AMD: Southern Islands (7*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread

Discussion in 'Architecture and Products' started by UniversalTruth, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. CarstenS

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    3,661
    Location:
    Germany
    I am not talking about Fps that are read from the end of a Fraps run or minimum Fps during one. I am talking about playability and how much of the improvement actually translates into better gameplay.

    [​IMG]
    (This is from August timeframe, BF BC2, medium details, 2x MSAA, no HBAO)

    Depends on your definition of "gaming". Mine: Running benchmarks must be within the game itself, not in a canned benchmark that's easy to identify and optimize for. So, I'd at least exclude AvP, Battleforge and Far Cry 2 here, possibly more.
    I am also not sure about running Crysis 2 and Shogun 2 in DX9 as well as using a purely CPU-limited setting for the higher end cards in Starcraft 2 by not enabling Antialiasing in the drivers which do specifically provide this option.

    The more pixels need to be moved, the better for the Radeon and the worse for Geforce. I think it has something to do with the Geforce's inability to export more than two pixels per clock per SM. While that won't hurt gameplay very much in my opinion because only fps peaks are capped to a lower rate, it definitely shows in the benchmarks.
     
    #1181 CarstenS, Dec 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2011
  2. CarstenS

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    3,661
    Location:
    Germany
    On topic (and therefore a new post):
    I am actually very excited about Southern Islands, and that's something I don't say lightly or use inflationarily. :)
     
  3. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    Yeah, right. The key word is "maybe". But not exactly.
    Wow. :shock:
    Take a look at the TPU link given by your colleague only one post above.
    17-18% at 2560 X 1600. :lol:
     
  4. Dooby

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    3
    Was going off a game and a resolution I play:

    [​IMG]

    6970 = 45 fps vs 5870 = 31fps = ~50%. In less demanding situations this is even worse, so my point makes even more sense. 50-100% improvement in over 3 years is a shamble!
     
  5. neliz

    neliz GIGABYTE Man
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,904
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    In the know
    Because you have a good indication of the power requirements and performance ;) :p
     
  6. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,698
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Why are you comparing a dual GPU solution to single ones? You should be comparing to 6990.
     
  7. Dooby

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    3
    Because I *have* a dual GPU card atm. My next card will *not* be a dual GPU card. 6970 and 5870 are single GPU cards.
     
  8. no-X

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,412
    Likes Received:
    426
    That's understandable. But you cannot say they made just a 50-100% performance increase over 3 years. Actual performance increase is higher, you just don't include the top performing parts into your survey. It's also unfair to blame AMD / Nvidia, the biggest brake was TSMC and its 40nm process which halted evolution for almost 3 years.
     
  9. UniversalTruth

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    22
    I don't see how exactly you prove your point when 6970= 31 FPS vs 5870= 22 FPS. :shock: You are using a single application which obviously benefits most (and is exception rather than norm) from some improvements (Tesselation perhaps) in Cayman over Cypress. But in all games on average the performance difference is nowhere near 50%, only 15-20%.
     
  10. TKK

    TKK
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just laughed:lol:
    Interesting memory you got there...

    From Guru3D (p)review of Radeon 9700 Pro:

    Quake III 1280x1024 1600x1200
    GeForce4 Ti 4600 179 141
    Radeon9700 Pro
    200 176

    AquaMark
    1280x1024 1600x1200
    GeForce4 Ti 4600 45.1 33.2
    Radeon 9700 Pro
    61.7 44.9

    Other tests showed similar gaps. There was a 50% advantage in higher resolutions of Aquamark when testing with an SDR instead of DDR system (Athlon XP platform, probably has to do with R300's wider memory bus), but that was the biggest difference.

    I'm aware the gap grew bigger with later games when there was heavier shader use, but still...
    at the time of its release, this 20-50% performance gain over Ti 4600 was all there was.

    I assume you're talking about huge differences like between a 8800 GTX and 7900 GTX in "true" ShaderModel 3.0 games, but those times are over because such large gains were only possible due to the huge deficiencies of architectures like NV30 and G70/71. I think the last larger bottleneck existing in more recent architectures is Cypress/Cayman's limited setup/primitive-/geometry-/tesselation-pipeline, which is exactly one of the aspects where GCN looks like a tremendous improvement. In other aspects like raw shader-, texture- and pixel-throughput both AMD and Nvidia are mostly process-limited nowadays, and that won't change anymore.

     
  11. Dooby

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    3
    Given that I want *higher* performance, your 15-20% is only making my point even more for me. My 50% was a conservative worst case for the 6970. Thanks.

    I am admittedly cherry picking results, but:

    Jedi Knight 2 w/ AA & Aniso
    'demo jk2ffa' @ 1600x1200
    ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - 101.2
    NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600 - 21.6

    Serious Sam 2 w/ AA & Aniso
    Little Trouble @ 1600x1200
    ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - 52.2
    NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600 - 24.3

    Unreal Tournament 2003 w/ AA & Aniso
    dm-antalus @ 1600x1200
    ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - 31.3
    NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600 - 11.1

    (not really playable either way, but the numbers hold up)

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/970/20

    Remember back in the day, AA wasn't really used in reviews (I doubt it's on in the benchies you linked to (edit: yeah, just re-read the Guru write-up, and thats a seriously poor review), but when it was (and AA was why I upgraded to a 9700 over a 4600), it was easily 2-3x faster than the Ti4600.
     
    #1191 Dooby, Dec 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2011
  12. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,752
    Likes Received:
    7,763
    Well, you can't discuss actual "playability" within a Crossfire/SLI setup without presenting V-Synced results, which pretty much invalidates those graphics.

    For all the years I used both SLI (2*6800GT) and Crossfire (2*3870, 2*4870) systems, one thing I know for sure is that if I want to play games with a dual-card setup and it's using AFR, turning V-Sync on is pretty much mandatory.

    I'm still amazed at how "professional" reviewers keep insisting in showing non-vsynced results for all multi-GPU tests, whereas the only solution where vsync should be passable is Lucid's Hydra.
    It shows how little these people know about what they're doing, or at least how little they really care about their supposed customers (readers).
     
  13. CarstenS

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    May 31, 2002
    Messages:
    5,656
    Likes Received:
    3,661
    Location:
    Germany
    Ahhh, yes, I understand. Obviously I misinterpreted the performance numbers you posted above. From the look of it, they seemed to be measuring with Vsync off.
     
  14. DarthShader

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Land of Mu
  15. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    12,752
    Likes Received:
    7,763
    Irony is useless here.
    I simply pointed out a number of general performance advantage when using hybrid crossfire, as stated by the appointed review:
    You're the one who started the "playability" discussion and proceeded to show vsync-less results (from an image stored in a webpage filled with awfully annoying ads, TBH).

    ______________________________________________________________________


    VR-Zone says the card probably comes with 1,5GB of GDDR5.
    I sure hope it's 3GB, as the card should be able to make use of more than 1,5GB of graphics memory.
    Should come in handy for Crossfire and very high resolutions (Eyefinity).
     
  16. Man from Atlantis

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    780
    it is probably a 7950.. dual bios switch is very welcomed feature
     
  17. fellix

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,537
    Likes Received:
    496
    Location:
    Varna, Bulgaria
  18. mczak

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    119
    That would be a rather huge difference between 7950 and 7970 (~40%). I think it should be more like 20% unless apart from lower clocks it also disables more stuff "than usual".
     
  19. mboeller

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Germany
    the name of the pic ends with -7970.jpg
     
  20. TKK

    TKK
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, point taken.

    But like I said, those differences were mostly down to extreme weaknesses of certain older architectures, AA/AF for Geforce 4 Ti, SM2.0 for Geforce 5x00, SM3.0 for Geforce 6x00 and 7x00, AA/AF for Radeon 2000 and 3000 series. But starting with G80 for Nvidia and R700 for AMD, both got rid of those extreme weaknesses and bottlenecks (except for tesselation in AMD's case, maybe), that's why it's very unlikely we'll ever see that kind of jumps again.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...