Wednesday, January 26th 2011

AMD Radeon HD 6990 Pictured Up Close

Here's the Radeon HD 6990 up close. The HD 6990 is AMD's new dual-GPU graphics card that extends the performance leadership held by Radeon HD 5970. The pictures put rest to some speculation surrounding the cooler design. It now appears that the cooler design is similar to that of the GeForce GTX 295 single-PCB, as far as air-flow is concerned. A single long PCB holds two GPU systems on either sides, a centrally-located blower pushes air on either sides. The exhaust from one GPU is sent out of the case, while that from the other is pushed out of the card from its rear portion.

The Radeon HD 6990 uses two 40 nm Cayman GPUs, it packs a total of 3072 stream processors, and 4096 MB of memory between the two GPU systems. It also features a new kind of display output that consists of one dual-link DVI and four mini-DP 1.2. Power is drawn in from one 6-pin and an 8-pin PCIe connector. The card can pair with another of its kind for 4-GPU CrossFireX. It is expected to be released a little later in this quarter.

Source: 4Gamer.net
Add your own comment

124 Comments on AMD Radeon HD 6990 Pictured Up Close

#1
cadaveca
My name is Dave
newtekie1 said:
So on a card like this I don't really see any good reason to include DP connectors over HDMI/DVI connectors, can you?
Actually, yes I can. One, signaling voltage for DP vs DVI. Secondly, provided bandwidth of DP vs DVI. 3, there's also that the number of clock-generators required for DVI is twice that of DP. DP can support more devices than DVI, given the hardware restrictions.

Anyway, the whole point is rather moot...I had an Eyefinity 6 card, and it came with enough dongles to fill 5 of the 6 of the mini-DP ports.

Also, if Eyefinity worked with using seperate display output controllers, there'd be no requirement of having the monitors all plugged into the same GPU. Crossfire and Eyefinity just doesn't work the way you'd like, as software would be required to manage the displsy outputs, and keep them in sync, which of course, will cause a performance penalty, and is contrary to AMD's choice of "hardware-only" based multi-monitor configurations.

To give what you'd like, there'd have to be a seperate driver for Eyefinity with 6990, than what is used for all the rest of the Eyefinity-capable cards. This would increase driver development time, as well as the required workforce, and would make it far more expensive then it already is. It just doesn't make sense.
Posted on Reply
#2
[H]@RD5TUFF
I'm not sure they made it long enough, also why in gods name did they make it vent out both sides ?
Posted on Reply
#3
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
Actually, yes I can. One, signaling voltage for DP vs DVI. Secondly, provided bandwidth of DP vs DVI. 3, there's also that the number of clock-generators required for DVI is twice that of DP. DP can support more devices than DVI, given the hardware restrictions.

Anyway, the whole point is rather moot...I had an Eyefinity 6 card, and it came with enough dongles to fill 5 of the 6 of the mini-DP ports.

Also, if Eyefinity worked with using seperate display output controllers, there'd be no requirement of having the monitors all plugged into the same GPU. Crossfire and Eyefinity just doesn't work the way you'd like, as software would be required to manage the displsy outputs, and keep them in sync, which of course, will cause a performance penalty, and is contrary to AMD's choice of "hardware-only" based multi-monitor configurations.

To give what you'd like, there'd have to be a seperate driver for Eyefinity with 6990, than what is used for all the rest of the Eyefinity-capable cards. This would increase driver development time, as well as the required workforce, and would make it far more expensive then it already is. It just doesn't make sense.
I know, DP is so awesome, that is why most people using it are using adapters to convert it to DVI or HDMI...:roll:
Posted on Reply
#4
AsRock
TPU addict
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
I'm not sure they made it long enough, also why in gods name did they make it vent out both sides ?
No they should of made it 3" longer with 3 1200 x 38mm fans :P. They made it vent both sides due to were the fan is which instead of blowing the heat from GPU2 + VRMS heat over GPU1 and VRMS. At least this way the heat is blown away from both GPU's.

If i end up getting one near release which is a possibility i'll make the bottom front fan output so hot air will get out better although need to test that IF i end up getting one pending on what the reviews are like for it.
Posted on Reply
#5
wahdangun
newtekie1 said:
I know, DP is so awesome, that is why most people using it are using adapters to convert it to DVI or HDMI...:roll:
to be honest i'm with cadeva on this one, the biggest problem with HDMI is its require a license fee, and if AMD use HDMI port instead of DP, it will added overhead cost for already expensive card, and HDMI didn't have enough bandwidth to support 3D gaming,

and the most important thing we didn't know what accessories that will be bundled with the card, so if they bundled with DP to DVI converter it will be no problem
Posted on Reply
#6
jlewis02
$649 I have my money ready lets go I want it now
Posted on Reply
#7
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
wahdangun said:
to be honest i'm with cadeva on this one, the biggest problem with HDMI is its require a license fee, and if AMD use HDMI port instead of DP, it will added overhead cost for already expensive card, and HDMI didn't have enough bandwidth to support 3D gaming,

and the most important thing we didn't know what accessories that will be bundled with the card, so if they bundled with DP to DVI converter it will be no problem
So... You're OK with DP because it is cheaper for AMD, but... you think it will be no problem as long as they include an adapter...:confused:

Do you think those adapters are free? Because the HDMI licensing fee pretty much is, something like 4 Cents a port or something, IIRC. So we are talking a whole 8 cents a card cost to AMD, I'm guessing the adapters cost more than 8 Cents a piece...

