• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

GeForce Kepler 104 (GK104) Packs 256-bit GDDR5 Memory Bus, 225W TDP

Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
51 (0.02/day)
Likes
5
System Name erm...people actually give names to their systems?
Processor Intel i7 3770K
Motherboard Asus Sabertooth Z77
Cooling Alpenföhn Brocken
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 2x8GB DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 WindForce 3X
Storage 1 OCZ Vertex3 MaxIO 120GB, 1 Samsung 830 256GB, 1 Samsung F1 1TB, 1 Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB
Display(s) Samsung T260
Case Coolermaster HAF 932
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply OCZ Fatality 550W
#76
. I believe it's good for us that they try to improve everything of this cards but someone who wants the best performance and spends 400-500 $ to obtain it, will not be interested in 20 watts difference if he doesn't play games day and night without interruptions (idle differences are really smaller). It all depends on the point of view. I only hope for competition to help lower prices
fixed...

i think your estimated range is too far apart...

this is from a germany based perspective, as energy prices are pretty high here...
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,240 (0.50/day)
Likes
503
#77
I seriously wonder what that picture has to do with anything of this. If that's from a Kepler tech demo, I'm dissapoint:/
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#78
Only 256 bit and GDDR5 memory could be a bandwidth limit ???
Not necessarily, no. There's a lot of room in memory clocks. In previous gen Nvidia used <<1000 Mhz GDDR5 clocks, AMD is using 1375 Mhz GDDR5. That's a potential 40% improvement right there, and performance relation to memory bandwidth is not linear. A 40% increase in BW could potentially suffice for an up to 80% performance increase before becoming too much of a bottleneck.

I seriously wonder what that picture has to do with anything of this. If that's from a Kepler tech demo, I'm dissapoint:/
It's the Stonegiant DX11 benchmark, released years (?) ago.
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
4
#79
Not necessarily, no. There's a lot of room in memory clocks. In previous gen Nvidia used <<1000 Mhz GDDR5 clocks, AMD is using 1375 Mhz GDDR5. That's a potential 40% improvement right there, and performance relation to memory bandwidth is not linear. A 40% increase in BW could potentially suffice for an up to 80% performance increase before becoming too much of a bottleneck.



It's the Stonegiant DX11 benchmark, released years (?) ago.
I think there's not much headroom for GDDR5 speed, since AMD's Tahiti use the same memory clock as previous gen but increase the buswidth from 256 to 384 bit.

And for your mention, nVidia previous gen used 320 and 384 buswidth not a 256 bit like this. That means you need to increase memory clock to somewhat about 1600 - 1800 MHz for BW compensation.

1600 - 1800 MHz GDDR5, i mean... WooooooW thats must be a super special DDR5 :eek:
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#80
I think there's not much headroom for GDDR5 speed, since AMD's Tahiti use the same memory clock as previous gen but increase the buswidth from 256 to 384 bit.

And for your mention, nVidia previous gen used 320 and 384 buswidth not a 256 bit like this. That means you need to increase memory clock to somewhat about 1600 - 1800 MHz for BW compensation.

1600 - 1800 MHz GDDR5, i mean... WooooooW thats must be a super special DDR5 :eek:
Yes with same GDDR5 AMD went from 256 bit to 384 bits to obtain a 50% increase in memory bandwidth. Nvidia can get almost the same increase by just using the same memory that AMD has been using for 2 generations now. Simple.

Nvidia used 384 bits on their high-end chip, GK104 is NOT high-end. High-end nowadays means GPGPU and GPGPU requires more bandwidth, that's why GF100/110 had a 384 bit bus, and same for Tahiti. High-end==GPGPU also means you need to leave headroom, it means you cannot make compromises, it means going overkill sometimes. Mid-range means you can take compromises, you can cut corners.

Besides GTX560 Ti used a 256 bit bus and 1000 Mhz memory, like I said. To match HD7970 performance they need 50% performance over the GTX560. They don't need 1600-1800 Mhz GDDR5 that's absurd. They don't even need the 40% that 1375 Mhz GDDR5 would bring, because GPU perf is not linearly related to memory bandwidth.
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
4
#81
Yes with same GDDR5 AMD went from 256 bit to 384 bits to obtain a 50% increase in memory bandwidth. Nvidia can get almost the same increase by just using the same memory that AMD has been using for 2 generations now. Simple.

Nvidia used 384 bits on their high-end chip, GK104 is NOT high-end. High-end nowadays means GPGPU and GPGPU requires more bandwidth, that's why GF100/110 had a 384 bit bus, and same for Tahiti. High-end==GPGPU also means you need to leave headroom, it means you cannot make compromises, it means going overkill sometimes. Mid-range means you can take compromises, you can cut corners.

Besides GTX560 Ti used a 256 bit bus and 1000 Mhz memory, like I said. To match HD7970 performance they need 50% performance over the GTX560. They don't need 1600-1800 Mhz GDDR5 that's absurd. They don't even need the 40% that 1375 Mhz GDDR5 would bring, because GPU perf is not linearly related to memory bandwidth.
i know that GPU performance is not related to memory bandwidth.

But, in many case, insufficient bandwidth can cause severe deduction in graphic performance. ( ex. HD5670 GDDR3 vs HD5670 GDDR5 )


so, u gonna tell me that the bandwidth of 6970 level is enough for 7970 performance.

where's the proof ???
 

Jonap_1st

New Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
288 (0.11/day)
Likes
13
Location
South Green Jakarta
System Name Old Damned Rigs!
Processor AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE 2.5GHz
Motherboard MSI K9A2-CF
Memory 2 x 2GB DDR2 PC8500
Video Card(s) Nvidia Geforce 9800GT
Storage Hitachi 250GB Sata-II
Display(s) Chimnei 22" LCD Wide
Case Powerlogic Modena GTX2500
Power Supply Amacrox Warrior 400w
Software Windows XP Professional SP3
#82
well then, only times will tell..
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
237 (0.07/day)
Likes
15
System Name PC2.1
Processor Intel i7 3770k @4.6GHZ
Motherboard MSI Z68A-GD80
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 16GB Corsair XMS 1866MHz
Video Card(s) SLI EVGA 780 Classifieds
Storage Samsung 830 250gb /Samsung EVO 840 120GB
Display(s) 3x Dell 27" IPS screens
Case Thermaltake T81 Urban
Power Supply Cooler Master V1000
Software Windows 8.1 64bit
#83
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#84
i know that GPU performance is not related to memory bandwidth.

But, in many case, insufficient bandwidth can cause severe deduction in graphic performance. ( ex. HD5670 GDDR3 vs HD5670 GDDR5 )


so, u gonna tell me that the bandwidth of 6970 level is enough for 7970 performance.

where's the proof ???
There's no direct proof of that, obviously, however there's hundreds of evidences found on other cards, that demostrate that memory bandwidth is not a heavy limiting factor.

First of all you have to understand that HD7970 did NOT require all the bandwidth that it has. It does need more than HD6970, especially for compute, but it does not strictly need as much as it has. AMD did not have any other option than going 384 bits, because GDDR5 speeds higher than 1400 Mhz are not very doable and are very very expensive anyway. So their only option was a wider bus.

Now:

Evidence #1
192 bit GTX460 has 86 GB/s BW
256 bit 460 has 115 GB/s, that's 33% more BW but performance difference is not much bigger than 5%.

Another example, GTX 480 vs GTX 570, evidence #2

GTX 480 has 177 GB/s
GTX 570 has 152 GB/s - it is slightly faster, despite the 480 having 16% more memory bandwidth.

So is HD7970 kind of performance posible with HD6970 kind of bandwidth? Absolutely.

PS: The HD5670 example you posted, GDDR5 vs GDDR3, you are talking about half the bandwidth which is not going to be the case with GK104 at all (if it really is 256 bit anyway). We would be talking about a 50% reduction is buss width, but an increase of 40% in clocks, for a net bandwidth loss of 10% compared to the GTX580, a card itself is probably NOT limited by it's memory bandwidth anyway.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
2,998 (0.94/day)
Likes
458
Location
vermont
System Name The wifes worst enemy
Processor i5-6600k
Motherboard gigabyte G1 gaming Z170X 6
Cooling water
Memory 16gb G.skill ripjaw DDR4 2400 4X4GB 15-15-15-35-2T
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro R9380-X 4GB
Storage crucial M500 120GB SSD, Pny 256GB SSD, seagate 750GB, seagate 2TB HDD, WD blue 1TB 2.5" HDD
Display(s) 27 inch samsung @ 1080p but capable of much more ;)
Case Corsair AIR 540 Cube Mid tower
Audio Device(s) onboard creative x-fi
Power Supply EVGA GQ1000W MODULAR
Mouse generic for now
Keyboard generic for now
Software gotta love steam, origin etc etc
Benchmark Scores http://hwbot.org/user/philbrown_23/
#87
so many nvidia haters! if ati haters went on and on about how something cant be true we would get infractions for "flaimbaiting" etc (i know I've had it happen). just makes little sense to me, if you dont believe it oh well so what who cares??? its a damn graphics card not a political debate for christs sake
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
2,193 (0.83/day)
Likes
633
Location
Marlow, ENGLAND
System Name Chachamaru-III | Retro Battlestation
Processor Intel Core i7 3770K | Intel Pentium II 450MHz
Motherboard BIOSTAR TZ77XE4 (Intel Z77 Chipset) | MSI MS-6116 (Intel 440BX chipset)
Cooling Thermaltake CLW0217 Water 2.0 Extreme, case fully populated
Memory 16GB G.Skill Ares 1600MHz (2x8GB) [30 10-10-10] | 512MB PC133 SDRAM
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce 1070 Gaming Z, Intel HD 4000 (for secondary monitors) | MSI nVIDIA Vanta 16MB
Storage 250GB SK hynix SSD (OS), Seagate 3TB (Storage), Toshiba 3TB (Steam), Samsung 1TB (Personal Files)
Display(s) Samsung 2443BWT-1 24" @1920x1200, Dell 1708fp 17" @1280x1024 & Eizo FlexScan L887 20" @1600x1200
Case Coolermaster HAF 922 | Beige box
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Z (Speakers), Sound Blaster Audigy 2 (Headphones) | Yamaha Audician 32 Plus
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 750 G2 | 250W ASETEC
Mouse Microsoft Wireless Laser Mouse 6000 v2.0 | Microsoft Serial Mouse v2.0A
Keyboard UNICOMP Classic | Dell AT102W
Software Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit | Microsoft Windows 98SE
#88
It's like Microsoft haters, nobody cares about them.
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
4
#89
There's no direct proof of that, obviously, however there's hundreds of evidences found on other cards, that demostrate that memory bandwidth is not a heavy limiting factor.

First of all you have to understand that HD7970 did NOT require all the bandwidth that it has. It does need more than HD6970, especially for compute, but it does not strictly need as much as it has. AMD did not have any other option than going 384 bits, because GDDR5 speeds higher than 1400 Mhz are not very doable and are very very expensive anyway. So their only option was a wider bus.

Now:

Evidence #1
192 bit GTX460 has 86 GB/s BW
256 bit 460 has 115 GB/s, that's 33% more BW but performance difference is not much bigger than 5%.

Another example, GTX 480 vs GTX 570, evidence #2

GTX 480 has 177 GB/s
GTX 570 has 152 GB/s - it is slightly faster, despite the 480 having 16% more memory bandwidth.

So is HD7970 kind of performance posible with HD6970 kind of bandwidth? Absolutely.

PS: The HD5670 example you posted, GDDR5 vs GDDR3, you are talking about half the bandwidth which is not going to be the case with GK104 at all (if it really is 256 bit anyway). We would be talking about a 50% reduction is buss width, but an increase of 40% in clocks, for a net bandwidth loss of 10% compared to the GTX580, a card itself is probably NOT limited by it's memory bandwidth anyway.
You have NO proof but i have my proof.

3dm11 score of my GTX580@850 and stock BW

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588707

GTX580@850 and HD6970 BW ( 1835 mem clocks )

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588751

nuff said ??? ;)


ps. i know that in order to bring GTX580 to HD7970 level in 3dm11, i have to push my 580 almost 1000 core clock but 850 core is enough for proving. :)
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
51 (0.02/day)
Likes
5
System Name erm...people actually give names to their systems?
Processor Intel i7 3770K
Motherboard Asus Sabertooth Z77
Cooling Alpenföhn Brocken
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws 2x8GB DDR3-1600
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 WindForce 3X
Storage 1 OCZ Vertex3 MaxIO 120GB, 1 Samsung 830 256GB, 1 Samsung F1 1TB, 1 Western Digital Caviar Green 2TB
Display(s) Samsung T260
Case Coolermaster HAF 932
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply OCZ Fatality 550W
#90
so many nvidia haters! if ati haters went on and on about how something cant be true we would get infractions for "flaimbaiting" etc (i know I've had it happen). just makes little sense to me, if you dont believe it oh well so what who cares??? its a damn graphics card not a political debate for christs sake
lol, are you serious?

this is one of the most civil kept discussions about that topic i have seen in a long time...

people are actually discussing and speculating without any name calling or anything...

and yes, it's a damn graphics card, which is being discussed on a tech enthusiast website...what are we supposed to do? talk about donuts?

you sir, are the one who is trying to cause some stir...so either contribute, or get lost...
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#91
You have NO proof but i have my proof.

3dm11 score of my GTX580@850 and stock BW

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588707

GTX580@850 and HD6970 BW ( 1835 mem clocks )

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588751

nuff said ??? ;)


ps. i know that in order to bring GTX580 to HD7970 level in 3dm11, i have to push my 580 almost 1000 core clock but 850 core is enough for proving. :)
lol. That's no proof of anything, because you don't have Kepler. So an overclocked GTX580 (10% OC) with a 10% underclock on the memory does 3% slower in 3Dmark 11 than without underclock. Wow!! That so totally proves your point, man... No.

Besides the fact that 3% is thin air, we are not talking about making a card like yours be as fast as HD7970 and what memory bandwidth it needs for that. Things don't work like that. AMD/Nvidia spend months designing and balancing out their architectures and chips to get the most out of them and tweaking internal latencies and such. You taking your card and absolutely destroying that balance with a 10% core overclock and 10% memory underclock means nothing. But please, by all means try again.

EDIT: At least you proved that AMD and Nvidia do their job and don't just ramdomly choose the specs of cards, but then again looking at how the only difference is 3% maybe you proved the opposite. I just can't choose what you proved yet. In general nothing, other than a GTX580 at 850 Mhz...

And to finish. You artificially created a 20% deficit in memory bandwidth and the most you obtained was 3% less performance. Bravo, because like I said earlier Nvidia could create a card with only a 10% deficit, so 1.5% slower? Aww man, horrible bottleneck. AWWWWW!

/sarcasm
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
4
#92
lol. That's no proof of anything, because you don't have Kepler. So an overclocked GTX580 (10% OC) with a 10% underclock on the memory does 3% slower in 3Dmark 11 than without underclock. Wow!! That so totally proves your point, man... No.

Besides the fact that 3% is thin air, we are not talking about making a card like yours be as fast as HD7970 and what memory bandwidth it needs for that. Things don't work like that. AMD/Nvidia spend months designing and balancing out their architectures and chips to get the most out of them and tweaking internal latencies and such. You taking your card and absolutely destroying that balance with a 10% core overclock and 10% memory underclock means nothing. But please, by all means try again.

EDIT: At least you proved that AMD and Nvidia do their job and don't just ramdomly choose the specs of cards, but then again looking at how the only difference is 3% maybe you proved the opposite. I just can't choose what you proved yet. In general nothing, other than a GTX580 at 850 Mhz...

And to finish. You artificially created a 20% deficit in memory bandwidth and the most you obtained was 3% less performance. Bravo, because like I said earlier Nvidia could create a card with only a 10% deficit, so 1.5% slower? Aww man, horrible bottleneck. AWWWWW!

/sarcasm
oh... c'mon stop all BS thing.


my GTX580 is not even close to HD7970, but still it has a bottleneck.

imagine Kepler or HD7970@6970 BW couldn't be any faster than mine and thats not only 3% for sure.


at first, you told me that high end gpus have excessive BW, and thats for gpu computing purpose.

First of all you have to understand that HD7970 did NOT require all the bandwidth that it has. It does need more than HD6970, especially for compute, but it does not strictly need as much as it has. AMD did not have any other option than going 384 bits, because GDDR5 speeds higher than 1400 Mhz are not very doable and are very very expensive anyway. So their only option was a wider bus.
then you change your argument and told me Kepler doesn't manage memory bandwidth in the same way as Fermi and SI.

Besides the fact that 3% is thin air, we are not talking about making a card like yours be as fast as HD7970 and what memory bandwidth it needs for that. Things don't work like that. AMD/Nvidia spend months designing and balancing out their architectures and chips to get the most out of them and tweaking internal latencies and such. You taking your card and absolutely destroying that balance with a 10% core overclock and 10% memory underclock means nothing. But please, by all means try again.
what kind of unreliable person you are ??? :confused:


Try proving something ( at least find me some reference that not come from your mouth )

OR stop BS around here !!!
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#93
Bla, bla, bla 3% difference between both of your scores and I'm sure you even went as far as doing many and chosing the ones that showed the biggest difference. Don't worry everyone does that when desperately trying to prove something. Too bad you didn't check what the real difference was. Lame.

And I don't have to prove anything, since I never actually claimed anything. I said that a bottleneck is not warranted, that there's high chances that a bottleneck won't occur and provided REAL evidence of previous cards NOT being bottleneck. The one who says there's going to be bottleneck is you, and the only proof you could provide is a lameass comparison with 3% difference that could be derived from margin of error in 3DMark scoring system or a cat farting down the street. You are not right. Get over it.

EDIT: bah, I decided to be nice and teach you one or two things. Here: http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT042611035931&p=2

In most of the cases we analyzed, 2X higher memory bandwidth yielded ~30% better 3DMark Vantage GPU performance. A good estimate is that performance scales with the cube root of memory bandwidth, as long the memory/computation balance is roughly intact.
The Radeon HD 3870 and 4670 were the pair we mentioned on the earlier page. The 3870 has 2.13X the memory bandwidth of the latter, which translates into the 36% better performance
In a similar vein, the Radeon 4870 and 4850 achieve 14% and 27% higher 3DMark scores over their bandwidth starved cousins
Note: both have 2x or 100% more bandwidth that their "starved cousins".

The last example pair is the 335M and 4200M, which show somewhat less benefit from bandwidth. The 335M has nearly triple the bandwidth of the 4200M, identical shader throughput, and about 40% higher performance.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
6,142 (1.67/day)
Likes
1,636
Location
Austin Texas
System Name silen8
Processor Intel i7 7820X Delidded @ 4.64Ghz / 3.1Ghz Mesh
Motherboard MSI X299 Tomahawk
Cooling 240mm Corsair H105 Intake
Memory 32 GB Quad 3434Mhz DDR4 15-16-16-38-300-1T
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Gaming
Storage 1Tb Samsung 960 Pro m2, 1TB Samsung 850 Pro SSD
Display(s) Dell 24" 2560x1440 144hz, G-Sync @ 165Hz
Case NZXT S340 Elite Black
Audio Device(s) Arctis 7
Power Supply FSP HydroG 750W
Mouse zowie ec-2
Keyboard corsair k65 tenkeyless
Software Windows 10 64 Bit
Benchmark Scores Cb: 2103 Multi, 209 Single, 10450 Timespy - 10150 GPU/11900 CPU, superpi 1M - 7.71s
#94
You have NO proof but i have my proof.

3dm11 score of my GTX580@850 and stock BW

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588707

GTX580@850 and HD6970 BW ( 1835 mem clocks )

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2588751

nuff said ??? ;)


ps. i know that in order to bring GTX580 to HD7970 level in 3dm11, i have to push my 580 almost 1000 core clock but 850 core is enough for proving. :)
Off topic:
Looks like your proc is chocking your 580 like crazy - my 570 at 800Mhz gets a higher p score and graphics score of within 2%. o_O
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
289 (0.09/day)
Likes
96
Location
Canada
System Name The (Modified) Futureshop Deal/The Machine
Processor Q6600 @ 2.4 (stock, see mobo)/ I5 3570k @ 4.3
Motherboard Generic Foxconn/ Asus P8z77-v lk
Cooling stock/ Antec Kuhler 620
Memory 4Gb@800/ 16gb Mushkin Enhanced Blackline Frostbyte@1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire 4850/ Gigabyte 7950
Storage Hitachi 500GB, WD Blue 500gb/ Kingston Hyperx 3K 120gb, WD green 2tb
Display(s) Acer 24" 1920x1080/ Benq VA 24" 1920x1080 and HP 24" 1920x1200
Case Acer/ Antec 302
Audio Device(s) On Board for both
Power Supply 500w OCZ Modxstream-pro/ Antec Truepower new 750w
Software W7 Home Premium 64bit for both
#95

OOZMAN

New Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
160 (0.07/day)
Likes
20
Location
Brisbane, Australia
System Name Gaming Rig + Digital Audio Workstation.
Processor i5 2500k @ 4.7ghz 1.4V (max 5.0)
Motherboard ASUS P8Z68-V Pro
Cooling Noctua NH-D14 with single Antec Tri-Cool fan, 3 more Tri-cools for the case
Memory 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws X 1866mhz 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) HIS HD6950 2GB, 930/1500mhz stable. CFX with 6970 eventually
Storage Intel 320 series 120GB SSD. 2.7TB generic HDD storage.
Display(s) 32" Sony Bravia LCD TV 1920x1080. Yeah baby!
Case Blue Raidmax Raptor.
Audio Device(s) Phonic 302+ 1394 interface, + 2x Behringer 9" 225W studio monitors. Cant buy better for under $600!
Power Supply Corsair TX750W
Software Dual boot: Win 7 Ultimate x64 SP1/Mac OSX Lion (not really used), Cubase 5 for DAW.
Benchmark Scores 3DMark Vantage- P22288 :|: Furmark 720 preset- 3644 frames, 1080 preset- 2347 :|: Skyrims max everyt
#96
Just some silly rumours with no evidence man.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
289 (0.09/day)
Likes
96
Location
Canada
System Name The (Modified) Futureshop Deal/The Machine
Processor Q6600 @ 2.4 (stock, see mobo)/ I5 3570k @ 4.3
Motherboard Generic Foxconn/ Asus P8z77-v lk
Cooling stock/ Antec Kuhler 620
Memory 4Gb@800/ 16gb Mushkin Enhanced Blackline Frostbyte@1600
Video Card(s) Sapphire 4850/ Gigabyte 7950
Storage Hitachi 500GB, WD Blue 500gb/ Kingston Hyperx 3K 120gb, WD green 2tb
Display(s) Acer 24" 1920x1080/ Benq VA 24" 1920x1080 and HP 24" 1920x1200
Case Acer/ Antec 302
Audio Device(s) On Board for both
Power Supply 500w OCZ Modxstream-pro/ Antec Truepower new 750w
Software W7 Home Premium 64bit for both
#97
My thoughts exactly
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,696 (0.68/day)
Likes
542
System Name TeraUltima 7
Processor Intel Core i5 3570K @4Ghz
Motherboard ASRock Z68 Pro3-M
Cooling DeepCool Ice Berg Pro "Black Edition"
Memory Kingston Hyper X 16GB DDR3 1866
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce GTX 1070 Super JetStream
Storage Crucial MX100 256GB SSD + 1TB Seagate HDD
Display(s) LG 23MP68VQ-P IPS 75HZ 23" MONITOR
Case Aerocool Dead Silence Black Edition Cube
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek ALC892 7.1 HD Audio
Power Supply OCZ Stealth X Stream II 600W
Mouse Logitech G400S | Wacom Intuos CTH-480
Keyboard A4Tech G800V Gaming Keyboard
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SP1
Benchmark Scores http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9470441
#98
evidenz plz
 
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
1,430 (0.59/day)
Likes
460
Location
A frozen turdberg.
System Name Runs Smooth
Processor FX 8350
Motherboard Crosshair V Formula Z
Cooling Corsair H110 with AeroCool Shark 140mm fans
Memory 16GB G-skill Trident X 1866 Cl. 8
Video Card(s) HIS 7970 IceQ X² GHZ Edition
Storage OCZ Vector 256GB SSD & 1Tb piece of crap
Display(s) acer H243H
Case NZXT Phantom 820 matte black
Audio Device(s) Nada
Power Supply NZXT Hale90 V2 850 watt
Software Windows 7 Pro
Benchmark Scores Lesbians are hot!!!
#99
I hope that they're right. Bring on a price war.
 

KooKKiK

New Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31 (0.01/day)
Likes
4
Bla, bla, bla 3% difference between both of your scores and I'm sure you even went as far as doing many and chosing the ones that showed the biggest difference. Don't worry everyone does that when desperately trying to prove something. Too bad you didn't check what the real difference was. Lame.

And I don't have to prove anything, since I never actually claimed anything. I said that a bottleneck is not warranted, that there's high chances that a bottleneck won't occur and provided REAL evidence of previous cards NOT being bottleneck. The one who says there's going to be bottleneck is you, and the only proof you could provide is a lameass comparison with 3% difference that could be derived from margin of error in 3DMark scoring system or a cat farting down the street. You are not right. Get over it.

EDIT: bah, I decided to be nice and teach you one or two things. Here: http://realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT042611035931&p=2







Note: both have 2x or 100% more bandwidth that their "starved cousins".
i didn't see anything in the article that prove your argument.

may be u should "try again" :laugh:


oh, and you said you didn't claim anything ???

what is this ??? :laugh:

So is HD7970 kind of performance posible with HD6970 kind of bandwidth? Absolutely.

If i had Kepler IN HANDS and benched it right now, i'm sure u gonna make an excuse like "it's only an engineering sample" anyway. :laugh: