Monday, November 22nd 2010

AMD Cayman, Antilles Specifications Surface

At last, specifications of AMD's elusive Radeon HD 6970 and Radeon HD 6990 graphics accelerators made it to the internet, with slides exposing details such as stream processor count. The Radeon HD 6970 is based on a new 40 nm GPU by AMD, codenamed "Cayman". The dual-GPU accelerator being designed using two Cayman GPUs is codenamed "Antilles", and carries the product name Radeon HD 6990.

Cayman packs 1920 stream processors, spread across 30 SIMD engines, indicating the 4D stream processor architecture, generating single-precision computational power of 3 TFLOPs. It packs 96 TMUs, 128 Z/Stencil ROPs, and 32 color ROPs. Its memory bandwidth of 160 GB/s indicates that it uses a 256-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface. The memory amount, however, seems to have been doubled to 2 GB on the Radeon HD 6970. Antilles uses two of these Cayman GPUs, combined computational power of 6 TFLOPs, a total of 3840 stream processors, total memory bandwidth of 307.2 GB/s, a total of 4 GB of memory, load and idle board power ratings at 300W and 30W, respectively.

Source: 3DCenter Forum
Add your own comment

134 Comments on AMD Cayman, Antilles Specifications Surface

#1
Over_Lord
News Editor
160GBPS that's it??? WHAT SHIT GTX580 is near 200GBPS
Posted on Reply
#2
LAN_deRf_HA
So the memory is only 5000 effective? Thought they we're confirmed as using chips rated for 6000.
Posted on Reply
#3
ariff_tech
3840/2 = 1920

6970 would only have 1920 stream processor.
it couldn't beat GTX580.

i hope 6970 would be double of 6870.
this will surely beat GTX580.

i will stick with my 5870 E6.
Posted on Reply
#4
newfellow
by: thunderising
160GBPS that's it??? WHAT SHIT GTX580 is near 200GBPS
Although, threaded AMD promises, but I have to agree this is incredible weak show from AMD.

Considering AMD/ATI is at huge issues with driver, BIOSes and all software of software issues + the fact that they have delay issues and nothing(as in new games) never seems to work correctly on their GPUs it is pretty funny..

(and nobody dare to accuse me an 'NVIDIA' fanboy I own only AMD/ATI GPUs atm a lot of them and I've been fixing their drivers for past 6 months almost every day basis.)
Posted on Reply
#5
LAN_deRf_HA
by: ariff_tech
3840/2 = 1920

6970 would only have 1920 stream processor.
it couldn't beat GTX580.

i hope 6970 would be double of 6870.
this will surely beat GTX580.

i will stick with my 5870 E6.
A 6870 offers 73% of a 580's performance with 1120 shaders. I doubt that it'd take double that to match a 580.
Posted on Reply
#6
leonard_222003
by: newfellow

(and nobody dare to accuse me an 'NVIDIA' fanboy I own only AMD/ATI GPUs atm a lot of them and I've been fixing their drivers for past 6 months almost every day basis.)
You've been fixing their drivers ? yeah , for sure nobody will say you are a fanboy when you say you are fixing their drivers , what you do ? fix the inf ? ini ? :D , fanboys never cease to amaze the world with statements like this , from the i owned everything ati made to fixing drivers and probably making GPU's one day , something like " i made the Ati gpu and i know it sucks" , i won't say Nvidia is better but read bettwen the lines :D .
Posted on Reply
#7
Fourstaff
+1 on that, it seems that 6990 will smoke GTX580's ass.

I have never encountered a problem with ATi's graphics card, my old X300 is still happy inside my parent's pc, and my lappy's 4570 has not overheated (unlike my 8400GS). Never had any problems on the driver side either.

Edit: any chance of seeing 6850X2/6870X2? From benchies, it seems that those two cards provide a lot of crossfire power and should cost less than a GTX580 while delivering more performance.
Posted on Reply
#8
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: newfellow

(and nobody dare to accuse me an 'NVIDIA' fanboy I own only AMD/ATI GPUs atm a lot of them and I've been fixing their drivers for past 6 months almost every day basis.)
That's wierd, I have the opposite problem. AMD/ATI drivers have always worked like a charm, but Nvidia's just doesn't play well with my system. It might be something else beneath it though, sometimes I think the motherboard is bad. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#10
Hayder_Master
more stream processors
more stream processors
more stream processors
and more stream processors = HD 9990
Posted on Reply
#11
afw
300W ... ??? :confused: ... even the 6870 is rated as 151W IIRC ... this has more than 2x6870 SPs and still needs 300W ...
Posted on Reply
#12
bear jesus
by: thunderising
160GBPS that's it??? WHAT SHIT GTX580 is near 200GBPS
by: LAN_deRf_HA
So the memory is only 5000 effective? Thought they we're confirmed as using chips rated for 6000.
Didn't the 5870 have 4800mhz and the 5970 have 4000mhz ? Could the 6970 have 5800mhz and the 6990 have 5000mhz?

After spending some time using only one of my 6870's to find out it's almost enough to max out most of the games i play at 5040x1050 i think selling my 6870's and getting one 6970 would give me the power to game over 3 monitors and no crossfire worry's :D i look forward to the reviews.
Posted on Reply
#13
Benetanegia
96 TMU cannot be correct. You can't divide 96 TMU on 30 SIMDs. 96/30 = 3.2

On top of that the TMU number per SIMD is always a power of 2 and has always been 4 so far on AMD cards. 30 SIMDs most probably means 120 TMUs.

Only other posibility is that Cayman is still 5D and has 24 SIMDs. 1920/80 = 24. Then all the numbers provided here match up. (24 x 4 = 96 TMU)
Posted on Reply
#14
Fourstaff
by: afw
300W ... ??? :confused: ... even the 6870 is rated as 151W IIRC ... this has more than 2x6870 SPs and still needs 300W ...
5970 drinks a max of ~300w, 5870 takes in ~210w, so there's your answer. (no doubt they will underclock the 6990 compared to 6970)
Posted on Reply
#15
Swamp Monster
by: afw
300W ... ??? ... even the 6870 is rated as 151W IIRC ... this has more than 2x6870 SPs and still needs 300W ...
Not sure what you trying to say, but 6990 is using 300W, not 6970.
Posted on Reply
#19
Swamp Monster
by: bear jesus
Awww 160gb/s hopefully it's not a bottleneck.
yes, it seems there isn't much changes on memory side. I hope It will do fine.
Posted on Reply
#20
Over_Lord
News Editor
by: bear jesus
Awww 160gb/s :( hopefully it's not a bottleneck.
wanna bet?
Posted on Reply
#21
poo417
by: bear jesus
Awww 160gb/s :( hopefully it's not a bottleneck.
The memory bottleneck was a myth on the 5xxx series. You could over clock the memory on my old 5970 from 1000 - 1200 and gain a few percent performance. Overclocking the GPU on the other hand form 725 - 900 was a HUGE jump in performance. The problem with the cards was a lack of memory on very res with AA. At 6050 x 1080 AA with a lot of games was not possible.

My 480's regularly use more than 1 GB in games at that res. Hell there is even a few games that use more than 1 GB at 1920 x 1080 with 4/8 x AA.

Overclocking the memory on the 480's does very little as well. Again OC the GPU massive jump in performance in most games.
Posted on Reply
#22
buggalugs
by: newfellow
Although, threaded AMD promises, but I have to agree this is incredible weak show from AMD.

Considering AMD/ATI is at huge issues with driver, BIOSes and all software of software issues + the fact that they have delay issues and nothing(as in new games) never seems to work correctly on their GPUs it is pretty funny..

(and nobody dare to accuse me an 'NVIDIA' fanboy I own only AMD/ATI GPUs atm a lot of them and I've been fixing their drivers for past 6 months almost every day basis.)
Dude, I play most of the new games when they come out and havent had any issues with any driver.

Maybe you could ask a friend to teach you how to build and maintain a computer properly because its not normal to have so many problems.

AMD doesnt ban people for complaining from the website either unless you were acting like a tool.
Posted on Reply
#23
Imsochobo
by: buggalugs
Dude, I play most of the new games when they come out and havent had any issues with any driver.

Maybe you could ask a friend to teach you how to build and maintain a computer properly because its not normal to have so many problems.

AMD doesnt ban people for complaining from the website either unless you were acting like a tool.
Ran 10,4 with my 5850, playd all new titles, so does 6 friends with the 5 series... no problems.
soo... your doing something wrong...
obviously since we run 10 000 laptops at work and we've had no complaints about ati cards from any.
ati's rma rate is also EXACTLY the same as nvidia... highest rma cards is 4870X2 and then GTX 295.
Posted on Reply
#24
ariff_tech
by: LAN_deRf_HA
A 6870 offers 73% of a 580's performance with 1120 shaders. I doubt that it'd take double that to match a 580.
Dual 6870 can beat 5970, and GTX 580 couldnt beat 5970.
But only if cayman have enough bandwidth (512bit memory perhaps)

Let wait for the review and see,
but power consumption look promising, 300W for dual Cayman, that's great:toast:
and support 8 display:rockout:
Posted on Reply
#25
bear jesus
by: poo417
The memory bottleneck was a myth on the 5xxx series. You could over clock the memory on my old 5970 from 1000 - 1200 and gain a few percent performance. Overclocking the GPU on the other hand form 725 - 900 was a HUGE jump in performance. The problem with the cards was a lack of memory on very res with AA. At 6050 x 1080 AA with a lot of games was not possible.

My 480's regularly use more than 1 GB in games at that res. Hell there is even a few games that use more than 1 GB at 1920 x 1080 with 4/8 x AA.

Overclocking the memory on the 480's does very little as well. Again OC the GPU massive jump in performance in most games.
Most of the games i can't max on a single card it's often the AA that can't be maxed at 5040x1050 and the same applies to when I'm using 2 cards so i assume it is due to running out of vram.

I really hope the 6970 is about the speed of 6870 crossfire (although only due to imperfect scaling thus 1920 sp's being about the same performance as 2240 in crossfire) but excels anywhere that vram is a limit, If so i will be saying goodbye to my 6870's as i have never been a fan of dual card setups, i just got these because i could not wait any more :laugh:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment