New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by sumitlian

Somebody call clocknut
Exactly This is why I only took practical flops in Titan according to Linpack CPU to CPU performance.Titan with GPUs is already Tianhe 2 killer considering there must be applications that can utilige those GPUs.Chinese Scientists: Wow we are on Top500 list We have almost become independent now.Intel CEO: (thinking) Chinese will be Chinese. It has just begun. Edit: No offence to Chinese, I was just kidding.I love Shaolin Temple and One of my favourite Martial Artist cum...
AMD FX-7600P notebook APU-> 2.7-3.6 GHz x86-64 Quad Cores with 4 MB L2 Cache-> An R7 class iGPU with 512 SPs, 32 TMUs and 8 ROPs running at 600-686 MHz core frequency-> TDP: 35 WattsTheoretically It was already faster than Nvidia GT 740M (Kepler) and GT 825M (Kepler).But due to limited memory bandwidth, these APUs don't perform much faster.But With HBM, it might literally hurt Nvidia in Notebook market.
Tianhe-2 - A Chinese SupercomputerCores: 3,120,000Linpack performance: 3,46,75,404.8 GFlop/sPower: 1,78,08,000 WattsEfficiency: 1.947 GFlops/WattTitan - A supercomputer Made in USACores: 2,99,008Linpack performance: 1,84,44,451.84 GFlop/sPower: 82,00,000 WattsEfficiency: 2.305 GFlops/wattEither Chinese need to optimize compiler for their Milky Way 2 OR they will have to admit that their supercomputer is not as efficient as former #1 Supercomputer "Titan" was.Titan (even...
Exactly ! These APUs are certainly going to hurt Nvidia in entry/mainstream notebook area.And desktop version of this APU will also hurt Nvidia's entry level GPU section.
This.Within 2 years ~1.5-2.0 TFLOPS in a 35w Quad Core mobile APU is inevitable.
But highly overclocked 290/x (1100-1200MHz) will consume much higher power, at least 130+ watts (rough guess) more than highly overclocked 970, and the resulting performance will be almost almost same that you can't detect any difference at all. Technically* 970 will always be a better GPU.But It is not that Nvidia magically gave us a better GPU, it is obvious that they had to make it faster than AMD's 1 year older GPUs to make their business run.*I don't know why is that...
Seriously guys I am bored with the same GTX 970 vs R9 290/X arguments. For now you don't need to defend R9 290/290X at all. Presently AMD have got no better GPU that beats GTX 970 at price, performance and power efficiency. I think everyone who is looking for a better GPU at this time should only buy GTX 970 unless you specifically use software most of the time that require compute power, even then you'll have to be confirmed if AMD is really superior or not in those apps.
This is why I said Everyone get what they pay for.
New Posts  All Forums: