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
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
Yep. You got it exactly right. It's my card.

I got one. Would you like a pic?:laugh:

You don't run eyefinity, so you don't understand the problems. I do, and as such, the card makes sense.

The general public doesn't need this card, nor do they run eyefinity. I do. Flagship cards are never meant for the masses, because the masses cannot afford this card. Me, I've bought every high-end card for the last 10 years. It's all here(and elsewhere) on the forums. I expected all of this, and you didn't.:laugh:
You've got an HD6990, yes I would like several pics, benchmarks as well.

And correction. I don't run eyefinity on any of the rigs listed in my specs or sig. Don't assume that just because I don't list every rig I've ever run that I haven't experienced them. I've run eyefinity on several rigs at work that I've built for customers. And as I said, 3 DPs would have been ideal. Besides a very very very rare setup with 4 monitors, I can't see a single reason for 4 DPs. The far more common 3 monitor setup only needs 3 DPs, and adding an HDMI along side the DVI would have catered to far more people than the 4th DP does.
Posted on Reply
#2
cadaveca
My name is Dave
I meant adapter, not card. lol. I wish...I'd be playing, not typing lol.
Posted on Reply
#3
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
I meant adapter, not card. lol. I wish...I'd be playing, not typing lol.
And I'd be breaking into your house...:laugh:

I guess we can just disagree here. You think 4 DPs is better, and I think 3DPs with HDMI is better. To each their own I guess.:ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#4
cadaveca
My name is Dave
newtekie1 said:
And I'd be breaking into your house...:laugh:

I guess we can just disagree here. You think 4 DPs is better, and I think 3DPs with HDMI is better. To each their own I guess.:ohwell:
6 transmitters. 2 for each DVI/HDMI.

1 for DP.

the DVI gets two, that leaves 4. They can do 2xDP, HDMI, and 1 DL-DVI, or 2x SL-DVI. Enter the 6-series.

The 6870/6850 have 1x DL-DVI, 1x SL-DVI, 1xHDMI, and 2xDP. Your choice of connections are limited as to how many DVI/HDMI you can use as once, as the DP have dedicated TMDS.


Its physical limitations that prevent what you want, so, this is the most ideal. We need active adapters currently, as that's what's in the adapter...the needed TMDS, which requires power to run. If you want to run a connection that only uses a single TMDS, like analog, or single-link DVI, you do not need the active adapter.
Posted on Reply
#5
[H]@RD5TUFF
cadaveca said:
6 transmitters. 2 for each DVI/HDMI.

1 for DP.

the DVI gets two, that leaves 4. They can do 2xDP, HDMI, and 1 DL-DVI, or 2x SL-DVI. Enter the 6-series.

The 6870/6850 have 1x DL-DVI, 1x SL-DVI, 1xHDMI, and 2xDP. Your choice of connections are limited as to how many DVI/HDMI you can use as once, as the DP have dedicated TMDS.


Its physical limitations that prevent what you want, so, this is the most ideal. We need active adapters currently, as that's what's in the adapter...the needed TMDS, which requires power to run. If you want to run a connection that only uses a single TMDS, like analog, or single-link DVI, you do not need the active adapter.
My issue is rather than the fact they chose DP, it's the fact I have to pay for adapters when they should come with the bleeping card.
Posted on Reply
#6
Imsochobo
newtekie1 said:
You've got an HD6990, yes I would like several pics, benchmarks as well.

And correction. I don't run eyefinity on any of the rigs listed in my specs or sig. Don't assume that just because I don't list every rig I've ever run that I haven't experienced them. I've run eyefinity on several rigs at work that I've built for customers. And as I said, 3 DPs would have been ideal. Besides a very very very rare setup with 4 monitors, I can't see a single reason for 4 DPs. The far more common 3 monitor setup only needs 3 DPs, and adding an HDMI along side the DVI would have catered to far more people than the 4th DP does.
DP is more powerfull.
I would be angry to see HDMI over DP, and atm I run two screens, and only hdmi, and I still would be pissed off by a hdmi port instead of DP...
Posted on Reply
#7
Imsochobo
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
My issue is rather than the fact they chose DP, it's the fact I have to pay for adapters when they should come with the bleeping card.
Eyefinity 6 card my friend bought came with..... 3 adapters..
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
6 transmitters. 2 for each DVI/HDMI.

1 for DP.

the DVI gets two, that leaves 4. They can do 2xDP, HDMI, and 1 DL-DVI, or 2x SL-DVI. Enter the 6-series.

The 6870/6850 have 1x DL-DVI, 1x SL-DVI, 1xHDMI, and 2xDP. Your choice of connections are limited as to how many DVI/HDMI you can use as once, as the DP have dedicated TMDS.


Its physical limitations that prevent what you want, so, this is the most ideal. We need active adapters currently, as that's what's in the adapter...the needed TMDS, which requires power to run. If you want to run a connection that only uses a single TMDS, like analog, or single-link DVI, you do not need the active adapter.
It's physical limitations that prevent what I want? Really, then how do they manage it with single GPU cards. The single GPU cards have 2 DVIs, a HDMI, and 2 DPs. So you are full of shit if you are trying to say that this card is limitted to 1 DVI and 4 DPs, and couldn't do 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 3 DPs. You eliminate the SL-DVI, add a DP, and bam you've got 3 DPs, 1 HDMI, and one DL-DVI. So it is certainly more than possible.

Imsochobo said:
DP is more powerfull.
I would be angry to see HDMI over DP, and atm I run two screens, and only hdmi, and I still would be pissed off by a hdmi port instead of DP...
I highly doubt that if the card came out with 3 DPs, 1 HDMI, and a DVI, you'd be that upset. 3 DPs is all that is required, if you want more, buy the 6 DP version that will most certainly be released.
Posted on Reply
#9
cadaveca
My name is Dave
newtekie1 said:
It's physical limitations that prevent what I want? Really, then how do they manage it with single GPU cards. The single GPU cards have 2 DVIs, a HDMI, and 2 DPs. So you are full of shit if you are trying to say that this card is limitted to 1 DVI and 4 DPs, and couldn't do 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 3 DPs.
maybe you missed that the 6870 and 6850 have 2x DVI, but one is dual link, and one is single link? (For a total use of 3x TMDS)

Maybe you don't understand that you cannot use both DVI ports, as well as the HDMI, for eyefinity...and that use of DP is required? Why is this a requirement?

I mean, you don't use this stuff daily, so I understand why this confuses you.

HDMI 1.4 requires the same of TMDS as dual-link DVI(@ 10.2Gbit). If you want an HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 connector(5Gbit), sure, they could do it, but there'd be no 3d, no resolutions higher than 1920x1200(same limitations as single-link DVI).

So, HDMI 1.4 needs 2x TMDS. Dual-link DVI requires 2x TMDS.

That's 4.

That leaves only 2x TMDS left, and only 2xDP, not 3.


It's quite simple, really. The TMDS in AMD's GPUs isn't advanced enough yet. Maybe the next gen will be capable of what you'd like, but current cards are not. they only supprot 1920x1200 over DP...I cannot run my Dell 3008 @ 2560x1600 over DP...the DP ports on AMD vgas just aren't capable.


Technically, it's possible to get a high-speed TMDS that on it's own, can drive dual-link DVI, or whatever, but this hardware is just not present.


Anyway, why would you want to use HDMI on a computer monitor? Why do you need HDMI so bad?
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
maybe you missed that the 6870 and 6850 have 2x DVI, but one is dual link, and one is single link? (For a total use of 3x TMDS)

Maybe you don't understand that you cannot use both DVI ports, as well as the HDMI, for eyefinity...and that use of DP is required? Why is this a requirement?

I mean, you don't use this stuff daily, so I understand why this confuses you.

HDMI 1.4 requires the same of TMDS as dual-link DVI(@ 10.2Gbit). If you want an HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 connector(5Gbit), sure, they could do it, but there'd be no 3d, no resolutions higher than 1920x1200(same limitations as single-link DVI).

So, HDMI 1.4 needs 2x TMDS. Dual-link DVI requires 2x TMDS.

That's 4.

That leaves only 2x TMDS left, and only 2xDP, not 3.


It's quite simple, really. The TMDS in AMD's GPUs isn't advanced enough yet. Maybe the next gen will be capable of what you'd like, but current cards are not. they only supprot 1920x1200 over DP...I cannot run my Dell 3008 @ 2560x1600 over DP...the DP ports on AMD vgas just aren't capable.


Technically, it's possible to get a high-speed TMDS that on it's own, can drive dual-link DVI, or whatever, but this hardware is just not present.
I don't see your point. Remove the SL-DVI, replace with DP for 3 DPs, 1 HDMI, and 1 DL-DVI. I didn't miss anything. I already know that one of the DVIs is single-link. Again, the current output configuration is HDMI(2 TMDS), DL-DVI(2 TMDS), SL-DVI(1 TMDS), 2x DP(2 TDMS). But wait...that's more than 6 already... Perhaps you are the one that is missing something here. Care to explain how that works then? Oh thats right, you just can have more than 6 active, but you can have connectors for more than 6... you don't seem to know that though... You seem to be more interested in trying to show off how much you "know" than actually knowing that you are talking about.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I'm not saying users should be able to use all these connectors at the same time. Just like on the single GPU cards, only a certain number of ports will be usable at the same time. I'm not confused at all as to why DP is necessary on the other cards, I've mentioned this several times that I understand why this is, and why the HDMI, and both DVIs can't be used at the same time.

Again, I'm saying remove the SL-DVI on the current output configuration for the HD6970, and replace it with a DP. I'm saying that should be done. Yes, I'm saying they should embrase the new technology, contray to what you like to make it seem like. And Yes, it is certainly possible. But what I'm saying really is that removing the HDMI also, and replacing it with a 4th DP is stupid.

cadaveca said:
Anyway, why would you want to use HDMI on a computer monitor? Why do you need HDMI so bad?
The reason is simple, because it is extremely common. A lot of people use HDTVs as monitors now as well, and you don't see many(any?) of those with DP, but they all have HDMI. In the high-end group of people that will be buying these cards, far more people will be using an HDMI capable monitor than will be using 4 DP monitors, that is a certainty. And I even venture to bet that more will be connecting this card to a DVI monitor and an HDMI HDTV than will be using 4 DP monitors as well. That is the configuration I use on my main rig, a DVI monitor and an HDMI HDTV. Why? Because 60" computer monitors don't exist, so when I'm watching movies using my computer or playing games while sitting on the couch I don't want to be sitting on my couch watching a 23" screen accross the room, but when I'm sitting at my desk I don't want to be sitting 2ft away from a 60" screen.
Posted on Reply
#11
cadaveca
My name is Dave
You cannot run 2x DVI, and HDMI, as well as both DP. That's what you are missing. there are only 6 TMDS, and you are right, running all outputs concurrently is impossible, and hence why current card don't support Eyefinity with 5x panels...the best you can do is 4.

So yeah, they could swap the DVI out for HDMI...or maybe 2xDP for another HDMI...you bet. They could add the conenctor there, and have it inactive...if the market for this card was really anything other than Eyefinity. But it's not.

The current 6990 config allows running with 5 panels, if you want, so that's the kicker with6990... you should be able to use all output at the same time, unlike the current cards(minus the eyefinity6 cards). This is how the 6990 differs.


Personally, I think the inclusion of even the dvi was silly...because you'll get cursor corruption using them all.

AMD requires the use of a DP connector, no matter how you configure your Eyefinity. It's part of how they are helping push DP adoption. You don't really have an issue with the lack of HDMI or whatever...I mean, when AMD is requiring the use of DP, and you should be using 3 monitors of the same model, it almost seems silly to buy anything other than DP-capable displays. What you ahve issues with, it seems to me, is the DP requirement for Eyefinity.

The 6990 is not really intended for anyone other than Eyefinity users. Eyefinity requires the use of DP...and using non-DP monitors while using DP at the same time, leads to cursor corruption. So you gotta use DP for every monitor.

To me it's no different than needing 120hz displays for nV's 3D...it's a requirement to use the technology. And AMD is perfectly fine having this requirement, as really, it's only going to limit a few users. The DVI is there, only for users that are not using Eyefinity.

There will be dongles in the box for at least a secondary DVI connector. Will it be DL-DVI? I doubt it.

In the end, I'm pretty sure we'll see some custom designs with 2x DVI, and one mini-DP, like the 5970. But for Eyefinity users, to get the best possible experience, they will want this card, with 4xDP.


That's why our opinions differ...I am an Eyefinity user, and you are not. My whole point in all of this is just that...as a non-Eyefinity user, the solution you want is not the 6990. You want 2x 6970. The 6990 is NOT for you. And not every product every company releases is for "Everyone"...otherwise we wouldn't have so many products on the market. Complaining about hte functionality of aproduct, when it's not intended for users like you, doesn't make any sense to me. Even so much more so...becuase htey have you covered with other products.

