Monday, May 7th 2012

AMD Readies Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition

AMD's Radeon HD 7970 could not hold on to the single-GPU performance crown for too long. It lost it to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680, and the upcoming GeForce GTX 670 threatens to damage its competitiveness even further. Reports suggest that AMD is working on a new Tahiti-based graphics card SKU, the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition. AMD unveiled the "GHz Edition" moniker to denote SKUs that come with engine clock speed ≥1 GHz. The new HD 7970 GHz Edition will come with reference core clock speed of 1050 MHz.

AMD needn't tinker with memory clock speed, as it already has a 384-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface compared to the GeForce GTX 680 and its 256-bit memory bus width. Sources told Atomic PC that improved yields and manufacturing processes have benefitted Tahiti just as well as GK104, and ES Tahiti chips from the latest batches "easily" hit 1250 MHz core. These batches could make custom-design graphics cards with extremely high core clock speeds possible.

Sources: Atomic PC, Engadget
Add your own comment

203 Comments on AMD Readies Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition

#1
Casecutter
by: N3M3515
Why would amd cut the price of 7970 if gtx 680 isn't available?
I'm thinking the price cut had less to do with what the GTX680 did, while yes AMD knew by the first days of April Nvidia would have issues keeping the pipe at anything more than a trickle, why sweat it.

I see AMD as more anxious with their problems with TSMC, quality production from TSMC and yields/volumes was their reason for trepidation. I mean TMSC started delivering first rate production probably the end of Feb, but I'm sure AMD wait to see if they were out of the woods. Consider if TSMC couldn't repeat on the improved process, that original price was could maintain strong margins. Once that was sorted out and AMD found 1GHz where as designed and strong numbers, they’d wanted to cut inventory of the original 925Mhz parts so they don't peeve-off those who bought back Feb-March time frame. I see them setting 1Ghz version at a $480-500 MSRP and see what the market reacts like; GTX680 inventories and what the outcome of other GK104 parts might produce.
Posted on Reply
#2
johnnyfiive
by: Vulpesveritas
It's only a fact if all you do is gaming. Once you toss anything GPGPU in the mix, whether it be hardware acceleration, folding, etc, then the 7970 is a better card. 5-10% slower in games but 200-300% faster in GPGPU. yeahhh......
But if you don't do anything GPGPU then yeah the 680 probably calls to you more.
I bet about 1-2% of buyers actually buy a mainstream GPU for GPGPU processing. The other 98-99% buy GPU's for gaming. So that argument is pretty much invalid. If the majority of people actually gave a crap about GPGPU processing, the 7970's should be the ones selling out and not the 680's.

Are there any 680's in stock anywhere?
No.
You know why?
Because gamers are buying them to play games, not to fold all day.
Posted on Reply
#3
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: johnnyfiive
I bet about 1-2% of buyers actually buy a mainstream GPU for GPGPU processing. The other 98-99% buy GPU's for gaming. So that argument is pretty much invalid. If the majority of people actually gave a crap about GPGPU processing, the 7970's should be the ones selling out and not the 680's.

Are there any 680's in stock anywhere?
No.
You know why?
Because gamers are buying them to play games, not to fold all day.
No because production was prioritized for AMD to begin with. They are selling out is because the quantity is so low. Very little supply.
Posted on Reply
#4
Vulpesveritas
by: johnnyfiive
I bet about 1-2% of buyers actually buy a mainstream GPU for GPGPU processing. The other 98-99% buy GPU's for gaming. So that argument is pretty much invalid. If the majority of people actually gave a crap about GPGPU processing, the 7970's should be the ones selling out and not the 680's.

Are there any 680's in stock anywhere?
No.
You know why?
Because gamers are buying them to play games, not to fold all day.
Said 1-2% of buyers are going to make up 75%+ of the users who are likely to run their PC folding in their spare time, or bitcoin mine, as the other 98-99% don't build their own PC and get whatever is the best prebuilt they can find in town, or order off of the internet. Not many prebuilts will come with the top-end-of-top-end cards.
And the reason their not in stock is that Nvidia didn't get TSMC priority. People want to buy them when their in supply. Those that are in supply for the most part are overstocked and make the 7970 an even better deal than it is, as price / performance it is even with the 680 where it's sitting right now.
Plus, if more games utilize GPU computing in the future, then the Civilization V results will make the 7970 a better option, although I have a feeling it won't be common until after this batch is obsolete. Still a move in the right direction though.
Posted on Reply
#5
Casecutter
by: TheMailMan78
because production was prioritized for AMD to begin with
In what world would AMD have priority over Nvidia? Plain and simple Nvidia had more issue then just the normal TSMC 28Nm process those where bad, but might also be complicated by the HG HkMG process they choose to design with, along with other architectural faux-pas. Somehow it’s AMD fault... :roll:
Posted on Reply
#6
Vulpesveritas
by: Casecutter
In what world would AMD have priority over Nvidia? Plain and simple Nvidia had more issue then just the normal TSMC 28Nm process those where bad, but might also be complicated by the HG HkMG process they choose to design with, along with other architectural faux-pas. Somehow it’s AMD fault... :roll:
Because AMD placed orders first and got dies before nvidia perhaps? :laugh:
Though the process may also be a contributing agent.
Posted on Reply
#7
cadaveca
My name is Dave
by: Casecutter
In what world would AMD have priority over Nvidia? Plain and simple Nvidia had more issue then just the normal TSMC 28Nm process those where bad, but might also be complicated by the HG HkMG process they choose to design with, along with other architectural faux-pas. Somehow it’s AMD fault... :roll:
If nVidia could get enough wafers in the first place, they wouldn't be shopping around for 28nm from places other than TSMC. That's what he is refering too...AMD and others have already bought all of TSMC's 28nm capacity, so AMD is seen as the priority. AMD had their chips done and ready first, and without much issue, so yields, on TSMC's part, are perfectly fine. If it was a matter of needing to change design, Nvidia would have done so, so the idea that there are problems with NV's GK104 chip design seems incorrect.


If nVidia wasn't looking elsewhere for wafers, and if TSMC's partner's weren't all gushing about how good 28nm @ TSMC is, then you'd have a possible valid point, but with those facts in hand, it does not seem that you do.

It's not that AMD is at fault..Nvidia simply failed to realize and purchase needed supplies in time. Now they have a launched product they cannot keep on shelves, and no way to get more chips...pretty basic stuff here.
Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs did not blame yields but cited lack of capacity for constrained supplies which impacted Q1 revenues.
Altera has made no criticism of yields but said it could not get enough supply to meet an up-tick in demand late in Q1.
Jen-Hsun Huang of Nvidia is the only CEO to publicly accuse TSMC of having poor yields on 28nm and also announce that he's off to Samsung to get 28nm fab. However some people have pointed out that Nvidia's yield problem could be down to design flaws
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/david-manners-semiconductor-blog/2012/04/28nm-continues-to-perplex.html
Posted on Reply
#8
Casecutter
by: Vulpesveritas
Because AMD placed orders first and got dies before nvidia perhaps? :laugh:
Though the process may also be a contributing agent.
First in line first to get severed... Whiner's got to Whine.

by: cadaveca
Nvidia simply failed to realize and purchase needed supplies
They're not newcomers they knew if they got the GTX680 the way the wanted to turn out it would fly off shelves. Yes back end of Nov-Dec when Nvidia figured out they could move on the GTX680, they where late getting in line. AMD had orders in the hoper and then mid-late Jan TSMC had the shut-down, which best guess was they didn't really start-up until after the Chinese New Year.
As I said if Nvidia is having problems they're not because of AMD, while Nvidia's problem are way more than a couple of weeks old... it start when the GK100 went south in October.
Posted on Reply
#9
cadaveca
My name is Dave
Sure, AMD has nothing to do with this, other than this revision of the HD7970 proving that any issues that nVidia has is their own.

Design problems, failing to secure enough wafers, or TMSC problems don't really matter. All I can say is that in my post above, we have Jen Hsun Huang claiming yield issues, yet on Nvidia's website, the exact opposite is claimed. Since Nvidia can't get their story straight, of course it's all their fault.



TMSC 28nm is doing very well for AMD. They actaully seem to be doing pretty good all around, actually. FX CPUs may not be at hte perforamcne levels most expected, but they still sell, even with Intel offering more CPU performance in the same price range. GTX doesn't out-strip HD7970 like iNtel Beat AMD's CPUs, so clearly AMD's on the right track, and nVidia is not.


Anyway, I do not believe that GK100 exists, so anything pertaining to it I do not even pay a bit of attention to.

Time wil lshow if these GHz edition GPUs are the same votlage as first cards, or if they get a voltage boost...until I fidn that out, none of this is very important, IMHO. Interesting, but not important.
Posted on Reply
#10
Crap Daddy
by: cadaveca
Anyway, I do not believe that GK100 exists, so anything pertaining to it I do not even pay a bit of attention to.
At least one might be in this man's hands.

"Opening Keynote - May 15 @ 10:30am PT

NVIDIA CEO and co-founder Jen-Hsun Huang will kick off the conference with the opening address. He'll review the dramatic and growing impact of GPU technology in science, industry, design and many other fields.

And, he'll announce some big GPU news that you'll not want to miss.

For those of you who can't make it in person, we will provide a video livestream from the keynote."

This will be at GTC. I'm afraid it has nothing to do with gaming.
Posted on Reply
#12
cadaveca
My name is Dave
OK, but so now Mailman is saying that becuase of nVidia's issues, AMD has been given priority @ TSMC. AMD were ready with a working design to place their order first, and now many months later nVidia has GK104 ready, and Nvidia cannot get enough wafers to meet demand, and must look elsewhere.


Meanwhile, AMD is seeing a benefit from yield increase, and is launching this faster edition, it is surmised here. But nVidia has not launched GTX670, GTX 660, only older cards, like mentioned @ your link.


Of course, we can only guess that AMD's early success with their current-gen chip design affected nVidia's ability to buy more wafers, but it does seem to make sense.

Anyway, going form 925 MHz to 100 MHz on the same votlage technically represents a 7.75% increase in chip quality and efficiency. If we take Nvidia at face value, and yield issue are true for them, the best they can see right now is a 7.75% increase is chip quality, but NOT 7.75% MORE working chips. IF anything, if it truly is better GPUs out fo TSMC without AMD binning for this from earlier wafers, then nvidia realyl si in trouble like Charlie says.


It's just obvious. And that's why Charlie is uninspiring. Most people can take 1 + 1 + 1 and get to 3. Sometimes he gets 4, sometimes, 3.:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#13
Nothgrin
by: HumanSmoke
1. Intel has nothing to do with display standards
You obviously don't read TPU enough: http://www.techpowerup.com/164133/Intel-to-Push-for-Higher-Resolution-PC-Displays-Arrive-in-2013.html

by: HumanSmoke
2. 4K is already a standard- or a number of them to be exact;
4096 x 2160 (4K)
3840x2160 (QFHD)
Yes 4K is a standard but its not used as "THE" standard as 1080P is. You walk into an electronics store and all you see is 1920x1080 now. 1920x1200 used to be widely available at electronics superstores online or not. Plus technology has been around for TV's at 1920x1080 resolution since the late 90's you would think computer resolutions would have improved by much much more since then.

by: HumanSmoke
Now check the pricing, and work out if we're in any danger of 4K gaming overrunning us.
Once upon a time everyone thought a Riva TNT2 card was the best graphics card you could ever get... I'm sure many cell phones out there have more processing power at cheaper costs. In due time anything can happen.
Posted on Reply
#14
theoneandonlymrk
by: Nothgrin
Yes 4K is a standard but its not used as "THE" standard as 1080P is. You walk into an electronics store and all you see is 1920x1080 now. 1920x1200 used to be widely available at electronics superstores online or not. Plus technology has been around for TV's at 1920x1080 resolution since the late 90's you would think computer resolutions would have improved by much much more since then.
because what you want, matters less then what they want to make and sell you and you can get an 8K screen if you have the money, a lot

roll on new 7970 bench time ;), ah sod it any 8xxx news on the wire
Posted on Reply
#15
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: cadaveca
OK, but so now Mailman is saying that becuase of nVidia's issues, AMD has been given priority @ TSMC. AMD were ready with a working design to place their order first, and now many months later nVidia has GK104 ready, and Nvidia cannot get enough wafers to meet demand, and must look elsewhere.


Meanwhile, AMD is seeing a benefit from yield increase, and is launching this faster edition, it is surmised here. But nVidia has not launched GTX670, GTX 660, only older cards, like mentioned @ your link.


Of course, we can only guess that AMD's early success with their current-gen chip design affected nVidia's ability to buy more wafers, but it does seem to make sense.

Anyway, going form 925 MHz to 100 MHz on the same votlage technically represents a 7.75% increase in chip quality and efficiency. If we take Nvidia at face value, and yield issue are true for them, the best they can see right now is a 7.75% increase is chip quality, but NOT 7.75% MORE working chips. IF anything, if it truly is better GPUs out fo TSMC without AMD binning for this from earlier wafers, then nvidia realyl si in trouble like Charlie says.


It's just obvious. And that's why Charlie is uninspiring. Most people can take 1 + 1 + 1 and get to 3. Sometimes he gets 4, sometimes, 3.:laugh:
I dont think its anything wrong with yield/design issues for Nvidia. It sounds more logical that they just cannot get enough chips since AMD and some others have already bought out their entire 28nm stock. I mean you can assume that TSMC is working at and pretty good speed to fullfil orders, but at this point its not enough. I just hope Nvidia can get a healthy stock of GK104s so i can get my Evga SC+ Signature GTX680 in a month :))))))))))))
Posted on Reply
#16
erocker
by: nvidiaintelftw
since AMD and some others have already bought out their entire 28nm stock.
Did they? If so, who's fault is that?
Posted on Reply
#17
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: erocker
Did they? If so, who's fault is that?
what do you mean whose fault is that? AMD and so on jumped on it got their shit done and bought all the wafers they could. Which turns out to be everything and then some. Now Nvidia is screwed.
Posted on Reply
#18
erocker
by: nvidiaintelftw
what do you mean whose fault is that? AMD and so on jumped on it got their shit done and bought all the wafers they could. Which turns out to be everything and then some. Now Nvidia is screwed.
You have a TMSC insider informant?
Posted on Reply
#19
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: erocker
You have a TMSC insider informant?
go read what Dave has been saying. Ive basically restated what he has said.
Posted on Reply
#20
SIGSEGV
by: nvidiaintelftw
what do you mean whose fault is that? AMD and so on jumped on it got their shit done and bought all the wafers they could. Which turns out to be everything and then some. Now Nvidia is screwed.
screwed? oh really? :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#21
m1dg3t
Don't most of the 7970's achieve these clock rates already?

by: BarbaricSoul
AMD needs to do something, GK110 is coming
So's the gtx680! Still waiting :rolleyes:

It's an AMD conspiracy! They bought every single wafer they could just to screw Nvidia :rolleyes: :roll:

I want some of that kool - aid hahaha
Posted on Reply
#22
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: SIGSEGV
screwed? oh really? :laugh:
Why else would they be going to other corporations for 28nm fabrication? They have this card launched yet they can't fullfil the demand and keep them in stock at retailers. Its been what almost a month since it has launched and still barely any signs of resupply at retailers. Only place ive seen so far that has maybe a few is TigerDirect, and even then you never know if you go to put one in your cart and it says its out of stock. And i know there are 0 at my local Frys.
Posted on Reply
#23
SIGSEGV
by: nvidiaintelftw
Why else would they be going to other corporations for 28nm fabrication? They have this card launched yet they can't fullfil the demand and keep them in stock at retailers.
who's fault then? :laugh:
still do you want to blame AMD for this? ;)

by: m1dg3t
Don't most of the 7970's achieve these clock rates already?



So's the gtx680! Still waiting :rolleyes:

It's an AMD conspiracy! They bought every single wafer they could just to screw Nvidia :rolleyes: :roll:

I want some of that kool - aid hahaha
i want to ask you something, why nvidia didnt put their order first at TSMC ? (although they've already had design problems :D)
and now, their fans begin to blame amd for this~
this is so funny.. LMFAO :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#24
T4C Fantasy
CPU & GPU DB Maintainer
by: johnnyfiive
So, back to the topic.

" Do you think HD 7970 GHz Edition can make HD 7970 attractive again? "

The 7970 was never unattractive in my opinion, it was just priced wrong from the get go.
I think the GHz edition will be a nice welcome if its $449. I still think $469 is too much for a plain 7970. Fact is, the 680 does beat the 7970 in the majority of the games that actually matter (BF3, ding ding ding), so asking $30 less isn't enough. I think $50 less would make the 7970 the perfectly priced card. When the 670's launch, I have a feeling they will perform RIGHT under the 7970 but cost a good $50-60 less than the cheapest 7970. It would be in AMD's best interest to not bother releasing a "GHz" SKU and focus on strategic pricing, like they do with their processors.

I had/have both a 7970 and a GTX 680. Both are fantastic cards. However, I do like the 680 better. On the contrary, I like AMD's driver interface MUCH more than Nvidia's. They each have their pros and cons, but this time around, the 680 is the superior card. This is FACT, not fascinated fiction. It does indeed beat a reference 7970 in almost all benchmarks. It may not be a huge amount, but its enough to matter. Factor in the $549 MSRP vs 680 $499 MSRP, and its pretty obvious what the better card is. 7970 GHz and 7970 need to be $449 and $429 to make most people give a turd.
the hd7970 is $479 not 549 get it straight, it WAS 549 on releas
Posted on Reply
#25
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: SIGSEGV
who's fault then? :laugh:
still do you want to blame AMD for this? ;)



i want to ask you something, why nvidia didnt put their order first at TSMC ? (although they've already had design problems :D)
and now, their fans begin to blame amd for this~
this is so funny.. LMFAO :laugh:
When did I blame AMD? I just said AMD and others got their designs done before nvidia and got on the ball and ordered their wafers before nvidias designs were done. Sure its nvidias fault, but they were late. Theres no surprise there its been like this for the last few generations, just now its even more severe.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment