Page 14 of 76 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 754

Thread: Nvidia Kepler vs AMD GCN has a clear winner

  1. #131
    Is Charlie sure the cards he has seen or heard about are Gk104 and not some other version? (i.e. Gk110 etc)
    "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

  2. #132
    Well he said
    The chip is quite small, and has 8 GDDR5 chips meaning a 256-bit bus/2GB standard
    Even if it's 10% faster gen-gen, and GCN is 10% slower gen-gen...the 560 Ti is what, 25% slower than the 6970?

    So if the 660 Ti is 5% slower than the 7970 I will not be surprised.

  3. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,228
    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Well that anandtech one you linked was interesting. Looking at the only performance graph including the 4870 (and i'm guessing the power graph was made at the same time)

    [img]...[/img]

    7970 is 27% faster than the 6970
    6970 is 18% faster than the 5870
    7970 is 50% faster than the 5870
    5870 is 76% faster than the 4870
    ...
    You can also use the same game with DX11 and suddenly 7970 is 60% faster.
    Also I can't understand why do you keep comparing 5870 to 4870 when the high end card of that generation was the 4890.
    And then you are within less than 10% of difference comparing 5870 to 4890 and 7970 to 6970. Worse, one is a card that architecturally was a lesser change so it could have better drivers, with a bigger die maintaining the same memory bus, and with the same amount of memory, on the other hand 7970 has worse drivers (today there are new ones with up to 5% more performance on typically benched games), bigger memory bus, more memory, smaller, same TDP and the difference is small or favours 7970 if you include dx11games (thre will be more and more in the future).

  4. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by DCO View Post
    Also I can't understand why do you keep comparing 5870 to 4870 when the high end card of that generation was the 4890.
    Well I could but would it change anything in terms of perf/watt? If anything it would be worse for the 4890 - it's actually rated higher than the 5870 is in TDP.

    I suppose i could actually be comparing the 5870 to the 3870 if it was only being compared on process, but that would show an incredible difference.

    Basically the 4870 was the first flagship on the 55nm, and the 5870 is the first flagship card on 40nm. You have a point, I dunno why I'm comparing it to the 4870 but it just seems like the most natural comparison to be made.

  5. #135
    8-bit overflow
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexko View Post
    Yes, it's perfectly correct and it is indeed 51%; you get that from ((100-66)/66) ? 100. However the 5870 is 34% slower than the 7970.
    I knew exactly how he got it. I am not math challenged lol. you can also just do 100/66 and your decimal is your % (much faster). I was just speed reading and went "34 =/= 51, they're already %...". In this case, you're talking about /100, and if the "100" is in a different perspective, yes that changes. In that scale, the 5870 was 34% slower. that was my point. I don't know why i even responded, this is pointless blather, sorry everyone else.

    Anyway, why are we comparing the 7970 to the 5870 and not the 6970? For that matter, why are we debating those at all? Thread is about GCN vs kepler. What I want to know is if GK104 is 680 or 660. I've seen it both ways on the net. If it's 680, than what will the first dual-chip kepler be called? 690? what will the later one in 2013 be called then? or are we just tossing that entire "leaked road map?" are they going to price a 660 at $550? what would the 680 be priced THEN lol?

    Also, what I haven't seen too much discussion on is what the other chip was. I wasn't sure if he meant two GK104's or two keplers. He gave some details on GK104, but what's the other one? is it 107? 110? are they launching with 104 or later? he only said GK104 looks polished. I wonder if he just saw two GK104 cards...maybe from two AIB's. Seems to be the best possible scenario to take from that wording, but if you read the rest of the internet...hell there could be unicorns and a bacon machine in this thing.
    Some life advice: Walk, don't run.
    "Two bulls were sitting on top of a hill looking down at a field of cows. The young bull says to the old bull: 'hey dad, let's run down and Fu@# some cows.'...the old bull says: 'No....let's walk down...and Fu@# them all.'"

  6. #136
    no offense guys but you have managed to turn a topic that is about a future nvidia card into a conversation about past amd cards

  7. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by nflux View Post
    no offense guys but you have managed to turn a topic that is about a future nvidia card into a conversation about past amd cards
    Nvidia Kepler

    vs

    AMD GCN

    has a clear winner.

    Bit of a blind spot for AMD there nflux? Not to mention discussing the reasons why seems to be quite fine? Should we just talk about Kepler vs older Nvidia cards? Oh wait we can't because there is nothing to compare against the old cards yet.

  8. #138
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,228
    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Well I could but would it change anything in terms of perf/watt? If anything it would be worse for the 4890 - it's actually rated higher than the 5870 is in TDP.

    I suppose i could actually be comparing the 5870 to the 3870 if it was only being compared on process, but that would show an incredible difference.

    Basically the 4870 was the first flagship on the 55nm, and the 5870 is the first flagship card on 40nm. You have a point, I dunno why I'm comparing it to the 4870 but it just seems like the most natural comparison to be made.
    TDP of 4890 is practically the same of the 5870, 190 vs 188w.
    According to your own links to techpower up a 10% difference, 70% vs 77%.
    10% difference is not that big, in my opinion not to the point that you are making. More if you take into account the things we are telling you, smaller, drivers, TSMC's process less mature (conservative clocks and voltages, overclocks a lot more), more improvements geared to dx11 games, etc.

    7970 is not a letdown, it has it's pros and cons but it's very consistent with past upgrades.
    The real surprise is gk104, but we still don't have any data.

  9. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by DCO View Post
    More if you take into account the things we are telling you, smaller, drivers, TSMC's process less mature (conservative clocks and voltages, overclocks a lot more), more improvements geared to dx11 games, etc.
    The 28nm process is no less mature now than the 40nm process was for the 5870. I'm quite sure AMD could have released a 5890 (9 months later) had there been any competition, but then we'd be talking about the 5890 vs the 4890 with the same result.

    The 5870 was also first with dx11 and on a perf/shader metric performs worse than the 4-series due to that (this can be seen by comparing cards like the 4550 vs the 5450 - http://www.anandtech.com/show/2931/5). GCN doesn't have that excuse.

    Overclocking? Sure GCN clearly wins there, but like I said that's one of the few real plus-points I can see vs Cypress.

    7970 is not a letdown, it has it's pros and cons but it's very consistent with past upgrades.
    The real surprise is gk104, but we still don't have any data.
    For me it's not a "letdown" as such, it's just not as good as it could have been, in my opinion. If it was the same AMD chasing fastest card like they were with the 5870, it would have been a faster card.

  10. #140
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,228
    Quote Originally Posted by nflux View Post
    no offense guys but you have managed to turn a topic that is about a future nvidia card into a conversation about past amd cards
    Yes and no.
    There is nothing to discuss or we can speculate why one is faster than the other, in this case James brought to the discussion that it will surpass 7970 because this made a lame jump on performance compared to other generation changes.
    And some of us are telling him that the performance differences between generations are not that different, and that if gk104 ends faster or better on all metrics it's more due to merits of Nvidia than demerits of AMD.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux