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.

20 of 281 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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.
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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.
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!
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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: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
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: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.
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.