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

Radeon HD 6900 Series Officially Postponed to Mid-December

mdsx1950

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
2,064 (0.70/day)
Likes
408
Location
In a gaming world :D
System Name Knight-X
Processor Intel Core i7-980X [4.2Ghz]
Motherboard ASUS P6T7 WS
Cooling CORSAIR Hydro H70 + 2x CM 2000RPM 120mm LED Fans
Memory Corsair DOMINATOR-GT 12GB (6 x 2GB) DDR3 2000MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon HD6970 2GB CrossFire [PhysX - EVGA GTX260(216SP) 896MB]
Storage 2x Corsair Perf. 512GB | OCZ Colossus 1TB | 2xOCZ Agilities 120GB SSDs
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp™ 3008WFP [2560x1600]
Case Cooler Master HAF-X + NZXT Temp LCD
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D2X | ONKYO HTS9100THX 7.1
Power Supply Silverstone ST1500 1500W [80 PLUS Silver]
Software Windows 7 Ultimate X64 (Build 7600)
Benchmark Scores Heaven 2.0 with Extreme Tessellation at 1080p - 96FPS
#26
DAMMIT!

I was waiting to get a 6900 card before December. WTF?
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
5,103 (1.18/day)
Likes
1,256
Location
AZ
System Name Thought I'd be done with this by now
Processor i7 4790K 4.4GHZ turbo currently at 4.6GHZ at 1.16v
Motherboard MSI Z97-G55 SLI
Cooling Scythe Mugen 2 rev B (SCMG-2100), stock on gpu's.
Memory 8GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series DDR3 2400MHZ 10-12-12-31
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 760 Superclocked replaced HIS R9 290 that was artifacting
Storage 1TB MX300 M.2 OS + Games, 4x ST31000524NS in Raid 10 Storage and Backup, external 2tb backup,
Display(s) BenQ GW2255 surprisingly good screen for the price.
Case Raidmax Scorpio 668
Audio Device(s) onboard HD
Power Supply EVGA 750 GQ
Software Windows 10
Benchmark Scores no one cares anymore lols
#27
DAMMIT!

I was waiting to get a 6900 card before December. WTF?
yeah but you were going for the 6990 and that was already posponed until january.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,623 (1.65/day)
Likes
1,995
Location
Redditch, Worcestershire, England
System Name RyZen Reynolds
Processor Ryzen 1600 6c/12t -3.8Ghz@1.26v
Motherboard Asrock AB350m
Cooling Wraith Spire
Memory 16GB DDR4 2800
Video Card(s) PNY GTX 780 Ti
Storage Seagate 1TB - 128GB SSD
Display(s) BenQ G2420HD
Case Corsair Carbide Series SPEC-01
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair VS 550w
Mouse Zalman ZM-M401R
Keyboard Razor Lycosa
Software Windows 10 Home x64
#28

mdsx1950

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
2,064 (0.70/day)
Likes
408
Location
In a gaming world :D
System Name Knight-X
Processor Intel Core i7-980X [4.2Ghz]
Motherboard ASUS P6T7 WS
Cooling CORSAIR Hydro H70 + 2x CM 2000RPM 120mm LED Fans
Memory Corsair DOMINATOR-GT 12GB (6 x 2GB) DDR3 2000MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon HD6970 2GB CrossFire [PhysX - EVGA GTX260(216SP) 896MB]
Storage 2x Corsair Perf. 512GB | OCZ Colossus 1TB | 2xOCZ Agilities 120GB SSDs
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp™ 3008WFP [2560x1600]
Case Cooler Master HAF-X + NZXT Temp LCD
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D2X | ONKYO HTS9100THX 7.1
Power Supply Silverstone ST1500 1500W [80 PLUS Silver]
Software Windows 7 Ultimate X64 (Build 7600)
Benchmark Scores Heaven 2.0 with Extreme Tessellation at 1080p - 96FPS
#29

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
34,334 (9.23/day)
Likes
17,427
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name Long shelf-life potato
Processor Intel Core i7-4770K
Motherboard ASUS Z97-A
Cooling Xigmatek Aegir CPU Cooler
Memory 16GB Kingston HyperX Beast DDR3-1866
Video Card(s) 2x GeForce GTX 970 SLI
Storage ADATA SU800 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590D 28-inch 4K
Case Cooler Master CM690 Window
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Corsair HX850W
Mouse Razer Abyssus 2014
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro Creators Update
#30
At this point it's prolly too late to make any hardware changes, just in software (drivers) and you can only do so much with those.
You definitely can change the GPU specs (with increased clocks, if the cooler permits). NVIDIA did just that after it found out that its original GTX 480 was too slow after the Radeon HD 5000 series released, but had to also redesign the cooler to keep up with the increased clock speeds (which added to the development time).
 

Fourstaff

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
9,376 (3.19/day)
Likes
2,100
Location
Home
System Name Asus K50-X5DAB \\ Orange!
Processor Athlon QL-65 2.2Ghz \\ 3570K
Motherboard Laptop \\ ASRock z77 Extreme4
Cooling Laptop \\ H100i
Memory 1x1GB + 1X2GB \\ 2x4Gb 1600Mhz CL9 Corsair XMS3
Video Card(s) Mobility Radeon HD4570 512mb \\ Zotac 660Ti OC 2Gb
Storage 250Gb \\ Samsung 840 250Gb + Toshiba DT01ACA300 3Tb
Display(s) 15.6" 1366x768 \\ LG 22EA53VQ
Case Laptop Chassis \\ NZXT Phantom 410 Black/Orange
Power Supply Power Brick \\ Corsair CXM500w
#31

mdsx1950

New Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
2,064 (0.70/day)
Likes
408
Location
In a gaming world :D
System Name Knight-X
Processor Intel Core i7-980X [4.2Ghz]
Motherboard ASUS P6T7 WS
Cooling CORSAIR Hydro H70 + 2x CM 2000RPM 120mm LED Fans
Memory Corsair DOMINATOR-GT 12GB (6 x 2GB) DDR3 2000MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon HD6970 2GB CrossFire [PhysX - EVGA GTX260(216SP) 896MB]
Storage 2x Corsair Perf. 512GB | OCZ Colossus 1TB | 2xOCZ Agilities 120GB SSDs
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp™ 3008WFP [2560x1600]
Case Cooler Master HAF-X + NZXT Temp LCD
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D2X | ONKYO HTS9100THX 7.1
Power Supply Silverstone ST1500 1500W [80 PLUS Silver]
Software Windows 7 Ultimate X64 (Build 7600)
Benchmark Scores Heaven 2.0 with Extreme Tessellation at 1080p - 96FPS
#32

wahdangun

New Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,511 (0.45/day)
Likes
114
Location
indonesia ku tercinta
System Name blacky
Processor amd 5000+ BE @ 3.0 ghz
Motherboard MSI K9NGM
Cooling artic colling frezzer 64
Memory V-GEN 1,5 GB
Video Card(s) ati radeon hd 3850
Storage seagate 250gb
Display(s) compaq 7500
Case simbada sim-x (cheapo chasis)
Audio Device(s) creative x-fi extreme music
Power Supply antec earth watt series
Benchmark Scores hohoho
#33
You definitely can change the GPU specs (with increased clocks, if the cooler permits). NVIDIA did just that after it found out that its original GTX 480 was too slow after the Radeon HD 5000 series released, but had to also redesign the cooler to keep up with the increased clock speeds (which added to the development time).
so do you think that nvdia think more Mghz was more important than more SP?
 

CDdude55

Crazy 4 TPU!!!
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
8,178 (2.15/day)
Likes
1,269
Location
Virginia
System Name CDdude's Rig!
Processor AMD Athlon II X4 620
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3
Cooling Corsair H70
Memory 8GB Corsair Vengence @1600mhz
Video Card(s) XFX HD 6970 2GB
Storage OCZ Agility 3 60GB SSD/WD Velociraptor 300GB
Display(s) ASUS VH232H 23" 1920x1080
Case Cooler Master CM690 (w/ side window)
Audio Device(s) Onboard (It sounds fine)
Power Supply Corsair 850TX
Software Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit SP1
#34
That sucks.:(
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
34,334 (9.23/day)
Likes
17,427
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name Long shelf-life potato
Processor Intel Core i7-4770K
Motherboard ASUS Z97-A
Cooling Xigmatek Aegir CPU Cooler
Memory 16GB Kingston HyperX Beast DDR3-1866
Video Card(s) 2x GeForce GTX 970 SLI
Storage ADATA SU800 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590D 28-inch 4K
Case Cooler Master CM690 Window
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Corsair HX850W
Mouse Razer Abyssus 2014
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro Creators Update
#35
so do you think that nvdia think more Mghz was more important than more SP?
More MHz needs a lower power budget than More SPs. With GF110, (of which NV didn't release an architecture schematic till date), NV definitely put GF100 through a weight loss programme. It shed 200 million transistors, which gave NV the power budget to enable all 512 cores and also bump clock speeds.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#36
More MHz needs a lower power budget than More SPs.
Not true at all. Every evidence points out to the opposite. OCed GTX470 consume almost as much as GTX480. GTX470 and GTX465 power is similar compared to the huge difference between GTX470 and GTX480, despite the fact that 480 vs 470 means a ~10% reduction in enabled parts vs a ~30% reduction in GTX465 vs GTX470.

There's many many other examples in the past and in current cards, but the most obvious one is HD5850 vs HD5830.

With GF110, (of which NV didn't release an architecture schematic till date), NV definitely put GF100 through a weight loss programme. It shed 200 million transistors, which gave NV the power budget to enable all 512 cores and also bump clock speeds.
I don't think it's the transistor reduction which made that posible, but rather the fact they didn't screw up what Nvidia calls the fabric this time around. The 200 million transistor reduction is impressive nnetheless considering that FP64 math and all the GPGPU goodness is still there, contrary to what was first rumored.
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
16,546 (3.88/day)
Likes
10,908
Location
Parkland County, Alberta
System Name Gamer
Processor Intel i7-6700K (ES)
Motherboard MSI Aegis TI
Cooling Custom Dragon Cooler
Memory 16 GB Kingston HyperX 2133 MHz C13
Video Card(s) 2x MSI GAMING GTX 980
Storage 2x Intel 600P
Display(s) Dell 3008WFP
Case MSI Aegis Ti
Mouse MSI Interceptor DS B1
Keyboard MSI DS4200 GAMING Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home
#37
I don't think it's the transistor reduction which made that posible, but rather the fact they didn't screw up what Nvidia calls the fabric this time around. The 200 million transistor reduction is impressive nnetheless considering that FP64 math and all the GPGPU goodness is still there, contrary to what was first rumored.
The "fabric" is cache, and is one of the hottest parts of any gpu/cpu. They lowered it's size/complexity, which allowed them to enable the extra shaders, without going over PCI-E power budgets.

That Unified Cache is one of Fermi's biggest selling points for GPGPU, and hence the "rumours" about the revision affecting GPGPU performance.
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
413 (0.13/day)
Likes
95
Location
You are here.
System Name Prometheus
Processor Intel i7 4930K
Motherboard Asus P9X79
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory Crucial Ballistix Quad Channel 64GB DDR3 1.35V
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 970 4GB
Storage 2 x Intel 330 240GB RAID0 + 2 x Intel X-25M G2 160GB MIRROR + 4 x 2TB WD Green
Display(s) AMH A409U 4K
Case Intertech AP1
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio PCIe
Power Supply Seasonic X660
Mouse Razer Death Adder 2013
Keyboard FILCO Majestouch 2 Ninja
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Pro x64
#38
Not true at all. Every evidence points out to the opposite. OCed GTX470 consume almost as much as GTX480. GTX470 and GTX465 power is similar compared to the huge difference between GTX470 and GTX480, despite the fact that 480 vs 470 means a ~10% reduction in enabled parts vs a ~30% reduction in GTX465 vs GTX470.
You assume that those cards use the same voltage domains. Usually, in the "lesser" versions of the chip's implementations, the GTX465/GTX470, we have chips that could not achieve the clock domains of the GTX480 at the required core voltage. Also the chips had different levels of transistor current "leakage".

In time the 40nm TSMC node was stabilized, and we can see GTX470 cards that are overclocked and consume less power then stock GTX470's of the past. For example the Gigabyte GTX470 SOC.

To continue my "theory" that AMD has yield problems. Having good yields does not imply to only have "working" chips. The chips have to achieve a certain frequency at a certain core voltage, in order to achieve an established maximum board power. If they do not, then the cooling solution must be adjusted, the vBIOS has to be tweaked, better components have to be used in order to provide cleaner power and so on...

I do not buy that AMD was "surprised" about the GTX580 performance. AMD knows about nVidia cards long before even the rumors start, months before. nVidia knows what AMD is preparing for the future months before their release. Be sure of that.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#39
The "fabric" is cache, and is one of the hottest parts of any gpu/cpu. They lowered it's size/complexity, which allowed them to enable the extra shaders, without going over PCI-E power budgets.

That Unified Cache is one of Fermi's biggest selling points for GPGPU, and hence the "rumours" about the revision affecting GPGPU performance.
I'm talking about what Nvidia/ Jen-Hsun called fabric in the video where they spoke about the problems. It's not cache. It's the interconnection layer, which does connect cache with the SPs and SPs with TMUs and whatnot, but that's about the only relation there is with cache.

On top of that I don't know where did you hear that cache is smaller/simpler? Do you have a link I could read? What I have read is quite the opposite, from TechReport:

The third change is pretty subtle. In the Fermi architecture, the shader multiprocessors (SMs) have 64KB of local data storage that can be partitioned either as 16KB of L1 cache and 48KB of shared memory or vice-versa. When the GF100 is in a graphics context, the SM storage is partitioned in a 16KB L1 cache/48KB shared memory configuration. The 48KB/16KB config is only available for GPU computing contexts. The GF110 is capable of running with a 48KB L1 cache/16KB shared memory split for graphics, which Nvidia says "helps certain types of shaders."
More cache capabilities indeed.

Also still has the same 768 KB of L2 cache. And ECC.

You assume that those cards use the same voltage domains. Usually, in the "lesser" versions of the chip's implementations, the GTX465/GTX470, we have chips that could not achieve the clock domains of the GTX480 at the required core voltage. Also the chips had different levels of transistor current "leakage".

In time the 40nm TSMC node was stabilized, and we can see GTX470 cards that are overclocked and consume less power then stock GTX470's of the past. For example the Gigabyte GTX470 SOC.
Still that doesn't change the fact that power consumption is more affected by clock speeds than enabled parts. It has always been like that and will never change. There's 20+ years of evidence I could bring in here, but I don't think I really need. Higher clock speeds also produce higher leakeage and well in general terms there's a very good reason why we are getting bigger and bigger CPU/GPU but never clocked much higher than 3 Ghz (CPU) and below 1 Ghz (GPU). Not exactly because they cannot go higher since they do go much higher with exotic cooling.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
4,659 (1.32/day)
Likes
1,009
System Name Obelisc
Processor i7 3770k @ 4.8 GHz
Motherboard Asus P8Z77-V
Cooling H110
Memory 16GB(4x4) @ 2400 MHz 9-11-11-31
Video Card(s) GTX 780 Ti
Storage 850 EVO 1TB, 2x 5TB Toshiba
Case T81
Audio Device(s) X-Fi Titanium HD
Power Supply EVGA 850 T2 80+ TITANIUM
Software Win10 64bit
#40
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,767 (2.99/day)
Likes
1,779
Location
Suffolk/Essex, England
System Name Joseph's Laptop Clevo P771ZM
Processor 4970k @4/4.4ghz
Motherboard *shrugs*
Cooling About 2 kilos of copper fins and pipes.
Memory 2x 8gb
Video Card(s) GTX 970m 6gb
Storage 500gb Msata SSD 2x 2TB storage drives
Display(s) Built in
Power Supply 300w power brick
Mouse Steam controller
Software Windows ten
#41
Still that doesn't change the fact that power consumption is more affected by clock speeds than enabled parts. It has always been like that and will never change. There's 20+ years of evidence I could bring in here, but I don't think I really need. Higher clock speeds also produce higher leakeage and well in general terms there's a very good reason why we are getting bigger and bigger CPU/GPU but never clocked much higher than 3 Ghz (CPU) and below 1 Ghz (GPU). Not exactly because they cannot go higher since they do go much higher with exotic cooling.
Just to elaborate on this, 4ghz is the point processors can have problems due to physical limitations of the material used for transistors at the moment. This is why voltage requirements jump up dramatically at this point( typically anyway).
 
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
2,261 (0.72/day)
Likes
171
Location
the uk that's all you need to know ;)
System Name not very good (wants throwing out window most of time)
Processor xp3000@ 2.17ghz pile of sh** /i7 920 DO on air for now
Motherboard msi kt6 delta oap /gigabyte x58 ud7 (rev1.0)
Cooling 1 green akasa 8cm(rear) 1 multicoloured akasa(hd) 1 12 cm (intake) 1 9cm with circuit from old psu
Memory 1.25 gb kingston hyperx @333mhz/ 3gb corsair dominator xmp 1600mhz
Video Card(s) (agp) hd3850 not bad not really suitable for mobo n processor/ gb hd5870
Storage wd 320gb + samsung 320 gig + wd 1tb 6gb/s
Display(s) compaq mv720
Case thermaltake XaserIII skull / coolermaster cm 690II
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply corsair hx 650 w which solved many problems (blew up) /850w corsair
Software xp pro sp3/ ? win 7 ultimate (32 bit)
Benchmark Scores 6543 3d mark05 ye ye not good but look at the processor /uknown as still not benched
#42
meh i couldn't care less tbh, my 5870 does what i need it to,
now all i need is more horse power, might invest in a i7 980x for my emulatory purposes ;)
but might get something new graphics card wise next birthday,

hey this i7 920 and 5870 was my present to myself :D


still it's sad news for those who need their fix of tech, just tell the mrs it's a christmas present for yourself;)
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
16,546 (3.88/day)
Likes
10,908
Location
Parkland County, Alberta
System Name Gamer
Processor Intel i7-6700K (ES)
Motherboard MSI Aegis TI
Cooling Custom Dragon Cooler
Memory 16 GB Kingston HyperX 2133 MHz C13
Video Card(s) 2x MSI GAMING GTX 980
Storage 2x Intel 600P
Display(s) Dell 3008WFP
Case MSI Aegis Ti
Mouse MSI Interceptor DS B1
Keyboard MSI DS4200 GAMING Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home
#43
I'm talking about what Nvidia/ Jen-Hsun called fabric in the video where they spoke about the problems. It's not cache. It's the interconnection layer, which does connect cache with the SPs and SPs with TMUs and whatnot, but that's about the only relation there is with cache.

On top of that I don't know where did you hear that cache is smaller/simpler? Do you have a link I could read? What I have read is quite the opposite, from TechReport:



More cache capabilities indeed.

Also still has the same 768 KB of L2 cache. And ECC.
That's not more capabilities..they always existed. Check the Fermi whitepaper.

As to the cahce thing, I dunno. Maybe just rumour. Maybe the size change was what you mentioned, and the rest is left with cache complexity. Those 200mil transiastors went somewhere...
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#44
That's not more capabilities..they always existed. Check the Fermi whitepaper.
I know they were there, but only for Cuda, it's explained in the quote. Only a guess, but I suppose that enabling them for DX applications requires a small change to the ISA, but like I said just guessing there.

As to the cahce thing, I dunno. Maybe just rumour. Maybe the size change was what you mentioned, and the rest is left with cache complexity. Those 200mil transiastors went somewhere...
Maybe just unneeded or redundant transistors probably. afaik many transistors are only used for stability, voltage/current tweaking throughout the chip or to control the functionality of other transistors, since CMOS doesn't use resistors and every transistor is polarized by other transistors and the parasitic resistance of the sum of the circuit that it "sees".
 

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
16,546 (3.88/day)
Likes
10,908
Location
Parkland County, Alberta
System Name Gamer
Processor Intel i7-6700K (ES)
Motherboard MSI Aegis TI
Cooling Custom Dragon Cooler
Memory 16 GB Kingston HyperX 2133 MHz C13
Video Card(s) 2x MSI GAMING GTX 980
Storage 2x Intel 600P
Display(s) Dell 3008WFP
Case MSI Aegis Ti
Mouse MSI Interceptor DS B1
Keyboard MSI DS4200 GAMING Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Home
#45
Sure, they could have also had some redundant parts in GF100 that they found they didn't need, and trimmed. Given the info out now, the cache thing made sense to me, so I've accepted it as fact.

