the world. It should be selling like Apple branded hot cakes but it is not. Every store seems to have plenty of stock and the reason for that is PRICING. They are horribly overpriced, and few people are prepared to pay for it. There is also the promise of something better just around the corner, something that Intel never had to worry about.

AMD should have released the 7970 at a GTX580 busting price. That would have allowed them to sell all the cards they could make, at a tine when there is no direct competition. Rather than releasing a hobbled 7970 (7950) at a lower price, they should just cut 7970's to £350 and sell them whilst they can. IMO, they have missed the boat.

 

[Gregster]

Is it pricing or maybe just a knock on effect of christmas? Personally I want to upgrade but because I have 2 girls, a wife and loads of neices and nephews, I have to now wait to upgrade.
I am what is more commonly known as "Skint"
I will be upgrading come the 28th of feb though and Hopefully prices will have dropped a little just to help my wallet.

 

[ALXAndy]

Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of CPU owners never overclock.

I don't.

I've always lived by the philosophy that I should really buy what it is I want, and not something less and then try and make it into what I want.

PCs are no exception. If I have to overclock something to make it do what I want it to do natively I would rather pass and save up some more money.

 

[555BUK]

I don't.

I've always lived by the philosophy that I should really buy what it is I want, and not something less and then try and make it into what I want.

PCs are no exception. If I have to overclock something to make it do what I want it to do natively I would rather pass and save up some more money.

You are not the majority. Most CPU's are never overclocked. The majority of people buy pre-built PC's that are never overclocked, because most people don't even know how. Businesses do not overclock either. I cannot find exact figures, but I will be very surprised if more than 10% of Intel/AMD CPU's made ever operate at anything other than stock speeds. Overclockers tend to be computer savvy geeks who build their own systems and spend too little timPPe playing with real friends (probably a bit of a sweeping generalisation there, but also reasonably accurate). I know many people that use computers, but very few who can build one or even install an operating system. Most cannot even upgrade a hard disk or graphics card.

edit: Please ignore my quote above. I completely misread ALXAndy's comments, hence my reply makes no sense.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I don't believe it was for reasons of power draw either. For example, Hard|OCP showed that, at stock volts, increasing the card to 1125Mhz came with an increase in power draw of only 24W! A 22% increase in clockspeed for a 10% increase in power draw certainly suggests that the chip is clocked below the power-performance "sweet-spot" at stock.

As for why AMD chose stock clocks of 925Mhz... Well there are certainly a number of technical reasons why AMD may have been uncomfortable running at 1Ghz+ on TSMCs new 28nm process. But this seems unlikely, given how easily 7970s are hitting 1100Mhz on stock clocks. I strongly suspect that 925Mhz was chosen in order to allow AMD to follow up with a higher-clocked part to compete with Kepler.

It's also telling that we haven't seen any manufacturer-overclocked 7970s with clockspeeds greater than 1Ghz, when we know full well that must are capable of hitting 1100Mhz+ without any voltage increase. I suspect that AMD want to limit the core frequency of 7970 card, so as not to encroach on the territory of the higher-clocked "7980" when it arrives.

Most of that I agree with, though I think there are two reasons, AMD have rarely if ever allowed a "super clocked" AMD version.

You look back at Nvidia cards, like 560ti's and really for generations Nvidia seems perfectly happy to have partners make cards with basically maxed out overclocks and AMD has historically rarely if ever had partners have such highly clocked cards.

I think the reason we haven't seen AMD stupid clock cards is as simple as that, its just not an AMD thing, better to overclock your own cards anyway.

AS for power, you're right on clock speed in that, obviously its not near the sweet spot but I'd go as far as saying its the slight voltage bump and the fact that it doesn't cause insane power jump that proves it.

Clock speed ultimately doesn't matter that much to power usage but voltage does. if it was at the limit of useful clock speed gains vs voltage vs power then raising voltage would cause a way bigger jump in power than it does.

This daft 300W pci-e limit really is insanely stupid.

Whenever some new spec is made people slap on daft "future" guidelines based on what cards they think will come out in the future. IE when gpu's were still what, 50W the pci-e guys went, whats bigger than 50W and not insane, 300W, there's your guideline.

They were asked about the 6990/590 and said its a guideline, as long as the card/mobo is electrically safe its a non issue. AMD/Nvidia/Intel need to get together and have them officially raise it.

I would think there is partially but not totally some marketing/gamesmanship in the clock speeds in the whole "Nvidia releases card AMD counters with a 1100Mhz 7970 the next day" type scenario.

It's all a bit daft, the silicon is the silicon, on air you'd be hard pressed to find a 7970 that doesn't clock WAY above stock and wouldn't need to be very lucky to find one that does over 1200Mhz. This is all still on stock cooling, whack some arctic cooling sink with some "real" fans on there and we can really see what these do under air.

Of course, some people are saying the 7970's speed only comes from the 28nm process, which so far is utterly unproven. If Nvidia and AMD get a similar % bump in clock speed, maybe, but GCN is a different architecture, it could simply run at a different targetted clock speed. In the same way that if Nvidia went from 1600Mhz shaders to 800Mhz ones....... you wouldn't blame the process.

Basically without more cards out and various architectures we have no idea if the potential for 1300Mhz on air comes from GCN or 28nm, or a mix of both.

 

[drunkenmaster]

You are not the majority. Most CPU's are never overclocked. The majority of people buy pre-built PC's that are never overclocked, because most people don't even know how. Businesses do not overclock either. I cannot find exact figures, but I will be very surprised if more than 10% of Intel/AMD CPU's made ever operate at anything other than stock speeds. Overclockers tend to be computer savvy geeks who build their own systems and spend too little time playing with real friends (probably a bit of a sweeping generalisation there, but also reasonably accurate). I know many people that use computers, but very few who can build one or even install an operating system. Most cannot even upgrade a hard disk or graphics card.

Did you read the post you quoted at all, he says specifically he doesn't overclock?

 

[555BUK]

Did you read the post you quoted at all, he says specifically he doesn't overclock?

I see my confusion.

I wrote and was quoted - "Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of CPU owners never overclock."

ALXAndy's first line reply was - "I don't."

I misunderstood the use of "I don't" as a direct response to my "believe it or not" statement, rather than the way ALXAndy really intended.

I apologise to ALXAndy for my mistake. English is not my first language (German is), and sometimes I take things in the wrong context. I must take more time before responding, and read comments fully. My English is not so good as I sometimes believe it to be

 

[Biffa]

English is not my first language (German is), and sometimes I take things in the wrong context. I must take more time before responding, and read comments fully. My English is not so good as I sometimes believe it to be[/B]

Better, by far, than the majority of this forums German I bet

Your doing ok given than I bet not many people realised the above

 

[muon]

snip

Reminds me of this

 

[coupe69]

I don't.

I've always lived by the philosophy that I should really buy what it is I want, and not something less and then try and make it into what I want.

PCs are no exception. If I have to overclock something to make it do what I want it to do natively I would rather pass and save up some more money.

You must have lots of money to burn then and/or perhaps had a bad experience in overclocking?

For example instead of paying over the odds for your Core i7 950 you could have easily clocked a 920 to 950 speeds and way way beyond.

Your quad SLi GTX 295s you seem to take every opportunity to **** off would have been seriously bottlenecked by your CPU at stock. Why would you not want to unleash more graphical horsepower from your system?

Have a look at this article - link

- With a single GTX 285, 80% of the time a stock I7 920 would suffice as long as you are playing at at least 1680 X 1050 resolution. In 20% of the scenarios increasing the frequency to around 3.2 GHZ will yield gains in the minimum FPS at sub 1920 X 1200 resolutions.

- With dual SLI you would look to overclock your CPU at pretty much any resolution you play at. At 1680 X 1050 3.8 GHZ is recommended as a minimum. 1920 X 1200 is typically more forgiving for the CPU and a minimum of 3.6 GHZ is what you should be looking at. At 2560 X 1600, you could get decent gaming experience in most games at around 3.4 GHZ.

- When running Tri SLI, you will run into major CPU bottlenecks in most gaming titles, regardless of the resolution you are playing at, unless you have significantly overclocked your CPU. At 2560 X 1600, a minimum of 3.8 GHZ is recommended, and below 2560 X 1600, I wouldn't go with anything less than 4.0 GHZ.

Also bear in mind the above article was only using GTX 285s. It goes without saying the faster cards that are available now need faster CPUs to keep up especially with multi-GPU setups.

 

[Gregster]

Reminds me of this

haha this is spot on and made me chuckle...nice one