Nvidia 7XX series this december

[Guest]

http://www.geeks3d.com/20120830/geforce-gtx-780-gk110-in-preparation/

..........

 

[dudewitbow]

I'd like to partially disagree, what kept AMD from having performance gains mostly was its decision to highly underclock the GCN(made so that oems can self overclock and rebadge the name as an OC or GHZ varient). A prime example of it really happening is the recent change of the base clock for 7950. It moved from 800>900 mhz on the reference models. Further example is the difference between a reference 7970 and a 7970 ghz, which ranges from 670 level to 680 OC levels. Its just an example of how extremely underclocked they were. Also on performance, it depends on target audience. The GTX 600 series were much more friendly to the average user. The HD 7k were more friendly for enthusiasts who reach past what the average user does, as the HD 7k is much more efficient in 2560x1200 resolution.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve. Your performance numbers are unbelievably off and far too basic to be accurate.

I never said anything about AMD having better PhysX performance. That wouldn't make sense considering that AMD doesn't support it unless you use a supplementary Nvidia card in unison with an AMD card. I said that they sacrificed all of that relative to Fermi.

Kepler has less tessellation efficiency, less AA efficiency, less PhysX efficiency, and less DirectC efficiency than Fermi. When you use these features and make comparisons, it soon becomes obvious that Nvidia didn't improve, they sacrificed pretty much everything in order to pretend to. Kepler is optimized for BOM, not for modern performance. That's why AMD has consistently higher minimum FPS (far more important than maximum FPS), consistently higher efficiency with any of these features (obviously excluding PhysX) and more, and has far more overclocking headroom and efficiency. Also, Nvidia doesn't out-perform AMD anymore. They only did when AMD didn't have proper driver support.

:lol:

 

[mactronix]

Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve.

:lol: (not sure which fits better)

Please can you here yourself

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise that all the Tech review sites were using pretend performance results to make the card look like it performs better than it does. :lol:

Thats the bottom line. PERFORMANCE. Joe Blogs dosent care about any of the stuff your dragging up in an effort to make a counter point.

That rant pretty much ends it for me. As you refuse to see the obvious and resort to making such nonsensical statements. I'm done with this discussion.

Mactronix

 

[blazorthon]

Nvidia did not improve... Nvidia sacrificed features to pretend to improve.

:lol: (not sure which fits better)

Please can you here yourself

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise that all the Tech review sites were using pretend performance results to make the card look like it performs better than it does. :lol:

Thats the bottom line. PERFORMANCE. Joe Blogs dosent care about any of the stuff your dragging up in an effort to make a counter point.

That rant pretty much ends it for me. As you refuse to see the obvious and resort to making such nonsensical statements. I'm done with this discussion.

Mactronix

http://media.bestofmicro.com/U/P/336769/original/tessellation%20scaling.png
tessellation efficiency drops.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-6.html
AA and resolution improvement efficiency drops.
I don't even need to go into how badly Nvidia cut back on compute performance.



Architecturally, Nvidia didn't improve. Of course tripling the core count of the 580 (even without hot clocking) means that performance improves, but with efficiency drops like this, performance is now highly variable. You pay too much attention to performance without much of stuff such as these. A lot of people actually care about it because 2MP resolutions such as 1080p are the most common resolutions played on high-end systems and that's what it takes to make use of a GTX 670/680's or a Radeon 7950/7970's performance at these resolutions.

 

[redeemer]

Comparing GF100/110 and how they only just beat out Cayman is just stating that I am right. I really don't understand how you can argue other wise.
Your saying Nvidia used to need huge great big chips to beat AMD. Correct.

Key Phrase here, used to that means they have made an improvement, I'm stating that AMD have not kept pace with this improvement. this has made them uncompetitive this round.

I'm saying this round AMD are not competitive, not when you compare performance increases from generation to generation.
The fact that Nvidia has a chip that is 23% smaller (well it would be as its only Nvidias mid chip) and out performed the AMD top chip should be enough proof to even the biggest AMD fan that they are just not competative this time around.

AMD had ~ 30% performance increase from their top end chip to top end chip.
Nvidia had ~ 40% performance increase from a midrange chip that outperforms its old top card by 20% and out performs AMD's top end card.
And they made a chip that was smaller than either Cayanm or Tahiti or the GF114 chip that was their old mid range.
They actually achieved a greater reduction in die size from generation to generation than AMD and still out performed them.

If GK110 did exist as a retail chip it would mean AMD had nothing with a single chip that could even get close.

Chip for chip AMD are way behind. As an example so you cant miss read my meaning. GK104 is the equivalent of Pitcairn chip for chip. I'm sure you can progress up and down from there.

I mean come on you think AMD cards are better than Nvidia cards at PhysX for Christ sake.

Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient.

Mactronix

If anything I think it is Nvidia who is not competitive this round, if we are talking execution AMD has a full range of 28nm cards out and it took Nvidia 1 year.

On the architecture front yes Kepler is more efficient but there are sacrifices. AMD 7000 series trades blows with the 600 series, while providing massive compute power. It seems that AMD and Nvidia has switched places this generation, Nvidia being smaller more efficient and AMD larger dies more performance.

Keplers autoboost is also a factor, AMD made the mistake of downclocking the 7000 series yet still retains the overclocking advantage.

Price point again I think AMD is in a solid position

7970
7950
7870
7850

price and performance ratio is solid.

 

[17seconds]

According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.

 

[blazorthon]

According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.

All that shows is that a lot of people still stick to the Nvidia is the only gaming graphics brand worth having BS that Nvidia's marketing has thrown out over the years and that people who should know better fall for it too. Buying Nvidia doesn't make someone an idiot, they still make great cards if you don't use heavy features extensively enough to cripple them, but the same is true for AMD. Sales do not necessarily reflect quality nor performance.

 

[dudewitbow]

Its due to the fact that nvidia is recommended by users more, due to people pushing other people to go nvidia. Nvidia is the dominant seller on the gpu side, but sales doesnt necessary mean its better, its just more refereed to. AMD acts as an underdog in both Gpus and Cpus, and while the gpu side is holding up fine, the cpu is losing its touch at the moment a bit. I mean depending on sales and price points, I would generally recommend one way or the other(like right now, 670 would be a nice buy as ncix has them for i think 385$?). Its much easier to defend nvidias case because it is the majority. The problem is, most people who defend x card have only used that cards side and haven't really had first hand experience with the other.


Its a syndrome like "majority hivemind branding."

Why do people say when buying psus "Corsair, Antec, Seasonic" or buying a Coolermaster case, and proceed to buy a PSU from coolermaster, Choose something like a 550ti over a 7770 at the same price point. Its because some brands are more recognizable to the majority, and it skews decisions to making that purchase. It does not mean those parts are superior, its just picking more recognizable brands.

 

[mactronix]

According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.

+1

Mactronix

 

[theLiminator]

The gtx 670 is probably better for people who don't overclock, but if you get a 7970, you're seriously wasting it if you don't OC it.

 

[redeemer]

According to the Steam Hardware Survey, Kepler 670/680 cards are outselling Tahiti 7950/7970 cards by more than 2 to 1. That's a competitive advantage. It's nice to know that when you get outside the realm of Tom's Hardware fanboyism rational consumers actually get it.

I find that halarious considering the how Kepler supply was non-exsistent, Nvidia blaming TSMC for short supplies. Only in recent weeks have supply constraints eased.

Nvidia PR at its finest!!

 

[Bolivious]

You also have to take into account personal experiences. I have always used AMD video cards and I switched to Nvidia with my new build and got a GTX680. The card did not work properly from the word go, wouldn't wake from sleep, couldn't play some games, etc. So I returned it and bought a 670, which just launched and had great numbers from tech sites. Same issues. Returned it, bought a 7870 and voila, no issues and everything ran just as well/better than the two Nvidia cards.

Maybe that makes me an AMD fanboy now, but I know what works and has worked for me, so I will be sticking with AMD until they do me wrong.

 

[blazorthon]

You also have to take into account personal experiences. I have always used AMD video cards and I switched to Nvidia with my new build and got a GTX680. The card did not work properly from the word go, wouldn't wake from sleep, couldn't play some games, etc. So I returned it and bought a 670, which just launched and had great numbers from tech sites. Same issues. Returned it, bought a 7870 and voila, no issues and everything ran just as well/better than the two Nvidia cards.

Maybe that makes me an AMD fanboy now, but I know what works and has worked for me, so I will be sticking with AMD until they do me wrong.

Really? I prefer AMD's 28nm cards this generation right now, but at least when I first got my 7850 a while before Catalyst 12.6 launched, although I was able to fix any issues that crept up, the drivers seemed inferior to Nvidia's drivers in some ways, especially in the ways that you mentioned. Nvidia had problems of their own, but what you described was generally AMD's issues. Nvidia had mostly stuttering/V-Sync and underclocking related problems. Weird, but I suppose that it shows that no matter what, drivers can be finicky.

 

[Bolivious]

I had always heard how AMD drivers are terrible and how Nvidias were superior and so I figured, Hey, most powerful card of this gen, can't go wrong right? Huh, no, ok lets try the second most powerful. Nope.

To each his own. I don't think you can go wrong either way, I love my 7870 and it has performed fantastically since install.

 

[blazorthon]

I had always heard how AMD drivers are terrible and how Nvidias were superior and so I figured, Hey, most powerful card of this gen, can't go wrong right? Huh, no, ok lets try the second most powerful. Nope.

To each his own. I don't think you can go wrong either way, I love my 7870 and it has performed fantastically since install.

Terrible was almost always an overstatement.

I stuck with my 7850 through the bad and I couldn't be happier with it since Catalyst 12.6 launched. I wouldn't trade it for any other graphics card in its league even if Nvidia had their competing cards out. I'd be stuck with a weaker memory bus if I go for Nvidia once Nvidia gets competing Kepler cards into retail and that's just unacceptable with GPUs this powerful IMO.

 

[redeemer]

You also have to take into account personal experiences. I have always used AMD video cards and I switched to Nvidia with my new build and got a GTX680. The card did not work properly from the word go, wouldn't wake from sleep, couldn't play some games, etc. So I returned it and bought a 670, which just launched and had great numbers from tech sites. Same issues. Returned it, bought a 7870 and voila, no issues and everything ran just as well/better than the two Nvidia cards.

Maybe that makes me an AMD fanboy now, but I know what works and has worked for me, so I will be sticking with AMD until they do me wrong.

Be careful I posted something similar and I was told not to cite anecdotes lol