CUDA isn't magically different than 3D(both are mathematical calculations using the exact same hardware)..to me, that's nV trying to ensure thier business customers buy the GPGPU products, and thier high prices, instead of normal Geforce cards. They simply didn't expose the functionality in driver. Like really, you're smart enough to not buy THAT hype...we both know that Tesla and Geforce products feature tha same silicon.


ANYWAY...


I'm happy ofr the delay. I've said all along, 6970 in January, and ^990 in March, so this news doesn't affect me one bit. It just exposes AMD's lack of honesty sometimes(Barts launch was when they said 6970 end of next week).
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#46
Sure, they could have also had some redundant parts in GF100 that they found they didn't need, and trimmed. Given the info out now, the cache thing made sense to me, so I've accepted it as fact.

CUDA isn't magically different than 3D(both are mathematical calculations using the exact same hardware)..to me, that's nV trying to ensure thier business customers buy the GPGPU products, and thier high prices, instead of normal Geforce cards. They simply didn't expose the functionality in driver. Like really, you're smart enough to not buy THAT hype...we both know that Tesla and Geforce products feature tha same silicon.
I was not implying silicon between Geforce and Tesla is different, but GF100 and GF110 is different, I was saying that I could only guess that being able to call for that cache setting in a DX environment required a small addition to the ISA. But maybe you're right and it's only on driver level, although do those two claims exclude each other anyway? I mean how much of the allegued ISA on modern GPUs has direct hardware implementation/execution and how much is microcode coming from the drivers? All I know is that I don't know jack about that.

As for the cache, yes it might be they reduced transistor count from the cache, but they didn't cut off any functionality to do so. In fact GF110 has greater functionality in almost every aspect and that's why I said that I think it is impressive. All the rumors were talking about a reduction thanks to cutting off the high FP64 capabilities, ECC and some other GPGPU related features, but it's everything there and at the same time they enhanced the FP16 filtering, so I just think it's quite a feat. Maybe it's not something that the average user or TPU enthusiast will say "wow!" about, but even the fact that you think that something must have been cut off already kinda demostrates the importance of the achievement.

That's something that does make me feel a little dissapointed about GF110 at the same time. I thought that it was going to be a gaming oriented chip and it's GF100 done right. That is good on its own and will help Nvidia a lot getting into HPC. It's faster, yes, it consumes a lot less, yes, and it's smaller, but can you just figure out what could Nvidia have released if ECC, FP64 had been ditched and if they had used the 48 SP config that is used in GF104?

I have talked long and enough about what I thought GF110 would be, mainly GF104 + 50%, the 576 SP moster that at the same time was smaller than GF100. Back then I considered it a posibility, right now I think it's a certainty and I'm becoming more inclined to support the group of people that think that Nvidia should find the way to separate their GPU and GPGPU efforts somehow and make 2 different chips, despite the similarities. And bear in mind that I fully understand why that is not posible, making a chip for a market that will hardly ever see 1 million sales is pointless, that's why I said "inclined to" and not sure about it, well maybe in the future, if HPC market grows enough as to make it worth...
 
Last edited:

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.94/day)
Likes
3,682
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
#47
I'm talking about what Nvidia/ Jen-Hsun called fabric in the video where they spoke about the problems. It's not cache. It's the interconnection layer, which does connect cache with the SPs and SPs with TMUs and whatnot, but that's about the only relation there is with cache.

On top of that I don't know where did you hear that cache is smaller/simpler? Do you have a link I could read? What I have read is quite the opposite, from TechReport:



More cache capabilities indeed.

Also still has the same 768 KB of L2 cache. And ECC.



Still that doesn't change the fact that power consumption is more affected by clock speeds than enabled parts. It has always been like that and will never change. There's 20+ years of evidence I could bring in here, but I don't think I really need. Higher clock speeds also produce higher leakeage and well in general terms there's a very good reason why we are getting bigger and bigger CPU/GPU but never clocked much higher than 3 Ghz (CPU) and below 1 Ghz (GPU). Not exactly because they cannot go higher since they do go much higher with exotic cooling.
Actually, I'd like to see that evidence. I'm now curious as to which method actually does pull more power.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that you'll find examples that support both arguments.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
9,025 (2.77/day)
Likes
1,446
Location
Montreal, Canada
System Name Fun waste of money
Processor i7 3930k @ 4 Ghz
Motherboard AsRock X79 Fatal1ty Professional
Cooling Dark Rock Pro 3 (removed 120mm fan)
Memory 32GB (4x8gb) 2133Mhz CL9 Mushkin RedLine
Video Card(s) EVGA ACX 3.0 GTX 1060 6GB
Storage 3.25TB separated in 5 SSDs (SanDisk Extreme Pro, Intel 730 & 520, 2*Crucial MX100)
Display(s) 27" 2560x1440 [Korean] PCBANK PB2700
Case BeQuiet! SilentBase 800
Audio Device(s) iBasso D10 + AKG KXXX
Power Supply EVGA P2 750W 80+ Platinum semi-fanless
Mouse Sensei RAW
Keyboard Black cherry MX Thermaltake ESports
Software Windows 10 Pro X64
#48
It depends on the scenario and the card's architecture obviously, there is no cut in stone answer, it is experiment and see... they probably optimized it.

clock speeds affects the power usage in one way and enabling stuff in another, they just have to find the sweet spot, a little bit of math, and a lot of trial and error
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
413 (0.13/day)
Likes
95
Location
You are here.
System Name Prometheus
Processor Intel i7 4930K
Motherboard Asus P9X79
Cooling Noctua NH-D14
Memory Crucial Ballistix Quad Channel 64GB DDR3 1.35V
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 970 4GB
Storage 2 x Intel 330 240GB RAID0 + 2 x Intel X-25M G2 160GB MIRROR + 4 x 2TB WD Green
Display(s) AMH A409U 4K
Case Intertech AP1
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Audio PCIe
Power Supply Seasonic X660
Mouse Razer Death Adder 2013
Keyboard FILCO Majestouch 2 Ninja
Software Microsoft Windows 10 Pro x64
#49
There isn't a "4GHz" limit to the material used to build these chips. The limitation comes from the operating temperature, once it's over an estimated threshold it will not function correctly at a given frequency and in extreme cases it will be irreparably damaged.

Pure silicon can take more then 1400 C but in order to build actual chips you add to mix other materials (doping), and those will drag that number down to just 7-9%.

And you need these things to operate for years, so you can't set that threshold too high. All chips will eventually die, it's just a matter of time.

For example. There is a Pentium 4 that achieved 32.6 GHz (!!!) and there is an Athlon 64 that achieved 10.3 GHz. And yet today, we only have a 6.4 GHz six-core i7 CPU and a 7.1 GHz PhenomII X4 CPU... So the complexity of the chip, uArch, complexity of the workloads, the sheer size of the chip, basically EVERYTHING has to be taken into account.

So, to continue, yes frequency matters when you want to keep TDP down, but not more or less then the maturity of the node process, the complexity of the uArch, the size of the die... You can't just take one and say it's the singular thing that will drive TDP up. And when you build a chip, you need it to do something... you don't build a chip that can do a bazillion GHz and doesn't do anything else. Because you can do that.

20 years of history doesn't really apply. We can build stuff today that we only dreamed about years ago. And we will be able to build stuff tomorrow that we didn't even dream about today. We call it "evolution" because we like to honor the past, but the only thing that drives evolution is a series of "breakthroughs". That means doing things differently, better.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
3,046 (0.91/day)
Likes
684
System Name Has and is well
Processor i7 4770K
Motherboard ASUS B85
Cooling Corsair H100
Memory TEAM 1866mhz 8GBx2 16GB
Video Card(s) MSI 980ti Gold Edition
Storage Intel 520 120GB + Seagate 2TB 7200RPM
Display(s) DELL U2713HM 2560x1440 Monitor
Case Corsair 350D
Power Supply EVGA 850W Gold
Software Win 10
#50
lol AMD could have overestimated the GTX580! They are probably just trying to increase their stock because they are now projected to sell more now that the 580 has been revealed. there's a theory!

That or... the usual tweaking the card to be faster than what it is..... then there's the component shortages official announcement... I hope the delay will make this series more worthwhile AMD :laugh: