23 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

Well, it seems that AMD is coming out with higher binned versions of it's chips, or have made improvements... maybe.
Basically running faster at the same wattage and possibly lower by what's being told out there...
http://semiaccurate....ti-2-next-week/

Also dual GPU versions apparently are coming...
http://www.techpower...d-Pictured.html

[TriggerhappySOB]

But this is the question...

Will it blend?

On a serious note though - Ive been using AMD for all of my builds until the last one where I decided to go with an intel/nvidia combo instead of amd/ati... and to be perfectly honest ive had fewer problems with nvidia than amd. Maybe i just got the bad chips, but they never lasted longer than a year with proper PM and care.
On the opposite end of the spectrum... Price of AMD is WAAAYYYY better than intel or nvidia...

[Vulpesveritas]

TriggerhappySOB, on 08 June 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

But this is the question...

Will it blend?

On a serious note though - Ive been using AMD for all of my builds until the last one where I decided to go with an intel/nvidia combo instead of amd/ati... and to be perfectly honest ive had fewer problems with nvidia than amd. Maybe i just got the bad chips, but they never lasted longer than a year with proper PM and care.
On the opposite end of the spectrum... Price of AMD is WAAAYYYY better than intel or nvidia...

yet my craptop which has gone through hell and the CPU is running constantly at a minimum of 65 C for two years is still somehow running strong. XD

But yeah sounds like you have rather bad luck.

[TriggerhappySOB]

Well I cant say the same for my newer build (not new-new bout 3 years old now) that still runs great! Definitely using nvidia in my next build though

[Vulpesveritas]

TriggerhappySOB, on 08 June 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Well I cant say the same for my newer build (not new-new bout 3 years old now) that still runs great! Definitely using nvidia in my next build though

Lol. Well, either way your best bet is still to go price / performance. I mean, in some cases like the 7770 versus the 550ti, the 7770 is the same cost, but uses up to 50 watts less power, is 20% faster overall, and is a smaller card in the case. Most of the manufacturers have 3 year warranties. But the warranty is true in most cases on both sides. But lower temperatures and wattage generally translate into longer lives when it comes to processors.

In the end, personal experience is personal experience, and while in most cases there is no difference in reliability overall.

But yeah. HP DV6 craptop.... horrible cooling solution. I have to use a Coolermaster SF-19 to keep it cool enough to play any games whatsoever.

[TriggerhappySOB]

Vulpesveritas, on 08 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Lol. Well, either way your best bet is still to go price / performance. I mean, in some cases like the 7770 versus the 550ti, the 7770 is the same cost, but uses up to 50 watts less power, is 20% faster overall, and is a smaller card in the case. Most of the manufacturers have 3 year warranties. But the warranty is true in most cases on both sides. But lower temperatures and wattage generally translate into longer lives when it comes to processors.

In the end, personal experience is personal experience, and while in most cases there is no difference in reliability overall.

But yeah. HP DV6 craptop.... horrible cooling solution. I have to use a Coolermaster SF-19 to keep it cool enough to play any games whatsoever.

Im sorry...

[Vulpesveritas]

TriggerhappySOB, on 08 June 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Im sorry...

Yes well I thought it was a good deal at the time... Phenom II X4, 4GB of Ram for $275....

Didn't know it would have quite so horrible cooling.

Though it does well enough for melting butter without burning it.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 08 June 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[FACEman Peck]

Something related to this, I find it odd that dual GTX 680's are more powerful graphics-wise than the GTX 690, which has dual 680 GPUs in it already...

I hope someone can explain this to me.

[Blue Shadow]

Those new cards look awesome, but my 5870 vapor-X is still doing just fine :-) The two AMD/ATI cards I've used have been great and I'd buy another when the time comes.

[TriggerhappySOB]

FACEman Peck, on 08 June 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Something related to this, I find it odd that dual GTX 680's are more powerful graphics-wise than the GTX 690, which has dual 680 GPUs in it already...

I hope someone can explain this to me.

Wish i could. I dont know why NVIDIA decided on this route, all I know is that you wont need it... Dual GTX570s cost less than a single 690 and actually runs faster... so whatever they had in mind, I think it was probably a fail...

[FACEman Peck]

TriggerhappySOB, on 08 June 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Wish i could. I dont know why NVIDIA decided on this route, all I know is that you wont need it... Dual GTX570s cost less than a single 690 and actually runs faster... so whatever they had in mind, I think it was probably a fail...

Fair enough.

[Randalf Yorgen]

Just a question as I am entering the zone to think about either a new PC or doing massive upgrades (MB, PS, RAM, Video) Asus is now in the video card market, any thoughts on their GPUs and what not?

[Vulpesveritas]

FACEman Peck, on 08 June 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Something related to this, I find it odd that dual GTX 680's are more powerful graphics-wise than the GTX 690, which has dual 680 GPUs in it already...

I hope someone can explain this to me.

TriggerhappySOB, on 08 June 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Wish i could. I dont know why NVIDIA decided on this route, all I know is that you wont need it... Dual GTX570s cost less than a single 690 and actually runs faster... so whatever they had in mind, I think it was probably a fail...

FACEman Peck, on 08 June 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Fair enough.

Part of it is that the dual 680 cores in a 690 are underclocked, SLI can't be turned off due to dual cards on die (as in a traditional setup one card can be turned off in the cases a game doesn't like SLI), and SLI doesn't scale perfectly... or even as well as Xfire. Though it has less issue games than Xfire.

Randalf Yorgen, on 08 June 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Just a question as I am entering the zone to think about either a new PC or doing massive upgrades (MB, PS, RAM, Video) Asus is now in the video card market, any thoughts on their GPUs and what not?

Eh. They're okay. On the AMD side you're better off with HIS (cool or quiet, take your pick), XFX (lifetime warranty), Sapphire (value), or Powercolor (faster stock overclock, quiet). And on the Nvidia side EVGA (warranty / value in most cases) but otherwise if you're going for a Nvidia card Asus is probably your best cool and quiet option.

[Catamount]

Basically, this is why the 690 is slower.

When you have two 680s, you have two coolers. In other words, you have 4 slots worth of cooler to play with. A dual slot air cooler, realistically, can dissipate in the range of 300W, especially long term, and considering you need extra headroom for dust buildup, slightly cramped cases, people with warm rooms, etc (maybe 400W in the best of conditions, but that's not how engineering works). Two dual slot coolers up that to 600W, of course. Two 680 GPUs at stock clocks are capable of outputting 400W.

So you have 400W worth of card, and you've gone from 600W of cooling capacity to 300W of cooling capacity.

Because of this problem, the GPUs are downclocked, just like a mobile GPU, because just like a mobile GPU, they have to fit very nicely into a much tighter thermal envelope. There's also the consideration that technically, PCIE devices are not supposed to draw more than 300W anyways... but Nvidia pioneered saying "to hell with having actual PCIE complaint devices", so that's a limited concern.


It's one of the main reasons why, if one is going to do dual GPU, they should do it properly, with two cards. Dual-GPU frankencards are a vastly inferior route.

Edited by Catamount, 09 June 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

Vulpesveritas, on 08 June 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Part of it is that the dual 680 cores in a 690 are underclocked, SLI can't be turned off due to dual cards on die (as in a traditional setup one card can be turned off in the cases a game doesn't like SLI), and SLI doesn't scale perfectly... or even as well as Xfire. Though it has less issue games than Xfire.

Pretty sure you can disable SLI on a GTX690. I know I could on my 9800 GX2.


Also, according to TPU's GTX690 review, the 690 is the same as GTX680 SLI.

http://www.techpower...GTX_690/28.html

[Odins Fist]

ATI has been a decent rival, and don't get me wrong I have run AMD CPU and MOBO since forever, "BUT" Nvidia has always had better drivers, they have always paid for the agreements for access to game code to properly address issues for drivers, and ATI, now owned by AMD has not always done so. I still have 2-8600gt, 2-8800gt, 2-9800gtx+, and 2-GTX 260-216 core cards that "ALL" still run to this day..
I have seen "BAD" drivers from ATI, over, and over, and over agian, the only bad driver sets I ever had from Nvidia were "BETA DRIVERS"
I always expect "NEW" series of video cards to have driver issues from "FIRST" release, but Nvidia always takes care fo the problem "FIRST".
BFBC2-PC.. ATI drivers, black blobs and black screen for 2 weeks, Nvidia 2 days after release fixed any issues, etc, etc, etc..
The Nvidia 5 series at launch, very little time to driver fixes, AMD/ATI 6 and 7 series much longer.. ATI cards always try to show better frame rates, but Nvidia "ALWAYS" showed better quality of picture with maybe 5-7 FPS lower than ATI cards, and we are talking in the 80+ FPS ranges. Techniacally anything past 60 FPS is not noticeable, but I beg to differ, and know better.
As far as the SLI versus Single card solution, here are the facts... V-Ram, if you have one card with 2gb RAM, and Two other cards with 2gb of V-RAM a piece, you still only have access to 2gb V-RAM with the two cards.. "PERIOD"
NOW, if you are talking lets say if there was Single card with a single GPU, and it was a version higher lets say for example if there was a 698, and it had 1500MHZ clock, and 3gb V-Ram, and you had 2 fictional 697 with 950MHZ clock and 3gb V-RAM a piece in SLI, which setup do you think would perfom better, now realize this, the dedicated shader clock no longer exists.. Answer me this.
SLI the two lower version cards, or the single GPU with higher clock..?? Power draw and heat are not considerations for anyone else other than rank amatuers, and if you are wondering whether or not you have enough cooling, or AMPS on your rail to power your cards, then you don't need to be in any debate about video cards period... If 1200 watts and 100 AMPS won't do the job, then you have more money than brains. And if you are running a 550 watt dual rail PSU, and you think you are going SLI, then forget it, "BROWN_OUT"
So the question still stands..SLI the two lower version cards, or the single GPU with higher clock..??

Edited by Odins Fist, 09 June 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

Odins Fist, on 09 June 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

ATI has been a decent rival, and don't get me wrong I have run AMD CPU and MOBO since forever, "BUT" Nvidia has always had better drivers, they have always paid for the agreements for access to game code to properly address issues for drivers, and ATI, now owned by AMD has not always done so. I still have 2-8600gt, 2-8800gt, 2-9800gtx+, and 2-GTX 260-216 core cards that "ALL" still run to this day..
I have seen "BAD" drivers from ATI, over, and over, and over agian, the only bad driver sets I ever had from Nvidia were "BETA DRIVERS"
I always expect "NEW" series of video cards to have driver issues from "FIRST" release, but Nvidia always takes care fo the problem "FIRST".
BFBC2-PC.. ATI drivers, black blobs and black screen for 2 weeks, Nvidia 2 days after release fixed any issues, etc, etc, etc..
The Nvidia 5 series at launch, very little time to driver fixes, AMD/ATI 6 and 7 series much longer.. ATI cards always try to show better frame rates, but Nvidia "ALWAYS" showed better quality of picture with maybe 5-7 FPS lower than ATI cards, and we are talking in the 80+ FPS ranges. Techniacally anything past 60 FPS is not noticeable, but I beg to differ, and know better.
As far as the SLI versus Single card solution, here are the facts... V-Ram, if you have one card with 2gb RAM, and Two other cards with 2gb of V-RAM a piece, you still only have access to 2gb V-RAM with the two cards.. "PERIOD"
NOW, if you are talking lets say if there was Single card with a single GPU, and it was a version higher lets say for example if there was a 698, and it had 1500MHZ clock, and 3gb V-Ram, and you had 2 fictional 697 with 950MHZ clock and 3gb V-RAM a piece in SLI, which setup do you think would perfom better, now realize this, the dedicated shader clock no longer exists.. Answer me this.
SLI the two lower version cards, or the single GPU with higher clock..?? Power draw and heat are not considerations for anyone else other than rank amatuers, and if you are wondering whether or not you have enough cooling, or AMPS on your rail to power your cards, then you don't need to be in any debate about video cards period... If 1200 watts and 100 AMPS won't do the job, then you have more money than brains. And if you are running a 550 watt dual rail PSU, and you think you are going SLI, then forget it, "BROWN_OUT"
So the question still stands..SLI the two lower version cards, or the single GPU with higher clock..??

Few things...
First; AMD drivers != ATI drivers. One of the best things ATI did was getting bought by AMD, and their quality of drivers have become much better. They're nearly on par with Nvidia, though Nvidia tends to get rid of issues first.
Second; AMD Xfire has better scaling than Nvidia SLI, although SLI has fewer issue games.
Third; Microstutter with Xfire and SLI...

[Odins Fist]

@Vulpesveritas..To respond... I already knew that AMD bought out ATI... But their drivers only improved marginally, example (BF3-PC).
As far a scalling, those are almost always theoretical benchmarks that are used, and I have seen very limited FPS advantage of Crossfire over SLI, to the point that confers no advantage over SLI period, and I will explain that in a second. But I agree they seem to scale a tiny bit better.
Direct X-11 aside, I have run two aging GTX 260-216 core cards against 2 6850 ATI (Saphire) cards in crossfire, Direct X-9, and 10 games, and not that it matters but also in the W.E.I., (windows experience score). With the GTX 260 cards "I" beat the ATI 6850 in both realms.
In fact at first game install the 6850 with newly updated set of drivers couldn't even play Sup Com Forged Alliance, the drivers had to be rolled back to a previous version Nvidia cards didn't need to do so. Also the Nvidia 560 Ti in SLI did the exact same thing to the ATI 6850 in Crossfire, not quite an equal match up, but the results were evident... I wonder why Nvidia cards both older and equal deal with older version of Direct X or code, better than ATI cards..?? It seems to me for reliability and compatibility, Nvidia has always had a better standing, and ATI has always been behind. I will save the CUDA cores vs Stream Proccessing units alone for now, and don't get me wrong ATI makes decent cards, but I have seen problem after problem with ATI drivers, and their performance claims fall short in real world experience. You can call me a fanboy, and that is ok, but for my customers I always recommend Nvidia cards, especially if the customer is the (I want to hit the button and make it go) type of person. With the lower power consumption, and the dedicated shader clock being done away with in the Nvidia 6 series, it's almost a no brainer over ATI at this point for me, but I would not count AMD/ATI down and out at this point, you never know the AMD APU may be the Nvidia killer.. LOL not.... B.T.W, after the AMD P.R dept. said that AMD was getting out of the "HIGH" end CPU market, I will be jumping ship form AMD to Intel after my Sabertooth 990FX and Crosshair V 990FX mobos coupled with Phenom II CPUs get a few months older... I never bought the FX-series Crapdozers, they were a failure to put it mildly, the only problem is, I bought the 990FX mobos before the Bulldozer release... I guess I got lucky and didn't pull the trigger right away on the FX-8150, but I read the engineering sample reports on benchmarks, and said.. NOPE.

[Vulpesveritas]

Odins Fist, on 09 June 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

@Vulpesveritas..To respond... I already knew that AMD bought out ATI... But their drivers only improved marginally, example (BF3-PC).
As far a scalling, those are almost always theoretical benchmarks that are used, and I have seen very limited FPS advantage of Crossfire over SLI, to the point that confers no advantage over SLI period, and I will explain that in a second. But I agree they seem to scale a tiny bit better.
Direct X-11 aside, I have run two aging GTX 260-216 core cards against 2 6850 ATI (Saphire) cards in crossfire, Direct X-9, and 10 games, and not that it matters but also in the W.E.I., (windows experience score). With the GTX 260 cards "I" beat the ATI 6850 in both realms.
In fact at first game install the 6850 with newly updated set of drivers couldn't even play Sup Com Forged Alliance, the drivers had to be rolled back to a previous version Nvidia cards didn't need to do so. Also the Nvidia 560 Ti in SLI did the exact same thing to the ATI 6850 in Crossfire, not quite an equal match up, but the results were evident... I wonder why Nvidia cards both older and equal deal with older version of Direct X or code, better than ATI cards..?? It seems to me for reliability and compatibility, Nvidia has always had a better standing, and ATI has always been behind. I will save the CUDA cores vs Stream Proccessing units alone for now, and don't get me wrong ATI makes decent cards, but I have seen problem after problem with ATI drivers, and their performance claims fall short in real world experience. You can call me a fanboy, and that is ok, but for my customers I always recommend Nvidia cards, especially if the customer is the (I want to hit the button and make it go) type of person. With the lower power consumption, and the dedicated shader clock being done away with in the Nvidia 6 series, it's almost a no brainer over ATI at this point for me, but I would not count AMD/ATI down and out at this point, you never know the AMD APU may be the Nvidia killer.. LOL not.... B.T.W, after the AMD P.R dept. said that AMD was getting out of the "HIGH" end CPU market, I will be jumping ship form AMD to Intel after my Sabertooth 990FX and Crosshair V 990FX mobos coupled with Phenom II CPUs get a few months older... I never bought the FX-series Crapdozers, they were a failure to put it mildly, the only problem is, I bought the 990FX mobos before the Bulldozer release... I guess I got lucky and didn't pull the trigger right away on the FX-8150, but I read the engineering sample reports on benchmarks, and said.. NOPE.

What, you won't want to go to Vishera given Trinity's improvements on IPC that have already been shown in the demo laptops? Without L3 cache or the upcoming tweaks? It would save you money on a motherboard swap too..
Also, note your saying the 560ti is being faster than two Radeon HD 6850s in Xfire.. no duh. A 560ti is $100 more. As for your 260s... I have no clue as to why you would be getting that kind of performance out of them.
Personally, I have had no issues whatsoever with ATI or AMD drivers, and I've been using them for years.

Also, there is a sizable difference in scaling of about 20% in dual GPU and 10% in 3 GPU. (albeit with last gen GPUs)

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 09 June 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Aniquilator6]

Trinity's improvements on the IPC front is good news regarding Vishera.

If priced right and with an enough performance bump over Bulldozer, it just might become competitive on the price/performance segment.
Adding this to the amount of AM3+ users that bought a Phenom II (which is a very capable CPU as well) waiting for a Bulldozer CPU and Vishera just might have a chance to shine and recover some ground for AMD.
Let's just hope it doesn't come out too close to Intel's Haswell or it will have a harder time.

On-Topic - This new HD7970 v2 looks like what AMD should have launched in the first place to hold the performance crown longer. Still, it the HD7970 v1 had no competition when launched so it's understandable.

Cheers