Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [The Inquirer] Nvidia's GTX680 gets thrashed by AMD's mid-range Radeon HD 7870 in GPU compute
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[The Inquirer] Nvidia's GTX680 gets thrashed by AMD's mid-range Radeon HD 7870 in GPU compute - Page 16

post #151 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtom320 View Post

I gotta go with the people who says this doesn't matter much. I mean the VAST majority of people buying 680s are buying them for BF3 not some random compute program. I understand some of you do so in that case get a 7970 or whatever card is going to do you best in it.
The real funny in all this though is that both the 7970 *and* 680 are 30% at best faster then a 580. You ask me both these cards are not nearly as impressive as they were supposed to be. I can't tell you how surprised after months of rumors I was the 680 was only 15% faster then the 7970 and at high resolutions was basically the same card. I believe the difference at 1600p was 5%? What a letdown.
So yeah in this post I made both the Nvidia fanboys mad *and* the OpenCL enthusiasts. Now everyone can pile on. thumb.gif

The 7970 was by no means a disappointment. People around here just have their expectations set a little too high. Also, the reason why I definitely am more impressed with the GTX 680 is because of its per/watt ratio. This is a mid-range card going head to head with the competitions flag ship and beating it. Handily! Big win for Nvidia with its Kepler architecture. thumb.gif
post #152 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by LameNerd View Post

The 7970 was by no means a disappointment. People around here just have their expectations set a little too high. Also, the reason why I definitely am more impressed with the GTX 680 is because of its per/watt ratio. This is a mid-range card going head to head with the competitions flag ship and beating it. Handily! Big win for Nvidia with its Kepler architecture. thumb.gif

Sorry but 5% at 1600p is a dissapointment. It's not like at 1080p either card isn't fast enough for anyone. High resolution is where these cards should really be tested and both are underwhelming.

30% faster then a 580 best case scenario for both cards is not what we were reading even two months ago. The 680 was supposed to be 50% faster then the 7970.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k (EK Supremacy Evo) *4.7 @ 1.312 Asus Maximus VIII gene GTX 1080 FE (EK nickel/plexi)* 2075/5401 16gb Corsair 3200  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 950pro M.2 256gb Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Steam Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Other Apps EK Res 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK pump top XSPC EX 360 XSPC EX 240 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine 3 TKL  EVGA 650 Fractal Arc Mini 2 G303 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6700k (EK Supremacy Evo) *4.7 @ 1.312 Asus Maximus VIII gene GTX 1080 FE (EK nickel/plexi)* 2075/5401 16gb Corsair 3200  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung 950pro M.2 256gb Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Steam Samsung 850 Evo - 512 - Other Apps EK Res 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK pump top XSPC EX 360 XSPC EX 240 10 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine 3 TKL  EVGA 650 Fractal Arc Mini 2 G303 
  hide details  
Reply
post #153 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humafold View Post

Quote:
why is the source link linking back to here?
Because the source of the source is the source.

lolololol tongue.gif
post #154 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtom320 View Post

I gotta go with the people who says this doesn't matter much. I mean the VAST majority of people buying 680s are buying them for BF3 not some random compute program. I understand some of you do so in that case get a 7970 or whatever card is going to do you best in it.
The real funny in all this though is that both the 7970 *and* 680 are 30% at best faster then a 580. You ask me both these cards are not nearly as impressive as they were supposed to be. I can't tell you how surprised after months of rumors I was the 680 was only 15% faster then the 7970 and at high resolutions was basically the same card. I believe the difference at 1600p was 5%? What a letdown.
So yeah in this post I made both the Nvidia fanboys mad *and* the OpenCL enthusiasts. Now everyone can pile on. thumb.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtom320 View Post

Sorry but 5% at 1600p is a dissapointment. It's not like at 1080p either card isn't fast enough for anyone. High resolution is where these cards should really be tested and both are underwhelming.
30% faster then a 580 best case scenario for both cards is not what we were reading even two months ago. The 680 was supposed to be 50% faster then the 7970.[/quote]

GK110 was supposed to be the "real" GTX 680, and that's where a lot the crazy 50% rumors were coming from. The leaked slides a few months ago showing the GK104 being about 25-40% faster than the 580 turned out to be true after all.
post #155 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agenesis View Post

Quadros isn't gonna sell itself.

Hit it right on the head there.
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
Snowdevil
(16 items)
 
ASUS G750JM
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
[i7 4790K @ 4.4 GHz (1.186v)] [Asus Sabertooth Z97 Mark S] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] [nVidia Geforce GTX 1080] 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
[G.Skill 32GB DDR3 2133 MHz] [Crucial MX100 256GB] [Phanteks PH-TC12DX] [Win 10.1 Pro] 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
[LG 29UM65 (2560x1080)] [QNIX Evo II LED (2560x1440)] [WASD v2 Tenkeyless] [NZXT Hale90 v2 ] 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
[ThermalTake GT10 Snow Edition] [Razer Mamba - Chroma] [Razer Kabuto] [Razer Man O' War] 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770HQ Intel HM87 Express Chipset Geforce GTX 860M 8GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung SSD EVO DVD-RW Stock Windows 8.1 
Monitor
1920x1080 TN 
  hide details  
Reply
post #156 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlademaster01 View Post

True that.
Well, there's no need to feel sorry for us since this article does nothing but make an attempt to crush the postive reactions to the GTX 680. AMD has about zero of the market at our university, not because their architecture is bad but because of the support through drivers and the fact that OpenCL is not used by most of the important software. Go ahead and code in OpenCL for GCN and by the time we arrive in 2013 HD9k uses GXN and needs different instructions, there's almost no support either since there are too many vendors.
What Duckie says is true, however this information says nothing about CUDA performance. The thing is, I read that nVidia did in fact increase the performance of the shaders vs Fermi. You just need to give them the time to release some drivers. nVidia is not going to abandon the ecosystem they've created and that is superior to OpenCL.
Going off topic. I find it ironic how nobody ever cared about the compute power going through the drain when Cayman came out. I think we can add this to the list of needing an enourmous amount of VRAM (preferably far too much) and that tesselation does not matter at all. Everything the Radeon architecture excels in is absolutely necessary and excellent design management of course.

I beg to differ, In my college engineering department we use nothing but AMD, and are more than pleased with it.
Dynamix
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-860 Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4P Radeon 7970 Corsair Domintor Twins + Other = 16 Gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Black, 500gb OCZ Solid 3 Sony Optiarc Corsair H50 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate Samsung P2570HD + Other Logitech G110 Corsair 750W HX 
CaseMouse
Antec p183 Logitech MX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
Dynamix
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-860 Gigabyte GA-P55A-UD4P Radeon 7970 Corsair Domintor Twins + Other = 16 Gb 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Black, 500gb OCZ Solid 3 Sony Optiarc Corsair H50 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate Samsung P2570HD + Other Logitech G110 Corsair 750W HX 
CaseMouse
Antec p183 Logitech MX Revolution 
  hide details  
Reply
post #157 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Ahhhh, there lies your answer Einstein. Nvidia prices these cards for a reason...

I know what these cards are... but the fact is that they all use the same GPU.... and you can sometimes bypass the firmware locks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sergionography View Post

you buy quadro because it comes with quadro drivers, without it you dont get the gpu acceleration for professional apps.
not to mention quadro come with much more vram, thats very important in the design field, try rendering architectural designs in huge resolutions and you will realize very fast how important it is to have atleast 4gb or ram for comfort. 2gb is like very average but acceptable tho
i used a gtx 460 to render before and it took forever, mostly because geforce drivers didnt support gpu acceleration for the software i was using(not to mention i was restricted in resolutions as well
nvidia takes the professional graphics business more seriously than amd in my opinion, thats why they make sure they dont slap too much vram in their gaming cards so their professional cards stay appealing and stand out, 1.5gb for 580 and now 2gb, enough for gaming, but minimal for professional design wink.gif
However, there is more than just professional graphics... there's GPGPU as well. Some GPGPU applications may not require the extra RAM.

We have to wait to see some CUDA benchmarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen00 View Post

I beg to differ, In my college engineering department we use nothing but AMD, and are more than pleased with it.
However, NVIDIA is more GPGPU marketshare in general.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #158 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

I'm pretty sure that the Geforce line of cards are designed with gaming primarily in mind. I'm also quite sure that the massive majority of buyers are using their cards mostly if not strictly for gaming. Dumping on the 680 because it may not do certain AMD-based GPU-Compute tasks so great is like saying you are disappointed with a Ferrari because it doesn't haul a trailer full of Lamborghinis very well! If your job or school (or whatever other made-up crap you claim to need this for) really demands that kind of processing Nvidia makes a line of Professional GPU's just for you:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jprovido View Post

not a fan of kepler but who gives a rat ass about compute power? well at least I don't. I just want more fpssssssss

Oh don't ask that question. You're about to be bombarded by literally a couple of OCN wizards who, of course, must use their Geforce cards to do great important works that are far too complicated for us mere mortals to understand. Therefore Nvidia should cater to only them and the fact that the card beats a 7970 in what it was designed to do is still considered a total fail...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post


Ahhhh, there lies your answer Einstein. Nvidia prices these cards for a reason...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrbroad77 View Post

Well, that and Nvidia purposefully cripples OpenGL performance on their GeForce cards; to the point where AMD has laptop graphics cards that are better at OpenGL (see: SpecviewPerf11 benches.). Now, there are a lot of high school and college students with laptops/desktops and such that can't afford Quadro cards just to get decent performance for CAD modeling, and they're pretty much forced to go AMD if they want decent gaming performance and good OpenGL performance. Quadro provides neither.

Well cry me another sob story about these poor students. They are not the market that Nvidia is trying to sell Geforce GAMING cards to. If they lose a few hundred out of a hundred thousand customers because of that, well, they must have thoroughly studied the ramifications for that and determined that the loss was inconsequential. In other words, AMD can have them....


First of all, what is with your tone? No one is being snide with you but you have all these smug little insults built into all your posts, it is completely unnecessary.

Secondly, nobody is hating on the gtx 680, some of us are just interested in the Compute performance as well as gaming. We all understand that the card is primarily for gaming, I am not disputing that.

Also, there are far more students looking into cards like this for, CSE, Engineering, Drafting, Chemistry, Physics apps then you might imagine. Definitely more than hundreds.

Your posts show a complete unwillingness to even comprehend a different viewpoint...
If these results are true, depending on actual CUDA performance, it is a factor to some buyers.

Regardless of how you feel, that is a fact. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
Edited by Biorganic - 3/21/12 at 9:35am
 
Fat HTPC
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700k Asrock Z77 extreme 4 Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 8 GB gskill ripX 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung F3 WD 500 Blue ASUS 212+ 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win7 x64 Prof ASUS AS248H-P LG 21.5 1080p Keys of Boardness 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
XFX 750W XXX Antec 300, fanned out! Death Adder Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
AudioAudio
Xonar Dg Superlux HD 668B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 955 ASUS M4A785T-M XFX HD 5670 1 GB Crucial Ballistix 2x2 GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD 500 Green Hyper 212+  Win 7 x64 Prof antec earthwatts 650 
Case
NZXT source 210 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Fat HTPC
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700k Asrock Z77 extreme 4 Sapphire HD 7950 Boost 8 GB gskill ripX 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung F3 WD 500 Blue ASUS 212+ 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Win7 x64 Prof ASUS AS248H-P LG 21.5 1080p Keys of Boardness 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
XFX 750W XXX Antec 300, fanned out! Death Adder Klipsch Promedia 2.1 
AudioAudio
Xonar Dg Superlux HD 668B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II 955 ASUS M4A785T-M XFX HD 5670 1 GB Crucial Ballistix 2x2 GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
WD 500 Green Hyper 212+  Win 7 x64 Prof antec earthwatts 650 
Case
NZXT source 210 
  hide details  
Reply
post #159 of 186
Nvidia said, a long time ago, that it was going to drop double precision FP on it's consumer guides. If you want an Nvidia card for scientific and engineering reasons, you buy a Quadro card.

This is no surprise at all.
post #160 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Guys who make millions of dollars a year trading billions of dollars a day do....
Guys who find oil worth billions do...
Guys who want to research to advance humanity's knowledge do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jprovido View Post

i dont give a **** about them. im in a tech site because I play games. if they make a lot of money like what you say and help humanity then they shouldn't be wasting their times in a tech site arguing about graphics cards to begin with. they should stop wasting their time and make more money
...

Independent of the thread topic, you shouldn't assume that all the people on OCN are gamers. I would say that most of them are tech enthusiasts, and technology can be used to do a hell of a lot more than play games!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatalrip View Post

That's just because you don't have a sandy bridge. My 570 gets 22k ppd and my 2600k does 30-33k doing smps and i uses way less power doing so.
They are separating their video card markets if you want professional non game related performance you do not buy the gaming card. That being said the video card is no slouch in these areas, but it is clear that nvidia focused more on tessellation performance as well as high res multi monitor setups with their new generation.
Those seem like believable numbers - I'd agree that most of the i7 sandy bridges should be able to outdo a similarly priced, or even higher priced GPU while folding. However, I'd still like a high end card that can fold and play games. The point is to make use of every little bit of computing power that you have - squeeze out every last FLOP. And if I'm going to spend $500 for a video card, I expect it to have both exceptional gaming performance and high level computing power. I want my cake, and I'm going to eat it too.

Meh... I spent seventeen pages trying to figure out exactly what's going on, and I'm still not entirely sure. All of this rumoring makes me uncomfortable - let's wait until they're available to the general public.
Coraima
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k (4.5Ghz@1.328) ASUS Maximus Extreme-Z MSI GTX 670 TF IV Corsair Vengeance  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Black 1TB Crucial M4 LITEON iHAS424 Corsair H100 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Home Premium HP x2301 Corsair AX750 CM HAF 932 Advanced 
  hide details  
Reply
Coraima
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2600k (4.5Ghz@1.328) ASUS Maximus Extreme-Z MSI GTX 670 TF IV Corsair Vengeance  
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Caviar Black 1TB Crucial M4 LITEON iHAS424 Corsair H100 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Home Premium HP x2301 Corsair AX750 CM HAF 932 Advanced 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [The Inquirer] Nvidia's GTX680 gets thrashed by AMD's mid-range Radeon HD 7870 in GPU compute