I mean ,you'd have a valid complaint if they did not offer a solution that will do what you personally require...but they do. And ergo, your complaints are invalid.
Posted on Reply
#12
kid41212003
What do you Eyefinity for? Just asking...

I don't think i will ever need more than 1 DP. I probably will just buy the biggest monitor/tv i can afford, except if i ever plan to play Flight simulator. :D
Posted on Reply
#13
cadaveca
My name is Dave
If you go to the AMD Eyefintiy page, you'll see what I use Eyefinity for. The extra viewspace.

Eyefinity, really, is for multi-monitor 3d rendering. It can be used to conenct extra panels too, but that's just a side-effect of the real use..for 3D.

F1 2010 is the perfect example. On a single screen, you barely see past the body of the car on either side. With Eyefinity, you can see the road next to the car, and the other drivers next to you.

It's far more immersive, and really, now that i have it, I cannot play F1 2010 any other way. Or any other driving game, for that matter.

I don't use eyefinity for FPS. I play worse, as instead of moving the mouse to see stuff out of direct view, I can move my eyes, and the bit of delay between seeing something, and moving to it, has a huge negative impact on my playing. I'm much better on a signle monitor, so that when I move to look at something, the crosshair is already close by, instead of on another screen.

2x 5870 doesn't have the power I need, for how I want to use Eyefinity, so 6-series is the cards for me, hopefully. But when 2x5870 was not enough, clearly 1x 6970 isn't either.

That leaves me with the option of 2x 6970, or this 6990. The 6990 suits my mATX platform choice better, as then I can also use 2 additional single slot cards..such as an audio card, and a wireless card, that would be impossible with 2x vgas. AN that's what I want...both Eyefinity, and an add-in audio card, in mATX. In a full-size board, I would have already purchased 2x 6970, and would have no interest in this card...except, of course, for the cursor corruption.
Posted on Reply
#14
a_ump
cadaveca said:
If you go to the AMD Eyefintiy page, you'll see what I use Eyefinity for. The extra viewspace.

Eyefinity, really, is for multi-monitor 3d rendering. It can be used to conenct extra panels too, but that's just a side-effect of the real use..for 3D.

F1 2010 is the perfect example. On a single screen, you barely see past the body of the car on either side. With Eyefinity, you can see the road next to the car, and the other drivers next to you.

It's far more immersive, and really, now that i have it, I cannot play F1 2010 any other way. Or any other driving game, for that matter.

I don't use eyefinity for FPS. I play worse, as instead of moving the mouse to see stuff out of direct view, I can move my eyes, and the bit of delay between seeing something, and moving to it, has a huge negative impact on my playing. I'm much better on a signle monitor, so that when I move to look at something, the crosshair is already close by, instead of on another screen.

2x 5870 doesn't have the power I need, for how I want to use Eyefinity, so 6-series is the cards for me, hopefully. But when 2x5870 was not enough, clearly 1x 6970 isn't either.

That leaves me with the option of 2x 6970, or this 6990. The 6990 suits my mATX platform choice better, as then I can also use 2 additional single slot cards..such as an audio card, and a wireless card, that would be impossible with 2x vgas. AN that's what I want...both Eyefinity, and an add-in audio card, in mATX. In a full-size board, I would have already purchased 2x 6970, and would have no interest in this card...except, of course, for the cursor corruption.
well said :toast:
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
You cannot run 2x DVI, and HDMI, as well as both DP. That's what you are missing.
No, I'm not missing it. Read my posts, or it is pointless to contue the discussion. I never said you were able to run them all at the same time, or that you should be able to run them all at the same time. In fact I specifically said that you already can't run them all at the same time.

cadaveca said:
there are only 6 TMDS, and you are right, running all outputs concurrently is impossible, and hence why current card don't support Eyefinity with 5x panels...the best you can do is 4.
Yes, and current cards aren't even great for 3x panels, because of several reasons you and I have already discussed. Adding a 3rd DP to the card was genius. Adding a 4th over HDMI was stupid.

cadaveca said:
So yeah, they could swap the DVI out for HDMI...or maybe 2xDP for another HDMI...you bet. They could add the conenctor there, and have it inactive...if the market for this card was really anything other than Eyefinity. But it's not.
That is where you are wrong. The market for this card is much greater than just eyefinity. Just like the market for HD5970 and the other dual-GPU cards before it. Eyefinity is a feature that is still used by an extremely small percentage of even the super high end market.

cadaveca said:
The current 6990 config allows running with 5 panels, if you want, so that's the kicker with6990... you should be able to use all output at the same time, unlike the current cards(minus the eyefinity6 cards). This is how the 6990 differs.
I don't see the need to use all the outputs at once to be a requirement. I don't see where 5 monitors is even that necessary. In fact you can't even really do eyefinity with 5 monitors. The 5th monitor is an "extended" monitor, which makes it just like any other extra monitor solution. You can't extend 3D applications across the 5th monitor, so that pretty much kills the purpose of eyefinity...

And even with 4 monitors, eyefinity sucks, because the division right down the center of the screen is extremely noticeable. The 3 monitor setup works best because the central monitor moves the divisions to your peripheral, so they aren't notices.

Even with the way you use the 4 monitors, the 4th monitor isn't really an eyefinity monitor. It is an extended monitor. Still technically an eyefinity setup with 4 monitors, but not truly in the spirit of eyefinity, which is to seemlessly blend all the monitors into a single logical monitor. You aren't doing that with an extended 4th monitor.

cadaveca said:
Personally, I think the inclusion of even the dvi was silly...because you'll get cursor corruption using them all.
And I don't think anyeone will be using the DVI with an eyefinity setup, they will be using 3 DPs. Which is what I think should have been included on the card.

cadaveca said:
AMD requires the use of a DP connector, no matter how you configure your Eyefinity. It's part of how they are helping push DP adoption.
Now you are making it sound like AMD is doing this because they just love DP so much, they want to see it adopted. You're kidding yourself. They are using it because it is the only way they could get it to work.

cadaveca said:
You don't really have an issue with the lack of HDMI or whatever...
Actually, that is exactly the issue I have.

cadaveca said:
I mean, when AMD is requiring the use of DP, and you should be using 3 monitors of the same model, it almost seems silly to buy anything other than DP-capable displays.
Correct, and I'm saying they should still include 3 DPs. Are you not reading my posts? The configuration I'm saying would have been ideal would still support 3 panel eyefinity using DP only.

cadaveca said:
What you ahve issues with, it seems to me, is the DP requirement for Eyefinity.
And where did you pull this from? Because I don't think a 4th DP is necessary over an HDMI port, suddenly I have a problem with DP being required for eyefinity? That is quite a leap. It seems to me that your problem is accepting that a 4th will go unused far more often an HDMI port.

cadaveca said:
The 6990 is not really intended for anyone other than Eyefinity users. Eyefinity requires the use of DP...and using non-DP monitors while using DP at the same time, leads to cursor corruption. So you gotta use DP for every monitor.
You're repeating yourself. We've gone over this, and I've alreadly explained why you are incorrect about this card being for eyefinity users only. Is this card pretty much the only card with enough horsepower capable of doing eyefinity justice? Yes. Will more people with single monitors buy this card than people with eyefinity setups? Hell yes, and don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. They will buy this card for the same reason they bought the HD5970, and the GTX295, and the HD4870x2, and the HD3870x2, etc. because it is the top performer and they want the top performer no matter what.

cadaveca said:
To me it's no different than needing 120hz displays for nV's 3D...it's a requirement to use the technology. And AMD is perfectly fine having this requirement, as really, it's only going to limit a few users. The DVI is there, only for users that are not using Eyefinity.
And again, I have nothing wrong with the requirement of DP. You pulled that idea out of your ass.
There will be dongles in the box for at least a secondary DVI connector. Will it be DL-DVI? I doubt it.
It doesn't really matter. If they have to include a dongle because the majority of their users need it, it doesn't really lend to your point that the majority of the users of this card will be using 4 DPs, does it?

cadaveca said:
In the end, I'm pretty sure we'll see some custom designs with 2x DVI, and one mini-DP, like the 5970. But for Eyefinity users, to get the best possible experience, they will want this card, with 43xDP.
FTFY

cadaveca said:
That's why our opinions differ...I am an Eyefinity user, and you are not. My whole point in all of this is just that...as a non-Eyefinity user, the solution you want is not the 6990. You want 2x 6970. The 6990 is NOT for you. And not every product every company releases is for "Everyone"...otherwise we wouldn't have so many products on the market. Complaining about hte functionality of aproduct, when it's not intended for users like you, doesn't make any sense to me. Even so much more so...becuase htey have you covered with other products.
And that is where our opinions differ. As an eyefinity user, this product doesn't need 4 DPs. Yeah I've setup and tested enough eyefinity setups and dealt with enough of the problems to consider myself an eyefinity user.

And even if I wasn't an eyefinity users, to assume that the super-high end is only reserved for the extremely tiny amount of people running eyefinity is asinine. I'm glad you feel that you are better than everyone, and that any eyefinity capable card coming out is for you and no one else. However, as I said, there will still be far more people buying this card to run on a single monitor because they want the best than there will be eyefinity users buying this card.

cadaveca said:
I mean ,you'd have a valid complaint if they did not offer a solution that will do what you personally require...but they do. And ergo, your complaints are invalid.
You say they offer a solution that will do what I personally require. Show me such a solution. My requirements:
  • Must have the horsepower of this card.
  • Must output both HDMI and DVI, without the need for adapters, or swapping cables.
  • Must also be capable of a 3 Panel eyefinity setup using DP natively.
  • Must only use 1 PCI-E slot.
Find me the solution that you claim they offer. And if your next post doesn't start out with this solution that you claim they offer, don't even bother making it, becuase you'll just look like a fool and I won't respond. Because by your own logic, if you can't come up with a solution that they offer, my points are valid. And ergo, your points are invalid.
Posted on Reply
#16
cadaveca
My name is Dave
wall of text, not gonna read it all.

You are NOT an eyefinity user.:laugh: I am.

kid41212003 said:
What do you Eyefinity for? Just asking...
My setup(so you can see what I was talking about earlier about expanded viewspace):



newtekie1 said:
Must have the horsepower of this card.
Must output both HDMI and DVI, without the need for adapters, or swapping cables.
Must also be capable of a 3 Panel eyefinity setup using DP natively.
Must only use 1 PCI-E slot.
Ok, I'll give you this.

They don't make a product for you.

The last 2 points are stickers, for sure. Only this card offers more than 2x DP. but actually, I think there is some diamond card, that has and add-on card, or something ,with both DVI/HDMI, and like 6xDP...I'l ltry to find you a link.


EDIT: it was powercolor:


Not exactly what you want, but close...:laugh:

Of course, you said yourself you only need to conenct 1 monitor, and one HDTV. Make up your MIND! :laugh: Argument for argument's sake isn't gonna go nowhere.
And where did you pull this from?
LoL. From AMD themselves?
Also, at least 3 simultaneous, active display outputs, including one DisplayPort™ connector are required to support AMD Eyefinity technology
http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/amd-eyefinity-technology/how-to/Pages/faqs.aspx
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
cadaveca said:
wall of text, not gonna read it all.

You are NOT an eyefinity user.:laugh: I am.
Keep making that assumption, and keep being wrong.:ohwell:


cadaveca said:
Ok, I'll give you this.

They don't make a product for you.
So my points are valid. End of discussion right. Appearently not...

cadaveca said:
The last 2 points are stickers, for sure. Only this card offers more than 2x DP. but actually, I think there is some diamond card, that has and add-on card, or something ,with both DVI/HDMI, and like 6xDP...I'l ltry to find you a link.


EDIT: it was powercolor:
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-05-19/45a.jpg

Not exactly what you want, but close...:laugh:
I don't want last generations card. And I'm not going to be surprised if similar cards are released based on HD6990. My issue is with the reference output configuration, not 3rd party improvements on it.

And the ironic think about that is that they are using the TMDS links from the second GPU for eyefinity 12... Didn't you say that wasn't possible?:confused:

cadaveca said:
Of course, you said yourself you only need to conenct 1 monitor, and one HDTV. Make up your MIND! :laugh: Arguemtn for arguments sake isn;t gonna go nowhere.
I never said that was my only need. That it just the setup I have now and why I would like both a native DVI and native HDMI. I would like the option to move to a 3 panel eyefinity setup in the near future, so 3 native DPs would be a requirement.

And It seems at this point, since you already admitted my points are valid by your own logic, you are the one that is arguing for argument sake.

cadaveca said:
LoL. From AMD themselves?

http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/amd-eyefinity-technology/how-to/Pages/faqs.aspx
Yes, that has been established, and it has been established that I know why that is and have no problem with it. This would be a valid point if I was aruging that they should completely remove DP from the card. However, that isn't what I'm aruging, I'm aruging that they should remove a single DP, still leaving 3 for 3 panel eyefinity, and used the spot for an HDMI. You keep making arguments for why DP is included in the card, but you haven't really made an argument for why 4 are necessary over 3, or rather why 4 is better than 3 with an HDMI.

For that matter, it seems you've completely ignored my other suggestion of stacking the DPs, allowing all 4 to be kept and an HDMI include. Yes, this might have blocked some of the vent, but not as much as a stacked DVI port. And really, when you think about it, the amount of heat that the exhaust has to deal with will be less than that of an HD6970, which gets less exhaust space because of the DVI blocking half of it. With the exhaust only handling air from one of the GPUs, and that GPU being less powerful than an HD6970, blocking the exhaust slightly with 2 DPs wouldn't have been an issue. The exhaust from the second GPU isn't going through the vent, remember.
Posted on Reply
#18
bear jesus
I don't really want to get into this conversation but how do we know that some if not all board partners will not be including a display port to hdmi adapter like with the eyefinity 6 cards?

If they did would it not kind of make all this pointless?
Posted on Reply
#19
cadaveca
My name is Dave
LoL newtekie. I said a couple of pages ago, your points were valid, but point is, complaining about it isnt gonna change things.

Let's see the pics of your eyefinity setup.

4 DP is needed for those who want to have a 4th monitor for things like teamspeak and messengers, as well as monitoring apps. You get cursor corruption when using different output types, so the inclusion of the 4th has those peopel, like me, that want that functionality.

Like you siad, I'm repeating myself. The only differnce between you and me is that I am actively using Eyefinity. You are not. You infer that you are, but then say you aren't...seems kinda silly. So show us the pics of your setup.

I've benn an eyefintiy user since day one..problably the first here, not that that is important, other than that I have far more experience with this than most. There are a few other users here, 10, i think that have eyefintiy setups, and each has complained about the various issues I have reported over the past 16+ months.

Personally, I like to think that AMD is listening to people like me, that have already invested in Eyefinity and AMD is adapting it to meet the needs of people like me. Our experience dictates what they need to change...like how I was pretty accurate on what the 69xx series was going to be...my expereince with the products told me what they'd change, and how, and in the end, I even had the price points right. So it seems I am more in tune with what AMD is doing, and why. Heck, even Mailman is now listening to me...becuase I've been pretty correct about AMD products.

You HAVe brought up some legitimate points, of course, but that doesn't change that what you want isn't here in this product. Plain and simple AMd cannot meet the needs of everyone with jsut a single product, and clearly, the concernes YOU have, aren't the concerns AMD has, or else the product you want would be what the 6990 is. Unfortuantely for you, you jsut gonna have to look at other alternatives to get what you want.

bear jesus said:
If they did would it not kind of make all this pointless?
Not for newtkie. He doesn't want to have to deal with dongles, and I have to agree with that. Every additional device needed is another potential point of failure.
Posted on Reply
#21
yogurt_21
do we have any specifcations on its dimentions? I just had to ditch a 5970 in favor of dual gtx480's due to length. This thing looks longer than the 5970 and wider too.

(and yes I realize that for 100$ I could get a case that it would fit in and that was cheaper than the difference between the 320$ I got the 5970 for and the 500$ I paid for 480 sli but damn it changing cases is a pita)
Posted on Reply
#22
bear jesus
yogurt_21 said:
do we have any specifcations on its dimentions? I just had to ditch a 5970 in favor of dual gtx480's due to length. This thing looks longer than the 5970 and wider too.

(and yes I realize that for 100$ I could get a case that it would fit in and that was cheaper than the difference between the 320$ I got the 5970 for and the 500$ I paid for 480 sli but damn it changing cases is a pita)
According to a guess over at hexus "A rough and ready comparison to a piece of A4 paper (297mm) shows that the card is just slightly longer, making it a fraction shorter than its 309mm predecessor."

Correct me if I'm wrong but i would have expected 480 sli to have given you a noticeable boost in power? so not exactly a really bad choice over the 5970 and a different case.
Posted on Reply
#24
bear jesus
TAViX said:
Can anyone take a wild guess for this card's length???
I would say around 30cm or 12 inches going by the post right above yours :p
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment