AMD Radeon HD 7970 Launched, Fastest GPU Tested

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD Radeon HD 7970 Launched, Fastest GPU Tested

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 22, 2011 @05:21AM from the that's-rent-in-some-towns dept.

MojoKid writes "Rumors of AMD's Southern Island family of graphics processors have circulated for some time, though today AMD is officially announcing their latest flagship single-GPU graphics card, the Radeon HD 7970. AMD's new Tahiti GPU is outfitted with 2,048 stream processors with a 925MHz engine clock, featuring AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture, paired to 3GB of GDDR5 memory connected over a 384-bit wide memory bus. And yes, it's crazy fast as you'd expect and supports DX11.1 rendering. In the benchmarks, the new Radeon HD 7970 bests NVIDIA's fastest single GPU GeForce GTX 580 card by a comfortable margin of 15 — 20 percent and can even approach some dual GPU configurations in certain tests." PC Perspective has a similarly positive writeup. There are people who will pay $549 for a video card, and others who are just glad that the technology drags along the low-end offerings, too.

39 of 281 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This would be really cool... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

...if most PC games weren't just shitty console ports these days. If you spend over $150 on a graphics card you're an idiot.
1. Re:This would be really cool... by Hatta · 2011-12-22 05:29 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hush. Those idiots finance the advance of technology.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:This would be really cool... by Lumpy · 2011-12-22 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Says the idiot that only uses a PC for gaming.
  Adobe After Effects will use the GPU for rendering and image processing.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:This would be really cool... by jellomizer · 2011-12-22 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  I think it is an issue that most game graphics have reached a peak with the current rendering technology. Where you need exponential work (In man power) to get a linear improvement.
  
  Black and White text... All find and good until we need a graph.
  Back and White graphics... Now only if it could do color.
  CGA... What bad colors.
  EGA... Looking a lot better if only we could get some shading and skin tones.
  VGA... Enough visible colors to make realistic pictures. But a higher resolution will make it better.
  SVGA... (The first good peak) OK static images are looking good, we can watch movies, but game animation is limited and 3d is getting popular.
  3d cards. if we could get more polygons per second... More textures... Alpha Channels... Smoothing...
  That is where we are now. Right now we have reached a limitation where we can display what we want to display. However the next steps will require new rendering methods that make graphics easier to create.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
4. Re:This would be really cool... by LordLimecat · 2011-12-22 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Arent you way better off with a workstation card for most workstation loads? From what Ive read, a GTX or ATI HD makes for a poor CAD or Adobe machine.
5. Re:This would be really cool... by Endo13 · 2011-12-22 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  Not true. You just have to find the sweet spot of performance/$. My current card (I think it's a 6870 but I'd have to double-check to be sure) cost less than $150 a couple months ago and runs Witcher 2 quite smoothly with high settings. Haven't tried BF3.
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
6. Re:This would be really cool... by Lumpy · 2011-12-22 05:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Nope. Bang for buck this new card kicks the butt hard of the Workstation cards.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:This would be really cool... by P-niiice · 2011-12-22 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a console gamer, but I would prefer more balance; it's too console-leaning right now and we haven't gotten any real advancement in gaming for a long time. Consoles keep the developers and publishers afloat, and great PC games would temper devs and force them to add more depth to games....although that didn't help Oblivion and Skyrim (I love those games, but they lost some of the nerd-appeal of Morrowind).
8. Re:This would be really cool... by durrr · 2011-12-22 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's the fastest GPU in the known universe! surely it have to be worth something!
9. Re:This would be really cool... by billcopc · 2011-12-22 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Depends on the type of processing. GTX and Radeon cards artificially limit their double-precision performance to 1/4 of their capabilities, to protect the high-margin workstation SKUs. If all you're doing is single-precision math, you're fine with a gaming card.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
10. Re:This would be really cool... by Bengie · 2011-12-22 06:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ray Tracing!!!
  We're also capped right now because of too many single-threaded game engines. A given thread can only push so many objects to the GPU at a time. Civ5 and BF3, being the first games to make use of deferred shading and other DX11 multi-threading abilities, can have lots of objects on the screen with decent FPS.
  The biggest issue I have with nearly all of my games is my ATI6950 is at 20%-60% load and only getting sub 60fps, while my CPU has one core pegged. My FPS isn't CPU limited, it's thread limited.
11. Re:This would be really cool... by anonymov · 2011-12-22 07:14 · Score: 2
  
  This small step up for texture dimensions won't give much impact on modern hardware, and from a bit of testing Skyrim seems to be mostly CPU/VS limited, not pixel shading limited, anyways.
Overpowerful. by unity100 · 2011-12-22 05:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Due to console gaming retarding pcs.

im on single radeon 6950 (unlocked to 6970 by bios flash), and i am doing 5040x1050 res (3 monitor eyefinity) on swtor (the old republic), all settings full, and with 30-40 fps on average, and 25 fps+ on coruscant (coruscant is waaaaaaay too big).

same for skyrim. i even have extra graphics mods on skyrim, fxaa injector etc (injected bloom into game) this that.

so, top gpu of the existing generation (before any idiot jumps in to talk about 6990 being the top offering from ati ill let you know that 6990 is 2 6970s in crossfire, and 6950 gpu is just 6970 gpu with 38 or so shaders locked down via bios and underclocked - ALL are the same chip), is not only able to play the newest graphics-heavy games in max settings BUT also do it on 3 monitor eyefinity resolution.

one word. consoles. optional word : retarding.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:Overpowerful. by parlancex · 2011-12-22 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ... 30-40 fps on average, and 25 fps+ on coruscant (coruscant is waaaaaaay too big). same for skyrim...
  Looks like PCs isn't the only thing gaming consoles have been retarding. Most PC gamers would have considered 25 fps nearly unplayable, and 30-40 FPS highly undesirable before the proliferation of poor frame rates in modern console games. There are still many of us that are unsatisfied with that level of performance, but are unwilling to compromise graphics quality.
2. Re:Overpowerful. by Warma · 2011-12-22 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  This is highly a matter of preference. I feel that 25fps is just flat out unplayable and anything under 60 is distracting and annoying. I believe that most gamers would agree. I always cut detail and effects to get 60fps, even if this means the game will look like shit. Framerate is life.
  So no, based on your description, the top of the previous generation is NOT able to play those games in the environment you defined. You would need around twice the GPU power for that. The benchmarks suggest that 7970 won't cut it either.
3. Re:Overpowerful. by rodrigoandrade · 2011-12-22 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, it's really a shame that 30 fps became an acceptable framerate for games nowadays, thanks to crappy underpowered consoles.
  Funny, however, is that back in 1999 (Dreamcast days) any console game that didn't run at a solid 60 fps was considered a potential flop.
  This framerate crap is one of the many reasons I'll never go back to console gaming.
  Times change, no?
4. Re:Overpowerful. by Warma · 2011-12-22 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No need to use strong language and unbacked opinions. You are simply incorrect.
  Put two FPS players of similar skill in front of a computer. Configure the computers so that the other shows 30fps and the other shows 60fps (easy to do in Quake and most other shooters). No matter what you may hope for the truth to be, the player with the 60fps display will have an enormous advantage.
  It is extremely easy to test this yourself, just go play a game and record your performance by some metric while alternating the frame rates. I am willing to test it with you, if you wish.
5. Re:Overpowerful. by anonymov · 2011-12-22 06:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You keep talking about "research", may be _you_ care to provide a research that shows "24 fps should be enough for everyone"? (hint: it's not, and it's the reason for current studies for 50p/60p/72p film and television).
  Why, you can just go here http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/ and tell us "I don't see any difference". And then we'll just tell you to visit your eye doctor.
6. Re:Overpowerful. by Bengie · 2011-12-22 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  I use to play software rendered Quake @ 320x200 8bit color and sub 20fps.
  This is what it feels like to play on consoles, when coming from PC. Flat lighting, crappy models, poor special effects, and a FPS that makes it feel like I'm roller skating with a strobe light.
7. Re:Overpowerful. by Warma · 2011-12-22 07:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Human eye does not see in frames per second. It has a certain data transfer speed, and the way brains process the information is also not as discrete as you might want to wish.
  For example, the flicker fusion point (inability to distinguish alternating black and white images) is somewhere around 60fps and the army has done experiments on showing images for a very short time to see whether they could be identified by pilots. The shortest intervals were way less than those postulated even by the flicker fusion point. It also matters greatly how large amount the object moves in your absolute field of vision between frames for your brain to understand motion and simulate smooth movement. Your brain has interpolation algorithms that piece together information streams to form smooth motion.
  This has some information, but not many references: http://www.100fps.com/
  Wikipedia has more stuff and it's a starting point to look for research. Here's some by BBC on fast-moving objects in sports: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
  Also, you can test the difference of 30 and 60 fps here: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
  At least to me, it is blatantly evident.
  You were wrong, and acted like an ass over it towards me and other posters. Will you please apologize and shut up?
8. Re:Overpowerful. by nschubach · 2011-12-22 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The argument for 60fps isn't about genetically engineered people. It's about spikes. If you are running your game at 30FPS, you'll turn a corner or some monsters spawn in the next room that drop your FPS below that. The reason people want high frame rates is because of these spikes.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
9. Re:Overpowerful. by ponos · 2011-12-22 08:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You silly newb. HDMI uses 24fps for compatibility reasons and the initial decision was probably based on an quality-cost tradeoff back in the days when actual film was used and the NTSC/PAL specifications were defined. Using 60fps would mean that the tape would last half the time, for example. There is the famous "notion" that eyes cannot see over 24fps, but in fact eyes are very sensitive to some kinds of motion, colors and contrast and less sensitive to others, so you cannot generalise that 24fps is "enough" for all kinds of motion, image and people (ye, people are different too). Furthermore, even if the above were not true, in fact you need an average of at least 50-60 fps in most games to ensure that the MINIMUM will not go below 30fps, which is not only visible but also implies a between-frame reaction time of 30ms (plus ping, plus input lag, plus keyoard lag etc). In hardcore-land this mean PWNAGE for you and your silly rig.
10. Re:Overpowerful. by inasity_rules · 2011-12-22 17:46 · Score: 2
  
  Actually the flicker on those monitors was often traceable back to the flicker from the lights; when the 50/60hz mains '0' coincided with a scan rate, the flicker becomes obvious. It wasn't so much the refresh rate, but the fact that there was an interference pattern. At higher frequencies, the phosphor had less time to fade, so the dip in brightness became less obvious(except at low ambient light levels...). Remember a LCD has no fading effect,so much lower frequencies are now acceptable.
  However, he is wrong. The human eye can perceive all sorts of things. Often you won't be able to say what it is, but it is annoying and can cause headaches. 24fps can be compensated for in various ways - immersion, and using synced sound to distract the brain from the flicker. If the person is talking and the sound comes at the right time, your brain will smooth it out for you...
  
  --
  I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes yes.. Rendering yada yada. How many Mhash/s does it average when bitcoin mining? And what is the Mhash/Joule ratio?
Linux Driver State? by chill · 2011-12-22 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

What is the state of Linux drivers for AMD graphics cards? I haven't checked in a few years, since the closed-source nVidia ones provide for excellent 3D performance and I'm happy with that.
But, I'm in the market for a new graphics card and wonder if I can look at AMD/ATI again.
No, I'm not willing to install Windows for the one or two games I play. For something like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, (modified Quake 3 engine), how does AMD stack up on Linux?

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
1. Re:Linux Driver State? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-22 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They suck just like they always have. But don't feel left out, they suck on Windows as well.
  ATI/AMD may at times make the fastest hardware but their Acillies Heel has and apparently always will be their sucky drivers. The hardware is no good if you can't use it.
  They need to stop letting hardware engineers write their drivers and get some people that know what they are doing in there. They need solid drivers for Windows, Linux, and a good OpenGL implementation. Until then they can never be taken seriously with their broke-ass software.
2. Re:Linux Driver State? by drinkypoo · 2011-12-22 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  The almost-but-not-quite-latest card is generally fairly well-supported by fglrx. If your card is old enough to be supported by ati then it may work but it probably won't support all its features. You're far better off with nvidia if you want to do gaming.
  Every third card or so I try another AMD card, and wish I hadn't immediately. Save yourself.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Linux Driver State? by div_2n · 2011-12-22 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  The closed drivers have serious quality issues with major regressions seemingly every other release.
  The open drivers are making great strides, but the performance isn't there yet for newer cards. If you are using a pre-HD series card, you'll find pretty decent performance that often beats the closed driver.
  Based on the progress I've seen over the last year, I would expect the performance for this new series of cards to be acceptable in a year or so for the simple fact that as they finish the code for older cards, much of the code base will help improve performance for newer ones.
  http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
4. Re:Linux Driver State? by karolbe · 2011-12-22 07:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  State of ATI/AMD drivers on Linux is rather poor, much worse than nVidia. My recommendation is to stay away from AMD GPUs if you plan to use Linux. If you are looking for more details about AMD & Linux read this article on Phoronix: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_ayir_2011&num=1
What bugs me most by Psicopatico · 2011-12-22 06:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why card manufacturers utilize (rightfully) new manufacture processes (28nm transistors) only to push higher performances?
Why the hell don't they re-issue a, say, 8800GT with the newer technology, getting a fraction of the original power consumption and heat dissipation?
*That* would be a card I'd buy in a snap.
Until then, I'm happy with my faithful 2006's card.

--
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
1. Re:What bugs me most by jandrese · 2011-12-22 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is that speed is only one part of the equation. that 8800GT only supports DX10.0. DX10.1 games may run, but you'll find them crashing after awhile unless the developer was very careful (they were not). DX11 games won't work at all.
  
  You're much better off with a modern card that just has fewer execution units if you want to save money. They won't be out right away (the first release is always near the top end), but they will eventually show up. Since you're worried about saving money/power, you don't want to be an early adopter anyway. Oftentimes the very first releases will have worse power/performance ratios than the respins of the same board a few months down the road.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
But can it run Unity without lag? by captrb · 2011-12-22 06:02 · Score: 2

But can it run Unity on two screens without lag? I suspect that whatever video card I buy, the modern Linux dualhead display will feel slower than it did in 2005 :-/
Re:It's too bad... by Dr.+Spork · 2011-12-22 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Which version are you having trouble with? Are you sure that you're not just mindlessly repeating a 7 year old meme? Are you also one of the people who switched to Chrome because "Firefox uses too much memory" when simple tests show that Chrome uses more? I know it feels like you're a part of the club when you repeat what you hear from the other club members. But don't confuse groupthink with truth - especially when it comes to the quickly-changing world of tech.
Re:switched to radeon, not thrilled. by jandrese · 2011-12-22 06:29 · Score: 2

Those freezes are probably the driver crashing and resetting itself. It used to be that a driver crash brought down your whole system, but now they can do it in the background silently and all you'll notice is some stuttering (or a short freeze).

I suspect that ATI and nVidia have been able to use the silent-restart feature to sell more defective cards. If your system totally locks up every half hour when playing a game, you're going to return the card. If it freezes but then resumes silently you may be annoyed but not pin the blame on the card, and not be annoyed enough to actually take action. It could be the disk, motherboard, or something else too, you don't get an indication that it was a video card problem. The very first revisions of this feature used to pop up a box telling you what happened, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Only once have I splurged like that by billcopc · 2011-12-22 06:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Pretty sure today's mid-range PCs trounce 2007's high-end with ease.
Just for shits, when I got my current rig just a couple years ago, I played through Crysis again. On a single GTX260, it was butter smooth at 1680x1050. When I switched to quad-SLI 295's, it was butter-smooth in triple-wide surround.
People who continue to claim Crysis is an unoptimized mess are:
- not programmers
- not owners of high-end hardware
Could it be improved ? Sure. Is it the worst optimized game of the 21st century ? FUCK NO, not even close, and subsequent patches greatly improved the situation.

--
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Re:I don't get it. by chill · 2011-12-22 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because it was a question that people other than just me were curious about?
Did you read the entire post? Or did your head just explode when seeing "Linux" in a gaming thread?
nVidia already spends time on quality Linux graphics drivers. They run fine on both 32-bit and native 64-bit Linux systems. I was wondering if the AMD/ATI stuff had matured as well is all.
Take a valium and go back to getting your ass n00bed by 10-year-olds on BF or MW.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:switched to radeon, not thrilled. by Shatrat · 2011-12-22 07:26 · Score: 2

I'd recommend using OCCT to run a stability test on the card, and also note the temperatures and system voltages it hits when fully loaded.
What you're describing could also be an overheating issue or a power supply shortage. If the temperatures are approaching boiling, that's a problem. If the voltage drops significantly when your CPU and GPU scale up, that's also a bad sign.
Alternatively, yeah it could be crummy drivers.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Other Reviews by I.M.O.G. · 2011-12-22 07:30 · Score: 2

Where are the other review links?

http://www.overclockers.com/amd-radeon-hd-7970-graphics-card-review/
http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000250/#axzz1hFPj6oTt
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/49646-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review-25.html

--
Overclockers
Bitcoin by Rinisari · 2011-12-22 08:44 · Score: 2

What's the Bitcoin Mhash/sec?

--
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM