Why aren't people upset about the HD 7970?

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I said it before. The die shrink hold up screwed us. We got half the improvement we were supposed to with the 69xx 5xx series cards, now we're getting the other half a year later. If it hadn't been for the hold up we'd of gotten it all at once.

[Celeras]

Apparently so, I only glanced at the chart when you mentioned 56%. Carry on.

[Lionheart]

The cards awesome, this thread deserves to be closed, herpderp

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Maban

I basically just said that in my post. 4870 is 156% as fast as the 3870. Are you going by the 3850 which was 56% as fast as the 4870?

It was 64% as fast there as graph that says that. Not only did I buy 1 I bought 4. They still run in quad xfirelike my 4870s did. Both were good for the money so am I going to pay for a 56% faster card when it cost more than 2x as much?

[Maban]

Originally Posted by Celeras

Apparently so, I only glanced at the chart when you mentioned 56%. Carry on.

Even then, 56 to 100 is only a 78.57% increase. I don't know about you, but that's not what I consider double.

[brandonwh64]

Why aren't people upset about the HD 7970?

Because we have better things to do in live besides sit around and slit our wrists over video card performance.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Maban

Even then, 56 to 100 is only a 78.57% increase. I don't know about you, but that's not what I consider double.

It's almost double.

Stop nitpicking. OK his math was wrong but he did have a VALID POINT.

Although there is a reason why GPU performance isnt increasing as explained in Moores Law in previous post, Trackr still had every right to query the question for debate without math being the main focus.

Celeras is a obvious troll. Rather not get into his mathematic debate and return to hardware talk.

[thunderising]

Sorry, but to the uninformed, I have seen anywhere between 10%(lowest) to 60%(max) performance boost in the same game using a HD7970 over a HD6970.

[buggalugs]

Originally Posted by Trackr

This is the first time in history where a new generation (not a refresh), based on a lower process doesn't even manage 50% performance boost, let alone 100%.. heck, it's barely 25%!

HD 4870 was more than twice as powerful than HD 3870.
HD 5870 was exactly twice as powerful as HD4870.
HD 6970 was a refresh, on the same process, and thus was only 25% better.

Now, HD 7970, on the 28nm process(!) manages what, 10-25%?!

And everyone is acting like this is fine...

What gives, people?!

Because Your numbers are wrong, 4870 was not 100% faster than the 3870 its was closer to 30%

The 5870 was much faster than the 4870 but this was because of the introduction of eyefinity and the need to run 3 monitors from 1 card. The 5870 was the biggest jump in performance from any card in the last decade and is the exception rather than the rule.

Just about every generation for the last decade improves performance by 20%-30% except for the 5870.

The 7970 is an excellent card and has much bigger improvements in tessellation performance, more than double the 6970, and that will really count on new games going forward.

Plus the other thing is, I can tell you never actually owned the cards and are judging performance based on old benchmarks. During the 3870-4870- generation AMD were playing catchup and AMD cards were much slower than Nvidia cards at the time. So those improvements didnt mean a whole lot at the time.

The 7970 is different because it smashes the competition (580) and is the undisputed fastest GPU on the planet.

Just to add, I can remember when single high-end GPUs were $899 like the 7800GTX, and Nvidias flagship cards usually start at $599 to this day so the price AMD is asking is more than reasonable.

[JrRacinFan]

Just mentioning, don't forget 99% of the time, Ati cards mature with driver revisions.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Dent1

It's almost double.

Stop nitpicking. OK his math was wrong but he did have a VALID POINT.

Although there is a reason why GPU performance isnt increasing as explained in Moores Law in previous post, Trackr still had every right to query the question for debate without math being the main focus.

Celeras is a obvious troll. Rather not get into his mathematic debate and return to hardwre talk.

75% is way the hell different. Can't exactly go into walmart with $75 expecting to buy $100 worth of stuff. Trakr is beingan obvious troll. Bashing a generation released on a fucking beta driver that still showed a performance boost with a major performance per watt boost.

[Trackr]

Originally Posted by cdawall

75% is way the hell different. Can't exactly go into walmart with $75 expecting to buy $100 worth of stuff. Trakr is beingan obvious troll. Bashing a generation released on a fucking beta driver that still showed a performance boost with a major performance per watt boost.

LOL

cdawall, maybe it's not obvious to you, but the only reason you're knitpicking the fuck out of me is because you don't want to face facts.

HD 4870 was much more of an upgrade to the HD 3870 than HD 7970 is to the HD 6970.

I mean, look at the specs:

HD 3870 - 320 ALUs. HD 4870 - 800 ALUs.
True, clocks are a bit lower, so it's not exactly 120% better.

HD 6970 - 1536 ALUs. HD 7970 - 2048 ALUs.

HD 7970 has 33% more shaders and is clocked higher, thus achieving 50% performance boost.

That is nothing close to the HD 4870's 75% at stock clocks.

Now yeah, you could say that AMD chose higher clocks as opposed to more ALUs..

But you're not saying that. You're just knitpicking and being a dumbass.

[AsRock]

Originally Posted by acerace

Don't just look at the FPS performance. Look also the power consumption. ~15W at idle, that's great!

Yeah a whopping 7w ish lower than a 6970 lol.

Not bothered really due to not being in the market for one. And lets face it most games suck today anyways.

And another reason is that why i did not pick up a 580 price as i was not going pay a extra $130 for a few more FPS when a 6970 is capable of doing for my needs anyways.

If i am mad at any thing it be the pricing but i don't blame AMD for that they just marked the card accordingly not to start another price war which is some thing AMD don't need.

In turn if true about AMD backing out of high end CPU's they might be all so doing it so intel raise the prices so they can jump back in the market again with better profits.

[Benetanegia]

People are not upset/dissapointed because they are fanboys or just plainly heavily biased whether they are fanboys or not, even if they are unable to recognize it. Nothing ever is bad if it comes from Ati/AMD.

A clear case of (unconscious) bias is this sentence from buggalous:

Originally Posted by buggalugs

The 7970 is different because it smashes the competition (580) and is the undisputed fastest GPU on the planet.

The HD7970 is 10-15% faster than the GTX 580 sure, it's also a new generation based on a newer and smaller process. The GTX 580 is 10-15% faster than the HD6970 and was manufactured on the same 40 nm process and it was released before the HD6970. In fact it was just the fixed GTX 480 released 8 months earlier, which on it's own was 15%-20% faster than AMD's top card at the time, the HD5870.

Now, did you EVER heard anyone saying that the GTX 480 or GTX 580 smashed the competition and was the undisputable fastest GPU on the planet? No. What you heard is that Fermi was a complete failure and that the HD6970 was almost as fast as the GTX 580, and cheaper, and had a lot less transistors and bla bla bla.

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Ahhzz

Actually, according to moore's law, it should continue to increase for an extended period of time as they're able to fit more transistors in the same space. We're nowhere near what they see as our eventual "stagnant" phase, and by that time, considering the work being done on alternative semiconductors, we'll probably see a tremendous leap forward.

We are probably decades off long term stagnation where alternative methods for increasing performance is compulsory. But we are definitely experiencing a temporary stagnation, which might be more to do with ATI's research and development budget more than anything but counteracting Moore's Law is why ATI's research and development costs so much.

[Damn_Smooth]

Originally Posted by Trackr

LOL

cdawall, maybe it's not obvious to you, but the only reason you're knitpicking the fuck out of me is because you don't want to face facts.

HD 4870 was much more of an upgrade to the HD 3870 than HD 7970 is to the HD 6970.

I mean, look at the specs:

HD 3870 - 320 ALUs. HD 4870 - 800 ALUs.
True, clocks are a bit lower, so it's not exactly 120% better.

HD 6970 - 1536 ALUs. HD 7970 - 2048 ALUs.

HD 7970 has 33% more shaders and is clocked higher, thus achieving 50% performance boost.

That is nothing close to the HD 4870's 75% at stock clocks.

Now yeah, you could say that AMD chose higher clocks as opposed to more ALUs..

But you're not saying that. You're just knitpicking and being a dumbass.

I have a question for you. Can you find me a more powerful single GPU card on the market? No? Then what does it matter how it compares to past generations when it outperforms them all?

You're coming off as spoiled and calling people names is not helping your case.

[AlienIsGOD]

might be referring to the fact that 4800s have 800 shaders and the 3870 has 320. but then to base anything on those numbers is just foolish :P Cause i get the same if not better performance from 1 6870 over 2 4850s and thats a dif of 480 shaders.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by Trackr

LOL

cdawall, maybe it's not obvious to you, but the only reason you're knitpicking the fuck out of me is because you don't want to face facts.

HD 4870 was much more of an upgrade to the HD 3870 than HD 7970 is to the HD 6970.

I mean, look at the specs:

HD 3870 - 320 ALUs. HD 4870 - 800 ALUs.
True, clocks are a bit lower, so it's not exactly 120% better.

HD 6970 - 1536 ALUs. HD 7970 - 2048 ALUs.

HD 7970 has 33% more shaders and is clocked higher, thus achieving 50% performance boost.

That is nothing close to the HD 4870's 75% at stock clocks.

Now yeah, you could say that AMD chose higher clocks as opposed to more ALUs..

But you're not saying that. You're just knitpicking and being a dumbass.

YOU CANNOT CROSS COMPARE GENERATIONS LIKE THAT. The ALU structure is completely different between those cards. I wouldn't call me a dumbass considering I have probably used more top end cards than you could have dreamed about. If anyone is nitpicking its you.

[AlienIsGOD]

Originally Posted by cdawall

YOU CANNOT CROSS COMPARE GENERATIONS LIKE THAT. The ALU structure is completely different between those cards.

agreed. VLIW 4/5 maybe, but GCN is a new approach.

[JrRacinFan]

Damn guys, it's christmas, stop with the flaming and apologize . I don't know about any of you but I'm thrilled about the new card.

[AlienIsGOD]

Originally Posted by JrRacinFan

Damn guys, it's christmas. I don't know about any of you but I'm thrilled about the new card.

I am excited but i just got a 6870 and the glow from that hasn't worn off yet either.

[Benetanegia]

So to recap. 10% IS smashing the competition, even for a new gen, and the price is justified.

In a few months Nvidia will release their card. In a few months. Not more than 1 year after the GTX580 was released, no, only 6-7 months later it will happen. And we all know it will be more than just 10-15% faster than the HD7970. I'd really like to hear such things as that they are smashing the competition, that the price is fair and what not.

It won't happen. Once again it will only be barely faster than the HD7970 and price will not ne justified. I hate ficking double standards.

YOU CANNOT CROSS COMPARE GENERATIONS LIKE THAT. The ALU structure is completely different between those cards.

You pretty much can compare them when they are performing exactly like the previous ones. 30% more ALUs for 30% more performance. AMD had to know that and I was expecting more ALUs. As soon as I saw that 2048 SPs were confirmed I knew what the performance would be, and no matter what you guys think, it is dissapointing compared to previous generations. Not only because of lacking performance, but because of the much increased prices.

I think Nvidia will be way way way ahead with their top end card, and posibly slightly* ahead with GK104.

* LOL they might even "smash" it according to some standards here, because if rumored specs are true (768 Sp, over 2 Tflops) it shouldn't have too many problems being 25% faster than the GTX580 (512 SP, 1,5 Tflops).

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Trackr

This is the first time in history where a new generation (not a refresh), based on a lower process doesn't even manage 50% performance boost, let alone 100%.. heck, it's barely 25%!

HD 4870 was more than twice as powerful than HD 3870.
HD 5870 was exactly twice as powerful as HD4870.
HD 6970 was a refresh, on the same process, and thus was only 25% better.

Now, HD 7970, on the 28nm process(!) manages what, 10-25%?!

And everyone is acting like this is fine...

What gives, people?!

Yup, it's not a big enough improvement compared to a year-old card, the GTX 580. At least it's no Bulldozer, as it does beat the 580, giving it some healthy competition and forcing the price of both cards down.

Also, wtf is it with AMD and those noisy f* coolers? They've used the same noisy turbine since the 2900. The only reason why my 4870 was quiet, was because they ran it very slowly and let the card get real hot - crap "solution". I hate this fan noise, so I would go nvidia just to get rid of it. I don't feel I should spend significant money in upgrading it with a third party one and voiding the warranty just because AMD can't be bothered to fit one that's as good as nvidia does. My 580 can make a fair amount of noise of course, but it doesn't have that objectionable quality as the one fitted to AMD cards.

There's been a lot of disappointing hardware releases in recent years, when you think about it.

[JrRacinFan]

@Bene

I agree with you. The problem is people see things and expect 120% more than what it will be. Human nature. Same reason why "BD failed" but that's another topic altogether.

[buggalugs]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

The HD7970 is 10-15% faster than the GTX 580 sure, it's also a new generation based on a newer and smaller process. The GTX 580 is 10-15% faster than the HD6970 and was manufactured on the same 40 nm process and it was released before the HD6970. In fact it was just the fixed GTX 480 released 8 months earlier, which on it's own was 15%-20% faster than AMD's top card at the time, the HD5870.

.

Well the 480 came out a long time after the 5870, was fairly hot and noisy and was a fair bit more expensive. The 580 was a much better card and I never had anything bad to say about it.

I think AMD gets more credit because they always bring us the new technology first whereas Nvidia waits to see what AMD has done then adds their 10% performance increase. Then when Nvidia charge $100-$150 more for the card with 10% performance increase it pisses people off.

If nvidia pushed new tech based on consumer needs instead of what AMD is doing, they would have more friends.

The other thing is Nvidia's push into proprietory standards (and dirty tricks)is a bad thing for consumers and gaming in general ,thats one of the main reasons why I like to support AMD.