DuckThor Evil
Legend
250W on 6970 is powertune +20% setting, too
Isn't that 0%? I remember that you could choose the max power consumption to be between 200-300W on the 6970, where 0% meant max consumption was 250W and 20% 300W.
AMD: Southern Islands (7*** series) Speculation/ Rumour Thread
- Thread starter UniversalTruth
- Start date
Isn't that 0%? I remember that you could choose the max power consumption to be between 200-300W on the 6970, where 0% meant max consumption was 250W and 20% 300W.
A game could be ROP-limited in a number of situations, like alpha-blending or depth sampling -- both cases are also very bandwidth sensitive. I personally think that 32 colour samples are good enough for the new architecture, but the depth buffer rate could have been doubled without much of a hassle, with more and more rendering effects coming down lately, that are relying on sampling the depth data for various purposes.
I'm quite sure it was 250W with +20%, even though at least some reviews mention it being at 0%.
At least IMO even the official slides suggested it, mentioning Max Board Power as 250W, and "typical gaming power" at mere 190W
Anyone to confirm this?
At ~10M pixels/frame, pretty much everything is going to be GPU bound and rather severely so.
3 months is passable. 6 months late is a colossal screw up.
It depends entirely on workload. That Barts statement is taken out of context, and it was never an official "AMD" statement, but, unless I misrecall, an offhand statement by Dave Baumann. For what it is worth, given the workloads I use my particular Barts sample for, the configuration AMD sells is clearly preferable. But your mileage will vary, and that's what's important.
I have yet to see anything useful come out of GPU compute. That doesn't mean I'll never do it, but I feel rather confident that I belong to an overwhelming majority who buys graphics cards to assist in game playing. If one vendor has me overspending on GPU compute, I'll go to the vendor that doesn't. At this point in time however, unfortunately that's Intel.
I'm looking at the Skyrim graph, and I'm 100% sure there aren't enough ROPs. Reports are that later this year well see 4k monitors @ 30-36", and 2880 @ 17". Giving Tahiti only 32ROPs is a colossal mistake. With the rumoured price, the people on 1080p res probably won't go for this card, and we're already seeing graphs where it's no faster than a 580 @ 2560. Failure all round.
But it's OK! WINZIP is accelerated. AMD, pull your head out your arse plz.
You mean monitors like this?
That thing will have to lose atleast 2 zeros, before anybody will care.
boxleitnerb
Regular
Skyrim is heavily CPU bound at "normal" settings.
$36k? Yowsa. Of course that's the industrial version so figure consumer today could launch at 1/3-1/2 that price - still WAY too high. Get it down to under $2k and I'll wager you'll see plenty of buyers.
Well damn this sounds really interesting. I've avoided sli in the past due to noise, heat, power use, etc. But with those impressive 2 gpu scaling results and zerocore power I have to say I'm now really tempted. I'm still skeptical of Ati's ability to code working drivers though...
Man from Atlantis
Veteran
obrovsky, lol apart from nothing can be seen, thats really bad benchmark suit, ancient games lol..
Silent_Buddha
Legend
OK, I think ZeroCore Power just sold me on this card. Even if it was the exact same speed as my existing 5870, I'd be buying it. Cutting long idle power use down from close to 100W (or whatever it is for multi-monitor on 5870) down to 3W is going to be very nice.
Considering the cheapest 2560x1600 monitor is still over 1k for the good ones (HP at 1100+ USD with no scaling options, while Dell is at 1400+ with scaling options and extras), I think 3840x2400 or 3840x2160 (depending on which 4k standard you are going by) are going to be well north of 4k USD for quite a while.
Even if they get cheap quickly, I highly doubt they'll be under 1k USD anytime in the next 5 years. And how many people buy 1k+ USD 30" monitors or 24" monitors when they were 1k+ USD a few years ago?
Heck, 1920x1080 and higher resolutions only reached ~35% of user penetration on Steam recently due to 1080p monitors hitting under the 200 USD price point.
Regards,
SB
Considering the cheapest 2560x1600 monitor is still over 1k for the good ones (HP at 1100+ USD with no scaling options, while Dell is at 1400+ with scaling options and extras), I think 3840x2400 or 3840x2160 (depending on which 4k standard you are going by) are going to be well north of 4k USD for quite a while.
Even if they get cheap quickly, I highly doubt they'll be under 1k USD anytime in the next 5 years. And how many people buy 1k+ USD 30" monitors or 24" monitors when they were 1k+ USD a few years ago?
Heck, 1920x1080 and higher resolutions only reached ~35% of user penetration on Steam recently due to 1080p monitors hitting under the 200 USD price point.
Regards,
SB
Depends entirely on Apple pushing (or not) for quadrupling the resolution on Macs. If they do push, the prices could tumble very quickly.
Similar threads
