AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[Cazalan]

It should be quite clear that Tom's is taking money for GPU reviews from Nvidia.

The 290X was reviewed as a Titan killer for less and the 290 was given high ratings as well. It's little surprise that a tweaked 780 Ti performs even better. It's got an extra billion transistors and they're charging a lot more for it. The 780 Ti is so expensive for an extra $100 you could SLI 290s and blow it away.

Some people are sensitive to the noise, others aren't. I couldn't care less myself as I always wear headphones.

It's clear the HSF on the new AMD cards can use some work but as long as it keeps it cool in Uber mode or whatever, that's all that matters really.

The early adopters will suffer a little as they usually do. How many are kicking themselves for buying 780s a month ago before the big price drop. 😉

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

Off topic but after reading toms latest article i would never buy a 290 or 290x until other coolers come out. I would say Amd needs to get their act together on cooling when it effects performance so heavily.

It should be quite clear that Tom's is taking money for GPU reviews from Nvidia.

The press kit Nvidia gave review sites explicitly states that 290 series is not as consistent and it implies you should make a big deal out of it.

This whole thing comes from a marketing slide from Nvidia.

None of the other sites have been able to reproduce Tom's issue. In fact, other sites are finding that retail samples are actually faster than their review sample.

If no other sites find similar issues then it's safe to assume either Tom's bought a defective card or they screwed something up.

If Tom's did screw something up, no one will admit it. AMD won't admit it because then Tom's will tar and feather AMD every chance they get and Tom's won't admit it because it'd be a huge hit to their integrity.

Wonder if they'll swoop in and ban me for speaking like this, I got banned from [H]ardForum after having an account for YEARS and hundreds of posts because I questioned the almighty and all-knowing Brent and Kyle about using an overclocked, more expensive GTX 580 and then going "LOOK 7970 IS ONLY 15% FASTER ITS A DUD!"

Watch how Nvidia wrecks AMD in marketing and watch how they have so far. It'll make why AMD is so hesitant about an HEDT platform obvious.

Just this year alone, with AMD being very competitive with Nvidia, we've seen Nvidia:

1. Make a huge deal out of frame times right before 7990 was supposed to be released. 7990 would have beaten every single offering Nvidia had at the time. Instead it was a reject product no one wanted.

2. Offer OriginPC money and exclusive deals if they drop AMD and make a big deal about how AMD drivers are bad and the cards fail more than Nvidia. I thought Charlie was just talking crazy but OriginPC was the first to get their hands on new mobile parts

3. Now make a big deal about how GPU Boost lets reviewers get cherry picked cards and to call into question how GPU Boost works. This is coming from the company that botched GPU Boost in 320 drivers and made the drivers actually kill cards.

All of that in a single year, and that's just Nvidia. Intel is just as evil and will do things just as bad.

I don't think AMD can be competitive in the high end until they learn to play dirty. AMD should be telling reviewers to run benchmarks that call into question NVidia's memory bandwidth, image quality, and things like that. But they will just be the good guy and not play dirty and continue to get wrecked.

Intel will do the same if AMD releases a competitive part and it's already thought that it's already happening with Temash. For example sometimes you will find Temash models with a 2 cell battery while the Intel versions get the 4 cell battery, and they are the SAME LAPTOP MODEL, just different APU/motherboard.

I'm going to tell you, personally from owning both types of cards and from seeing all of my friends computers, a majority of Nvidias cards are faster and easier to OC after the fact of what the press says than AMD.

I'm not going to say Toms is right, but their speculation seems pretty legit. The fact that the card runs over 90ºC with a super loud fan and only gets ~15% more performance than the cooler and quieter Titan blows my mind.

Then again, AMD has a history of heat resistance. I have an old 5570 that I roasted for two hours at ~110ºC with a worn fan the only runs 200-300RPM and is really loud, the card still runs as good as new. Unless AMD went 'dainty' on their latest GPUs, then no one should have a problem with the temperature.

The only thing is that when the Water Blocks are made for it and that can be applied, expect a large jump in price, and be known that the whole system and card to be cooled will probably cost more than the Titan itself, so then it's just a lose / lose situation.

Honesty with the ASUS GTX 770 DCuII at $340 right now, you'd get much better performance than the 290X if you put two of those 770s in SLI for ~the same if not a little more money than the other.

And from personal experience, I can tell you that at 3800 RPM with all my case fans turned off and my headset off, all I can hear from the card is a small breeze.

It's at 1260 (1058+202 Mhz) Core and 7500 (7010+490 Mhz) Memory clocks. Has yet to legitimately exceed 65ºC. ^_^

Just a recommendation. 😛

EDIT: As a side note, does anyone know how to get the 770 above 1212 voltage? It's really bothering me as the card has so much potential. I've heard the only way gets your card bricked -_-.

They have been using the same old cooler since the 5870, I wonder how a 780 would fare with a 470 cooler... They are pushing GCN to the limit, and I really think the tradeoff is worth it. I mean, its not like 55db is going to distract you from gaming, my good ol 5870-E6 was pretty darn loud and it was not an issue, nor was the 8800GT that I used to have. The ASUS DCUII cards (aka the most obese but totally worth it cards on the planet, with a few exceptions) are generally silent.. The 770 is a faux value, with its 2GB of memory and useless 4GB edition, you are better off with a 280X now that I see it clearly,

 

[noob2222]

@juan.

eating up the marketing again I see.

hey look :

suez is a single player map.

Suez is the final mission in the Battlefield 4 Campaign

lets check the rest of the cpus for that aspect

so since the 6790k (richland is 6800k so im guessing this is a richland cpu) and comparing to techspots test of single player, Id say this slide #13 means absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

oh, hey, look:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-richland-a10-6790k-apu,24885.html

'Benchmarketing' (October AMD talk) compared the new A10-6790k APU to Haswell i5-4440 (PCMARK 8, BaseMarkCL, 3DMARK Fire Strike). They also compared the A10-6790k to Haswell i5-4670K under Battlefield 4 (iGPUs) but, and this is the interesting part, AMD also compared the new A10-6790K APU to FX-6350 and FX-8350, showing that can compete with both FX CPUs under BF4 (Suez Map) using a R9 280X @ ultra 1080p.

Leaked benchmarks (if they are legit) compared the new Kaveri APU to Bulldozer and Piledriver FX CPUs. I am curious on why AMD are comparing Kaveri to FX instead of Trinity/Richland APUs. Could it be related to AMD planning to replace FX by APUs?

While (Juanrga = wrong) {printf("JUANRGA IS NEVER WRONG")};

lets see how you get out of it this time.

 

[noob2222]

Yes, Db scale is not linear, it's exponential.

So 2 or even 3 Db do make a difference.

Anyway, I don't think the GTX780ti is a value winner, so I don't really think it will do fine. Specially with 3GB being a "premium class" video card. It will suck for big screens and multiscreens.

Cheers!

This link proves your point, the 290 is most definitely the best bang for the buck out of all the cards! http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18555564

I'd argue the 770 GTX @ $329 is a better price/performance, with the 290 being the more powerful card of the two. Those would be my two top recommended cards right now in all honesty.

That honestly boils down to if you have the extra $70 to spend on a GPU, because if you can spend $400 on a GPU, and you don't buy the 290, you're crazy to buy anything else...

For every performance level you can adjust the price to a different performance and make strange and confusing claims like his.

this sums it up:

If all you want is value, then the 270x fits right at the top of the newest hardware

PPW goes to the 270x as well.

 

[juanrga]

Off topic but after reading toms latest article i would never buy a 290 or 290x until other coolers come out. I would say Amd needs to get their act together on cooling when it effects performance so heavily.

That means that the article aim worked for at least one person.

And what was your interpretation of the aim of the article?

It is so evident that another poster replied this for me, in his reply to the original message.

 

[juanrga]

The graph shows exact values. I think you really mean it doesn't give the numerical labels for each bar, but they are not needed to make an "educated guesstimate". That is the power of a graph, it can convey info graphically. In fact, the graph transmit better the info than a table with the exact numbers :sarcasm:

at this point, you're just lying and trying to avoid providing any solid numbers.
yes, the graphs don't provide numerical values - i am amazed that it took you so long to realize that. only thing that chart shows is one graph longer/shorter than other ones without numerically stating why and by how much. you claim to calculate your percentage number without providing that vital information.

😆 Everyone can see that the graph doesn't include the labels, but evidently the graph is saying which is the performance of each processor. A simple look reveals that the new A10 offered almost the same performance than the FX-8350. One can go beyond and obtain the FPS from the graph. I did and posted the FPS for each processor time time ago.

If you don't know what a bars graph is or how to read it or obtain the numbers from it, that is not my problem. Go back to the elementary school.

I believed that I had made my point clear enough since the first time that I commented in that slide. How wrong I was! :sarcasm:
....
Nope, the graphic contains the exact info about the performance. What the graphic lacks are the labels, but the values can be obtained from 'reading' the graphic.

since you claimed to obtain said values, why not provide them here? so far you have not provided anything credible to back up your claim. instead you resorted to straw man arguments and false claims.

Except that I provide the values in a 2x3 'table' time time ago in this thread. It is not my problem if you don't read.

😆 The FPs values (I never said were exact values) were given before in one of my posts, three or four days ago.

And no I am not going to re-compute them. I will leave that to you as homework.

now you're saying that the fp/s values were given before without ever referencing them. AND you finally admit that those were not exact values - this completely contradicts everything you have presented until now. even in the begining of your latest post you claim of exact values.

😆 When I wrote the numbers by the first time, I wrote approx and I used bold face for emphasizing that the number were approximated. I used bold face because I was sure that some people would be misinterpreting or misreading...

I never said those were exact values. You must be misreading or misinterpreting me or both again.

if you'd just provided how you came to your conclusions with proper calculations and proof, i'd never have called you a Liar. but now i have to do it.

i cannot calculate it because there is nothing to calculate. the slide does not provide numerical measurements and the graph is impossible to use as a source. all i can see is that all 3 of the contenders delivered more than 50 fps but no way to calculate by how much. after a third look, the header says "battlefield 4: more performance with more cores" that pretty much pitches the fx6350 and fx8350- incorrect context and wrong bench (to push moar cores campaign) on amd's behalf. there is no way to verify the graph as correct since amd itself has disclaimed any responsibility.

What you call me I laugh, but what I find terrible is that you cannot read a graph or obtain the values from it

In my country this is taught in elementary school at age of 12 years or so. At first I believed that you were joking or bored or trolling me, but now that I see that you cannot obtain the numbers from the graph even after I gave you the formula and the procedure for do it

edit2: with r9 290x, a stock athlon 750k delivers only 26.6 average fps, 22 fps min. in bf4 multiplayer benchmark (according to pclab.pl). meanwhile, a stock fx8350 delivers 39fps minimum - at 1080p resolution, with r9 290x. that's a relevant benchmark with numeric figure attached.

This argument was given before by other poster. It is incorrect. It was replied also.

 

[juanrga]

in an A10 6790k legitimately does deliver 90% of the FX 8530's performance, thats great, but lets stop and think, it is STILL not as good as the 8350, where is my chip that gives 115% to 130% of the 8350? I don't care if it an apu. let's also think, the A10 6790k might give 90% in gaming ex, but in multi-threaded applications the 8350's 8 core are going to kill the A10's 4 cores.

Of course the 8350 will be faster than the new A10 APU in those, but in my opinion, AMD is revealing their desktop plans when presenting that slide.

 

[de5_Roy]

😆 Everyone can see that the graph doesn't include the labels, but evidently the graph is saying which is the performance of each processor. A simple look reveals that the new A10 offered almost the same performance than the FX-8350. One can go beyond and obtain the FPS from the graph. I did and posted the FPS for each processor time time ago.

If you don't know what a bars graph is or how to read it or obtain the numbers from it, that is not my problem. Go back to the elementary school.

i asked for exactly how much performnce difference and how many fps each cpu/apu are delivering. you never provided those values. i am not talking about 'simple looks' i am asking for numeric measurements that you repeatedly claim to possess.

instead of attacking me on my graph reading ability, why not provide those measurements? i already said i could not calculate the values you claim to have obtained. even if i had somehow made the impossible calculation, i wouldn't have anything to compare my results against. that's why your results are needed. i hope you quit avoiding and post your calculations and results. in case you've forgotten, i'll repeat: how many fp/s are the cpus/apus delivering in that slide? how did you calculate them?

could you help me out and repost them if you have posted them already?

Except that I provide the values in a 2x3 'table' time time ago in this thread. It is not my problem if you don't read.

okay, blame my reading ability now. after you're done, please re-post them. it'd be really helpful.

😆 When I wrote the numbers by the first time, I wrote approx and I used bold face for emphasizing that the number were approximated. I used bold face because I was sure that some people would be misinterpreting or misreading...

I never said those were exact values. You must be misreading or misinterpreting me or both again.

see, in this post, you mentioned previously posting the values for the first time. before, you were posting excuses like you lost the data.
you never said the measurements were approximate until the last few posts. you were posting exact numbers and those only, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

What you call me I laugh, but what I find terrible is that you cannot read a graph or obtain the values from it

In my country this is taught in elementary school at age of 12 years or so. At first I believed that you were joking or bored or trolling me, but now that I see that you cannot obtain the numbers from the graph even after I gave you the formula and the procedure for do it

i wasn't trolling at all. if you did have something to calculate exact numbers from a label-less bar chart, it woulda helped in other similar charts too.
and your formula does not yield anything realistic or feasible.

This argument was given before by other poster. It is incorrect. It was replied also.

why is it incorrect? replied by whom? what was the reply? if someone else answered, did you agree or disagree? and why?


rather late edit: i finally managed to approximate the fps values of each a/cpus from that slide. not using your formula(!), with a different method. i wouldn't dare call it accurate though. all i need is your data to compare (no i won't post them before you post yours. 😀). i am eagerly waiting.

 

[juanrga]

@juan.

eating up the marketing again I see.

I am not surprised you fail to get the point again.

hey look :

suez is a single player map.

We know. This was first said by 8350rocks if my memory doesn't fail. Again you are not reading...

so since the 6790k (richland is 6800k so im guessing this is a richland cpu) and comparing to techspots test of single player, Id say this slide #13 means absolutely nothing we didn't already know.

oh, hey, look:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-richland-a10-6790k-apu,24885.html

'Benchmarketing' (October AMD talk) compared the new A10-6790k APU to Haswell i5-4440 (PCMARK 8, BaseMarkCL, 3DMARK Fire Strike). They also compared the A10-6790k to Haswell i5-4670K under Battlefield 4 (iGPUs) but, and this is the interesting part, AMD also compared the new A10-6790K APU to FX-6350 and FX-8350, showing that can compete with both FX CPUs under BF4 (Suez Map) using a R9 280X @ ultra 1080p.

Leaked benchmarks (if they are legit) compared the new Kaveri APU to Bulldozer and Piledriver FX CPUs. I am curious on why AMD are comparing Kaveri to FX instead of Trinity/Richland APUs. Could it be related to AMD planning to replace FX by APUs?

While (Juanrga = wrong) {printf("JUANRGA IS NEVER WRONG")};

lets see how you get out of it this time.

This is very easy to answer.

The first paragraph is about the PCMARK 8, BaseMarkCL, 3DMARK Fire Strike, Battlefield 4 benchmarks given by AMD in the October talk. AMD compared the new Richland based A10-6790k APU against Piledriver FX 6350 and 8350.

The second paragraph is about the leaked benchmarks (by a chinese site) where AMD compared a Kaveri APU to Bulldozer and Piledriver FX.

Besides that I also said that Kaveri APUs will be A10-7x00k, and said that I expect AMD to repeat the BF4 benchmark but pairing the new Kaveri APU to a R9 290X. You missed those posts as well, true?

Try again.

 

[juanrga]

😆 Everyone can see that the graph doesn't include the labels, but evidently the graph is saying which is the performance of each processor. A simple look reveals that the new A10 offered almost the same performance than the FX-8350. One can go beyond and obtain the FPS from the graph. I did and posted the FPS for each processor time time ago.

If you don't know what a bars graph is or how to read it or obtain the numbers from it, that is not my problem. Go back to the elementary school.

i asked for exactly how much performnce difference and how many fps each cpu/apu are delivering. you never provided those values. i am not talking about 'simple looks' i am asking for numeric measurements that you repeatedly claim to possess.

instead of attacking me on my graph reading ability, why not provide those measurements? i already said i could not calculate the values you claim to have obtained. even if i had somehow made the impossible calculation, i wouldn't have anything to compare my results against. that's why your results are needed. i hope you quit avoiding and post your calculations and results. in case you've forgotten, i'll repeat: how many fp/s are the cpus/apus delivering in that slide? how did you calculate them?

I posted a 'table' with FPs time ago, without nobody asking for them. I posted because I did need those numbers to obtain the ~90% percentage and I went people to know from where I got the percentage. In fact the FPs numbers that I posted give a value of 92.9%, but I think that I wrote ">90%" in that old post.

Not only you ask me for something that I already posted, but you have been negating that I posted and then attacking me with insults. What unfair!

Except that I provide the values in a 2x3 'table' time time ago in this thread. It is not my problem if you don't read.

okay, blame my reading ability now. after you're done, please re-post them. it'd be really helpful.

An idea, why don't you stop from calling other liars, and read posts until you find the one with the numbers?

😆 When I wrote the numbers by the first time, I wrote approx and I used bold face for emphasizing that the number were approximated. I used bold face because I was sure that some people would be misinterpreting or misreading...

I never said those were exact values. You must be misreading or misinterpreting me or both again.

see, in this post, you mentioned previously posting the values for the first time. before, you were posting excuses like you lost the data.
you never said the measurements were approximate until the last few posts. you were posting exact numbers and those only, leaving no room for misinterpretation.

I am saying you that I wrote approx in bold font when I gave the numbers several says ago. I never said were exact values. It is not my problem if you don't read.

if you did have something to calculate exact numbers from a label-less bar chart, it woulda helped in other similar charts too.
and your formula does not yield anything realistic or feasible.

I was kindly enough to explain you how to do it and even gave you a formula and the procedure for do it by yourself. After your posts with insults I will not say more except go to the school to learn what is a bar chart and how to read/interpret it.

This argument was given before by other poster. It is incorrect. It was replied also.

why is it incorrect? replied by whom? what was the reply? if someone else answered, did you agree or disagree? and why?

Read the thread.

 

[de5_Roy]

I posted a 'table' with FPs time ago, without nobody asking for them. I posted because I did need those numbers to obtain the ~90% percentage and I went people to know from where I got the percentage. In fact the FPs numbers that I posted give a value of 92.9%, but I think that I wrote ">90%" in that old post.

Not only you ask me for something that I already posted, but you have been negating that I posted and then attacking me with insults. What unfair!

the main reason for me to miss would be a post that wasn't a reply to my post. i don't read the whole thread and i skip over quote pyramids. i still don't understand why is it so hard for you to track youw own post. the thread search function is gone, i cannot search for your post anymore. that is why i keep asking you. because it is far, far easier for you to track your own posts.

i assure you i did not attack you with insults. i thought before i typed and whatever i said were based only on your actions. in case of my accusations, they stand until you provide a valid counter-argument. so far, you have failed to do that. some of those will still stand after you provide, since you keep dragging on instead of properly responding.

An idea, why don't you stop from calling other liars, and read posts until you find the one with the numbers?

read above.

I am saying you that I wrote approx in bold font when I gave the numbers several says ago. I never said were exact values. It is not my problem if you don't read.

several days ago... does not ring a bell. at all. like i said, i cannot track your posts and the thread moves really fast.

I was kindly enough to explain you how to do it and even gave you a formula and the procedure for do it by yourself. After your posts with insults I will not say more except go to the school to learn what is a bar chart and how to read/interpret it.

yeah... your formula(!) has 2 unknowns, it is impossible to find out solutions from that. why not tell us what values you used?

This argument was given before by other poster. It is incorrect. It was replied also.

why is it incorrect? replied by whom? what was the reply? if someone else answered, did you agree or disagree? and why?

Read the thread.

don't avoid.

 

[juanrga]

It should be quite clear that Tom's is taking money for GPU reviews from Nvidia.

The press kit Nvidia gave review sites explicitly states that 290 series is not as consistent and it implies you should make a big deal out of it.

This whole thing comes from a marketing slide from Nvidia.

None of the other sites have been able to reproduce Tom's issue. In fact, other sites are finding that retail samples are actually faster than their review sample.

If no other sites find similar issues then it's safe to assume either Tom's bought a defective card or they screwed something up.

If Tom's did screw something up, no one will admit it. AMD won't admit it because then Tom's will tar and feather AMD every chance they get and Tom's won't admit it because it'd be a huge hit to their integrity.

Wonder if they'll swoop in and ban me for speaking like this, I got banned from [H]ardForum after having an account for YEARS and hundreds of posts because I questioned the almighty and all-knowing Brent and Kyle about using an overclocked, more expensive GTX 580 and then going "LOOK 7970 IS ONLY 15% FASTER ITS A DUD!"

I promise that I will abandon this forum if they ban you.

 

[juanrga]

I posted a 'table' with FPs time ago, without nobody asking for them. I posted because I did need those numbers to obtain the ~90% percentage and I went people to know from where I got the percentage. In fact the FPs numbers that I posted give a value of 92.9%, but I think that I wrote ">90%" in that old post.

Not only you ask me for something that I already posted, but you have been negating that I posted and then attacking me with insults. What unfair!

the main reason for me to miss would be a post that wasn't a reply to my post. i don't read the whole thread and i skip over quote pyramids. i still don't understand why is it so hard for you to track youw own post. the thread search function is gone, i cannot search for your post anymore. that is why i keep asking you. because it is far, far easier for you to track your own posts.

i assure you i did not attack you with insults. i thought before i typed and whatever i said were based only on your actions. in case of my accusations, they stand until you provide a valid counter-argument. so far, you have failed to do that. some of those will still stand after you provide, since you keep dragging on instead of properly responding.

An idea, why don't you stop from calling other liars, and read posts until you find the one with the numbers?

read above.

I am saying you that I wrote approx in bold font when I gave the numbers several says ago. I never said were exact values. It is not my problem if you don't read.

several days ago... does not ring a bell. at all. like i said, i cannot track your posts and the thread moves really fast.

I was kindly enough to explain you how to do it and even gave you a formula and the procedure for do it by yourself. After your posts with insults I will not say more except go to the school to learn what is a bar chart and how to read/interpret it.

yeah... your formula(!) has 2 unknowns, it is impossible to find out solutions from that. why not tell us what values you used?

This argument was given before by other poster. It is incorrect. It was replied also.

why is it incorrect? replied by whom? what was the reply? if someone else answered, did you agree or disagree? and why?

Read the thread.

don't avoid.

Not only this is a confirmation that you don't read the thread, but that you want other to search the info for you. LOL

I have used GIMP to analyze the slide #13 and obtain more precise values than those that I post here before. Subtract one frame per second (1 FPS) to the previous value for the 6350 and subtract two (2 FPS) for the 8350.

This means that the new APU A10 behaved still better!!! According to AMD it got a 98% of the gaming performance of the 6350 and 96% of the gaming performance of the 8350.

 

[de5_Roy]

Not only this is a confirmation that you don't read the thread, but that you want other to search the info for you. LOL

i don't read all of the thread and i certainly do not keep track of what someone else said to some other guy.
i asked You to provide what You claimed to have posted prevously. i did not ask anyone else since Only You can keep track of Your Own posts.

I have used GIMP to analyze the slide #13 and obtain more precise values than those that I post here before. Subtract one frame per second (1 FPS) to the previous value for the 6350 and subtract two (2 FPS) for the 8350.

another vague response. what previous value am i supposed to subtract from? as of right now, they are still absent. please post those.

This means that the new APU A10 behaved still better!!! According to AMD it got a 98% of the gaming performance of the 6350 and 96% of the gaming performance of the 8350.

^^ i'll address how wrong (and quite possibly false) this is after you post your full calculations and exact results.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Off topic but after reading toms latest article i would never buy a 290 or 290x until other coolers come out. I would say Amd needs to get their act together on cooling when it effects performance so heavily.

It should be quite clear that Tom's is taking money for GPU reviews from Nvidia.

The press kit Nvidia gave review sites explicitly states that 290 series is not as consistent and it implies you should make a big deal out of it.

This whole thing comes from a marketing slide from Nvidia.

None of the other sites have been able to reproduce Tom's issue. In fact, other sites are finding that retail samples are actually faster than their review sample.

If no other sites find similar issues then it's safe to assume either Tom's bought a defective card or they screwed something up.

If Tom's did screw something up, no one will admit it. AMD won't admit it because then Tom's will tar and feather AMD every chance they get and Tom's won't admit it because it'd be a huge hit to their integrity.

Wonder if they'll swoop in and ban me for speaking like this, I got banned from [H]ardForum after having an account for YEARS and hundreds of posts because I questioned the almighty and all-knowing Brent and Kyle about using an overclocked, more expensive GTX 580 and then going "LOOK 7970 IS ONLY 15% FASTER ITS A DUD!"

Watch how Nvidia wrecks AMD in marketing and watch how they have so far. It'll make why AMD is so hesitant about an HEDT platform obvious.

Just this year alone, with AMD being very competitive with Nvidia, we've seen Nvidia:

1. Make a huge deal out of frame times right before 7990 was supposed to be released. 7990 would have beaten every single offering Nvidia had at the time. Instead it was a reject product no one wanted.

2. Offer OriginPC money and exclusive deals if they drop AMD and make a big deal about how AMD drivers are bad and the cards fail more than Nvidia. I thought Charlie was just talking crazy but OriginPC was the first to get their hands on new mobile parts

3. Now make a big deal about how GPU Boost lets reviewers get cherry picked cards and to call into question how GPU Boost works. This is coming from the company that botched GPU Boost in 320 drivers and made the drivers actually kill cards.

All of that in a single year, and that's just Nvidia. Intel is just as evil and will do things just as bad.

I don't think AMD can be competitive in the high end until they learn to play dirty. AMD should be telling reviewers to run benchmarks that call into question NVidia's memory bandwidth, image quality, and things like that. But they will just be the good guy and not play dirty and continue to get wrecked.

Intel will do the same if AMD releases a competitive part and it's already thought that it's already happening with Temash. For example sometimes you will find Temash models with a 2 cell battery while the Intel versions get the 4 cell battery, and they are the SAME LAPTOP MODEL, just different APU/motherboard.

I'm going to tell you, personally from owning both types of cards and from seeing all of my friends computers, a majority of Nvidias cards are faster and easier to OC after the fact of what the press says than AMD.

I'm not going to say Toms is right, but their speculation seems pretty legit. The fact that the card runs over 90ºC with a super loud fan and only gets ~15% more performance than the cooler and quieter Titan blows my mind.

Then again, AMD has a history of heat resistance. I have an old 5570 that I roasted for two hours at ~110ºC with a worn fan the only runs 200-300RPM and is really loud, the card still runs as good as new. Unless AMD went 'dainty' on their latest GPUs, then no one should have a problem with the temperature.

The only thing is that when the Water Blocks are made for it and that can be applied, expect a large jump in price, and be known that the whole system and card to be cooled will probably cost more than the Titan itself, so then it's just a lose / lose situation.

Honesty with the ASUS GTX 770 DCuII at $340 right now, you'd get much better performance than the 290X if you put two of those 770s in SLI for ~the same if not a little more money than the other.

And from personal experience, I can tell you that at 3800 RPM with all my case fans turned off and my headset off, all I can hear from the card is a small breeze.

It's at 1260 (1058+202 Mhz) Core and 7500 (7010+490 Mhz) Memory clocks. Has yet to legitimately exceed 65ºC. ^_^

Just a recommendation. 😛

EDIT: As a side note, does anyone know how to get the 770 above 1212 voltage? It's really bothering me as the card has so much potential. I've heard the only way gets your card bricked -_-.

They have been using the same old cooler since the 5870, I wonder how a 780 would fare with a 470 cooler... They are pushing GCN to the limit, and I really think the tradeoff is worth it. I mean, its not like 55db is going to distract you from gaming, my good ol 5870-E6 was pretty darn loud and it was not an issue, nor was the 8800GT that I used to have. The ASUS DCUII cards (aka the most obese but totally worth it cards on the planet, with a few exceptions) are generally silent.. The 770 is a faux value, with its 2GB of memory and useless 4GB edition, you are better off with a 280X now that I see it clearly,

I see what you mean there.

Personally I have to go Nvidia since most of my games run better with Nvidia cards that Radeon cards. Sure it's a little more money, however in reality, there is a point where price doesn't matter, yet the preference. Also, do I see a performance increase in Crossfire? Hmm, nope, lol. Thus, after Christmas I should be getting another 770 for better performance than a 290x. 😀

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

Off topic but after reading toms latest article i would never buy a 290 or 290x until other coolers come out. I would say Amd needs to get their act together on cooling when it effects performance so heavily.

It should be quite clear that Tom's is taking money for GPU reviews from Nvidia.

The press kit Nvidia gave review sites explicitly states that 290 series is not as consistent and it implies you should make a big deal out of it.

This whole thing comes from a marketing slide from Nvidia.

None of the other sites have been able to reproduce Tom's issue. In fact, other sites are finding that retail samples are actually faster than their review sample.

If no other sites find similar issues then it's safe to assume either Tom's bought a defective card or they screwed something up.

If Tom's did screw something up, no one will admit it. AMD won't admit it because then Tom's will tar and feather AMD every chance they get and Tom's won't admit it because it'd be a huge hit to their integrity.

Wonder if they'll swoop in and ban me for speaking like this, I got banned from [H]ardForum after having an account for YEARS and hundreds of posts because I questioned the almighty and all-knowing Brent and Kyle about using an overclocked, more expensive GTX 580 and then going "LOOK 7970 IS ONLY 15% FASTER ITS A DUD!"

Watch how Nvidia wrecks AMD in marketing and watch how they have so far. It'll make why AMD is so hesitant about an HEDT platform obvious.

Just this year alone, with AMD being very competitive with Nvidia, we've seen Nvidia:

1. Make a huge deal out of frame times right before 7990 was supposed to be released. 7990 would have beaten every single offering Nvidia had at the time. Instead it was a reject product no one wanted.

2. Offer OriginPC money and exclusive deals if they drop AMD and make a big deal about how AMD drivers are bad and the cards fail more than Nvidia. I thought Charlie was just talking crazy but OriginPC was the first to get their hands on new mobile parts

3. Now make a big deal about how GPU Boost lets reviewers get cherry picked cards and to call into question how GPU Boost works. This is coming from the company that botched GPU Boost in 320 drivers and made the drivers actually kill cards.

All of that in a single year, and that's just Nvidia. Intel is just as evil and will do things just as bad.

I don't think AMD can be competitive in the high end until they learn to play dirty. AMD should be telling reviewers to run benchmarks that call into question NVidia's memory bandwidth, image quality, and things like that. But they will just be the good guy and not play dirty and continue to get wrecked.

Intel will do the same if AMD releases a competitive part and it's already thought that it's already happening with Temash. For example sometimes you will find Temash models with a 2 cell battery while the Intel versions get the 4 cell battery, and they are the SAME LAPTOP MODEL, just different APU/motherboard.

I'm going to tell you, personally from owning both types of cards and from seeing all of my friends computers, a majority of Nvidias cards are faster and easier to OC after the fact of what the press says than AMD.

I'm not going to say Toms is right, but their speculation seems pretty legit. The fact that the card runs over 90ºC with a super loud fan and only gets ~15% more performance than the cooler and quieter Titan blows my mind.

Then again, AMD has a history of heat resistance. I have an old 5570 that I roasted for two hours at ~110ºC with a worn fan the only runs 200-300RPM and is really loud, the card still runs as good as new. Unless AMD went 'dainty' on their latest GPUs, then no one should have a problem with the temperature.

The only thing is that when the Water Blocks are made for it and that can be applied, expect a large jump in price, and be known that the whole system and card to be cooled will probably cost more than the Titan itself, so then it's just a lose / lose situation.

Honesty with the ASUS GTX 770 DCuII at $340 right now, you'd get much better performance than the 290X if you put two of those 770s in SLI for ~the same if not a little more money than the other.

And from personal experience, I can tell you that at 3800 RPM with all my case fans turned off and my headset off, all I can hear from the card is a small breeze.

It's at 1260 (1058+202 Mhz) Core and 7500 (7010+490 Mhz) Memory clocks. Has yet to legitimately exceed 65ºC. ^_^

Just a recommendation. 😛

EDIT: As a side note, does anyone know how to get the 770 above 1212 voltage? It's really bothering me as the card has so much potential. I've heard the only way gets your card bricked -_-.

They have been using the same old cooler since the 5870, I wonder how a 780 would fare with a 470 cooler... They are pushing GCN to the limit, and I really think the tradeoff is worth it. I mean, its not like 55db is going to distract you from gaming, my good ol 5870-E6 was pretty darn loud and it was not an issue, nor was the 8800GT that I used to have. The ASUS DCUII cards (aka the most obese but totally worth it cards on the planet, with a few exceptions) are generally silent.. The 770 is a faux value, with its 2GB of memory and useless 4GB edition, you are better off with a 280X now that I see it clearly,

I see what you mean there.

Personally I have to go Nvidia since most of my games run better with Nvidia cards that Radeon cards. Sure it's a little more money, however in reality, there is a point where price doesn't matter, yet the preference. Also, do I see a performance increase in Crossfire? Hmm, nope, lol. Thus, after Christmas I should be getting another 770 for better performance than a 290x. 😀

Here comes the CF BS. Crossfire was broken in the 480 days, today it is okay, not as good as SLI, but still a decent investment. I am cringing as I help my friend build his PC, god help me, why did he choose the MATRIX instead of the Toxic, WHYY, WHYYY, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

 

[Nefos]

Offtopic... or not?
But is there any info about Steamroller? because it should arrived this year.
at least what slot are they going to use?

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

It should be quite clear that Tom's is taking money for GPU reviews from Nvidia.

The press kit Nvidia gave review sites explicitly states that 290 series is not as consistent and it implies you should make a big deal out of it.

This whole thing comes from a marketing slide from Nvidia.

None of the other sites have been able to reproduce Tom's issue. In fact, other sites are finding that retail samples are actually faster than their review sample.

If no other sites find similar issues then it's safe to assume either Tom's bought a defective card or they screwed something up.

If Tom's did screw something up, no one will admit it. AMD won't admit it because then Tom's will tar and feather AMD every chance they get and Tom's won't admit it because it'd be a huge hit to their integrity.

Wonder if they'll swoop in and ban me for speaking like this, I got banned from [H]ardForum after having an account for YEARS and hundreds of posts because I questioned the almighty and all-knowing Brent and Kyle about using an overclocked, more expensive GTX 580 and then going "LOOK 7970 IS ONLY 15% FASTER ITS A DUD!"

I promise that I will abandon this forum if they ban you.

+1 When the 290X was just announced, Chris went out of his time to give as a boring @$$ 5 page+ lecture on how the show-off [strike]7900GTX[/strike] GTX 690 shroud is made and how it is "amazing".. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-history-geforce-gtx-690,3605.html

Rough translation- ERMEHGAWD LIAK 10 PURRCENT YIELDS ON THIS AMAZING COOLER WHEN YOU PAY FOR A 690 YOU GET WAYY MOAR THAN JUST DUAL CRIPPLED 680S ON A SINGLE PCB GUISE ERMEHGAWD GUISE ITS LIAK SHO BAUTIFUL TIS LAIK THE PROTOTYPE FOR LIAK TEH TAITAN COOLHUR LUK AT HOW MERENEH DESHIGNS NVIDIA THOUGHT OUT GUISE I STARE AT MEH BRICKED 690 TWENTEH FOAR SEVEHEN THREEH SHEX FIAV, LOOK GUISE NVIDIA POWNED AMD WITH KHEPLURR WIT DEM 250W TDP ON TEH 690 AND HOW LIAK SHILENT DAT STAWFF IS OH AND THE TITAN IS WORTH IT OVER TEH 780 BECAUWZE PEOPLE WHO CAYN UFFORD SHEX HUNDRED in GEEPEEYOUs CAN OBVIOUSLEH UFFORD FUNTHOUSAND DOLLHURRS IN GEEPEEYOUs...

 

[tracker45]

Anyone know for certain what the best gpu is going into the APU ?

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

Anyone know for certain what the best gpu is going into the APU ?

No, for now all we know is the R5 N200, which is pretty much a 7750 running on DDR3. Not that it will matter for an enthusiast...

 

[jdwii]

Offtopic... or not?
But is there any info about Steamroller? because it should arrived this year.
at least what slot are they going to use?

Might have more information on this on monday but so far there's no news on steamroller fx only the APU

 

[tracker45]

So kaveri is just like an average i5 processor ?

 

[Ags1]

Guys i pointed the slide out as a richland cpu not so you could use it as a club to beat juanrga over the head but to put into perspective how far richland has come compared to fx, in fact it does show the 4 core apu coming very close to fx ! Testing mp is not practical because of the many variables that come into play, ping, latency,line speed. That argument is best left for intels folks. If you do not like or agree with what he has to say do not respond to his post. simple NO ?

And juanrga your post do come off a little cocky , a little humility will go a long way in helping the dick and jane readers around here.

Are we looking at the same slide? The one that shows 4, 6 and 8 cores giving more or less the same FPS? That is just showing a scenario that does not scale to 6+ cores, as you can see from the FX 6 and 8 cores turning in basically the same FPS (if it did scale by cores, you would expect more of a difference between the 6 and 8 FX cores). So you cannot draw the conclusion that 4 kaveri cores are anything like 6 or 8 FX cores, because the scenario isn't scaling by cores.

 

[noob2222]

The second paragraph is about the leaked benchmarks (by a chinese site) where AMD compared a Kaveri APU to Bulldozer and Piledriver FX.

Besides that I also said that Kaveri APUs will be A10-7x00k, and said that I expect AMD to repeat the BF4 benchmark but pairing the new Kaveri APU to a R9 290X. You missed those posts as well, true?

Try again.

and that chinese site ... lol ... http://cosmologyathome.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=187215

ya, that looks chineese to me. Im 100% sure that AMD will use bf4 single player since even today there is a 3 fps difference between the 5700k and the 8350. maybe you missed the point that in RL multiplayer the 5700 sucks balls compared to the 8350.

While (Juanrga = wrong) {printf("JUANRGA IS NEVER WRONG")};

In BF4, kaveri will be 1% faster than trinity, but they won't show that on the slide, RL will show that. pretty impressive to obtain a 1% gain instead of 30%.

Again, BF4 single player is only for new players and for setting up your graphics for multiplayer. IT DOES NOT TELL ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR CPU. there is 4 fps difference between the 5700 and the I7 4960x.

There is a reason they chose BF4 single player and not some other randomly picked game. Thats called a marketing strategy, and your eating it up.

that same A10 5700 40% from the 4320 and 60% from the 8350. Hmm I wonder why marketing isn't showing that one.

 

[juanrga]

Not only this is a confirmation that you don't read the thread, but that you want other to search the info for you. LOL

i don't read all of the thread and i certainly do not keep track of what someone else said to some other guy.
i asked You to provide what You claimed to have posted prevously. i did not ask anyone else since Only You can keep track of Your Own posts.

I have used GIMP to analyze the slide #13 and obtain more precise values than those that I post here before. Subtract one frame per second (1 FPS) to the previous value for the 6350 and subtract two (2 FPS) for the 8350.

another vague response. what previous value am i supposed to subtract from? as of right now, they are still absent. please post those.

This means that the new APU A10 behaved still better!!! According to AMD it got a 98% of the gaming performance of the 6350 and 96% of the gaming performance of the 8350.

^^ i'll address how wrong (and quite possibly false) this is after you post your full calculations and exact results.

I am confident my values are correct. And of course, if you have the values by yourself, you could compute the percentages without me giving you the FPS from where I am substracting. Of course, you can stop posting insults and search the values by yourself. You don't need to read the entire thread.