And the crap about HDMI not having enough bandwidth to support a 3D signal is horseshit. How do all those 3D Blu-Rays manage to do it? How does nVidia manage to do it? They must be using magic.:roll: With 10.2Gb/s bandwidth, HDMI has enough bandwidth to support 3D display@1080p.
Posted on Reply
#8
wahdangun
newtekie1 said:
If companies would release perfect products, I wouldn't complain. But if you look, there are plenty of times that I've praised products as well.

Do you ever stop trolling, or do you occasionally post something useful?



So... You're OK with DP because it is cheaper for AMD, but... you think it will be no problem as long as they include an adapter...:confused:

Do you think those adapters are free? Because the HDMI licensing fee pretty much is, something like 4 Cents a port or something, IIRC. So we are talking a whole 8 cents a card cost to AMD, I'm guessing the adapters cost more than 8 Cents a piece...

And the crap about HDMI not having enough bandwidth to support a 3D signal is horseshit. How do all those 3D Blu-Rays manage to do it? How does nVidia manage to do it? They must be using magic.:roll: With 10.2Gb/s bandwidth, HDMI has enough bandwidth to support 3D display@1080p.
they can do it because the movie was design to work on 24FPS for each eye, do you really want to game at 24 FPS ?? :wtf:
and thats why real 3D monitor (that have 120Hz) require dual link DVI connector.


yeah i didn't know how much HDMI license fee is, but i suspect AMD will try to push DP adoption rate, and i like it,because it will force LCD maker to include DP connector on their LCD.

and i said IF they include adapter.
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
wahdangun said:
they can do it because the movie was design to work on 24FPS for each eye, do you really want to game at 24 FPS ?? :wtf:
and thats why real 3D monitor (that have 120Hz) require dual link DVI connector.

yeah i didn't know how much HDMI license fee is, but i suspect AMD will try to push DP adoption rate, and i like it,because it will force LCD maker to include DP connector on their LCD.
The 24FPS thing died long ago, 1080p is 60FPS. Again, why do you think nVidia can do 3D gaming over HDMI?

wahdangun said:
and i said IF they include adapter.
Exactly, you said it was no problem IF they include an adapter, right after talking about how DP was better because it was cheaper. The moment you have to inlcude and adapter, or buy one if you're a consumer, the "its cheaper" argument doesn't work, because it isn't.
Posted on Reply
#10
wahdangun
newtekie1 said:
[quote="wahdangun, post: 2172475"]they can do it because the movie was design to work on 24FPS for each eye, do you really want to game at 24 FPS ?? :wtf:
and thats why real 3D monitor (that have 120Hz) require dual link DVI connector.


yeah i didn't know how much HDMI license fee is, but i suspect AMD will try to push DP adoption rate, and i like it,because it will force LCD maker to include DP connector on their LCD.

The 24FPS thing died long ago, 1080p is 60FPS. Again, why do you think nVidia can do 3D gaming over HDMI?



Exactly, you said it was no problem IF they include an adapter, right after talking about how DP was better because it was cheaper. The moment you have to inlcude and adapter, or buy one if you're a consumer, the "its cheaper" argument doesn't work, because it isn't.
here are the quoted when NVDIA 3DTVPLAY was launched
NVIDIA is naturally hitting all the high points of the 1.4 spec, with 1080p24, 720p60 (the official gaming spec), and 720p50.
source

and btw that rules also applied to AMD HD3D.

so thats why nvdia went to dual link DVI for their "real" 3D gaming. because there are not enough bandwidth and why they can do it 3D over HDMI is because the FPS is LOCKED to 24 FPS for each eye
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
wahdangun said:


here are the quoted when NVDIA 3DTVPLAY was launched



source

and btw that rules also applied to AMD HD3D.

so thats why nvdia went to dual link DVI for their "real" 3D gaming. because there are not enough bandwidth and why they can do it 3D over HDMI is because the FPS is LOCKED to 24 FPS for each eye
Ok, so goes back to my original statement that there should be more than one DVI then.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
newtekie1 said:
Ok, so goes back to my original statement that there should be more than one DVI then.:toast:
i agree with this give me 2 dvi's at least then i can run dual screen cad :D DP to everything else is just a PITA really...
Posted on Reply
#13
wahdangun
newtekie1 said:
Ok, so goes back to my original statement that there should be more than one DVI then.:toast:
because i think AMD want to support 3D surround too, just like nvdia. so thats why i think AMD really want to push DP adoption.

and if there was more than one DVI then it will block the exhaust, and every bit of ventilation is needed because lets face it, it will be really hot inside (and ppl already complained why the card still dump the heat to the PC)
Posted on Reply
#14
bear jesus
Personally I'm glad to see the second dvi port being removed in favor of more space to vent hot air and as i have never used hdmi the lack of it means nothing to me, i have always seen hdmi as a tv interface mainly as it started out with a max res of 1920×1080/1200 (can't remember to be honest :laugh:).

But i think AMD is just looking to the future due to articles like this.

Intel, AMD, Samsung, Dell and Lenovo have all committed to replace analog with digital alternatives by 2015. the companies will push the adoption of alternative interfaces and encourage the use of certified DisplayPort adapters with older screens.
Posted on Reply
#15
Jonap_1st
DigitalUK said:
strange its 6+8 pin with the 6950 being 6+6 and 6970 being 6+8

i take its 2 6970 it there.

i dont get the no hdmi as well specially these days.
nope, its two 6950 stuck in there..
Posted on Reply
#16
bear jesus
Jonap_1st said:
nope, its two 6950 stuck in there..
Are you sure it's not two 6970 cores under-clocked to 6950 speeds like the 5970 was two 5870 cores clocked down to 5850 speeds?

I thought there has been no official release of information on the exact spec just pictures so far?

According to this very news article it has a total of 3072 stream processors, two 6970 cores total 3072, if it was two 6950 cores it would total 2816 instead.
Posted on Reply
#17
Bjorn_Of_Iceland
devguy said:
Your soul.
dang. I knew I shouldve saved it for the rainy seasons :D
Posted on Reply
#18
Zubasa
GSG-9 said:
Oh God, 8gb? Why?
Are we anywhere near using 4gb? I can see 2gb being to little, but i feel like 8gb might just be a bit overki-damn it, now I'm 'that guy'. :wtf:
4GB*2 will be useful for eyefinity (more than 3 monitors) users which is a target market for an 8GB 6990.

Jonap_1st said:
nope, its two 6950 stuck in there..
3072 = 1532*2
So it is two Cayman XT aka the version in the 6970.
It doesn't say anything about the clock speed.
Posted on Reply
#19
1nf3rn0x
Muhaahah, zee creation. It's alive!!
I must callz it " zee brick of death!"

muahhaha
Posted on Reply
#21
bear jesus
TAViX said:
can the mini-DP port take sound also??
As far as i knew it is no different to a normal display port so it would.
Posted on Reply
#22
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
wahdangun said:
because i think AMD want to support 3D surround too, just like nvdia. so thats why i think AMD really want to push DP adoption.

and if there was more than one DVI then it will block the exhaust, and every bit of ventilation is needed because lets face it, it will be really hot inside (and ppl already complained why the card still dump the heat to the PC)
It wouldn't have to block the exhaust, ditch a few DP connectors in favor of a DVI. I'd rather see more of the more used connectors than more of the less used DP that people just end up having to convert to DVI anyway.

Heck, by the looks of the layout now, they could have stacked the DPs on top of eachother, making room for the extra DVI and keeping the 4 DPs and not blocked any of the exhaust. Or at the very least, stacked the DPs and included an HDMI port.
Posted on Reply
#23
cadaveca
My name is Dave
I don't understand, Newtekiie, why you are fighting the progession of technology so much.

As bear jesus posted, Intel AND AMD are pushing DP forward. Samsung and Dell, as panel makers, are on the same boat.

DP, i gues unfortuantely for you, is the way of the future. It offers more than HDMI does, simply by having USB as part of it(thanks to Dell, and thier monitors having USB hubs).

As teh flagship of a generation of cards, and the extreme enthusiast product, it would be foolhardy of them to not push such technologies forward. I can alsmot guarantee that you'll get at least one adapter in the box, if not 4 or 5. Your option of using multiple DVI onnections is mroe than possible..it will happen.

I mean, don't get me wrong...I tihnk the lack of adapters in the box would be a failure...but not on AMD's part. AMD doesn't sell consumers videocards...they sell GPUs to OEM who then sell them to us. It would be the OEM's failure, not AMD's.
Posted on Reply
#24
avatar_raq
Thank God the cooler is not what I thought it would be.

@cadaveca:

While DP has the potential to be the way of future, we costumers will suffer till it becomes the standard on all monitors, entry through enthusiast ones. (BTW, miss you on teamspeak :) )
Posted on Reply
#25
bear jesus
avatar_raq said:

While DP has the potential to be the way of future, we costumers will suffer till it becomes the standard on all monitors, entry through enthusiast ones.
I agree it is a bit of a pain in the ass until more monitors have display port but the ability to use adapters meant i could use £100 screens and one £20 active display port adapter to have an eyefinity setup for the price many people pay for a single screen or graphics card so in a way a pain in the ass but in another way it's great.

I admit it was worse when eyefinity was new as most active adapters were around £60 to £80 but the ability to use cheap monitors and a cheap adapter made me very happy :D

Until display port becomes more standard on all monitors i like many others are very happy to use adapters, i see it as pretty much the same as going from VGA to DVI, when i was using a VGA only monitor i just used a DVI to VGA adapter until in the future i got a DVI monitor.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment