Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: Radeon HD 7950 vs. GeForce GTX 680 On Linux

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baffledmollusc View Post
    Under Windows, the 680 is clearly a vastly better card in all respects. Michael's benchmarks suggest that, under linux, the 7950 outdoes the 680.

    What to take from this? I don't know. AMD has better linux drivers? Nvidia's turbo mode not functioning under linux, as suggested by chithanh?
    Well... the Windows vs. Ubuntu benchmarks for the GTX 680 were a bit of a mixed bag:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._windows&num=1

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Did someone say "food" ?

    LOL... at least you have humor

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,125

    Default

    I also think that NVidia compute apps generally run a lot faster in CUDA mode than OpenCL.

    I'm not sure if the app developers have just spent more time optimizing CUDA, or if it's something NVidia hasn't done much of yet. But I don't think you can just say that the AMD 79xx > NVidia at compute.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Shrinking down GCN to fit into an APU will inevitably kill most of the performance. A lot of what makes discrete cards blazingly fast is their:

    1. Large die size, which generates heat and requires advanced cooling, and which can't be done with an affordable CPU on the same die.

    2. Memory bandwidth (GDDR5 at high VRAM clock rates) which can't be done with much slower DDR3 system memory, even overclocked in the 2000+ MHz range. Although quad channel a la Sandy Bridge EP could probably help, but I don't think AMD is doing quad channel on any of their CPUs yet. Also the dedicated-ness of the VRAM prevents noisy CPU operations from keeping the memory controller busy with things like AI processing in games -- a dedicated card isn't impacted by that, but an integrated chip is.

    3. Power consumption, for which most existing CPU sockets are very limited (it's also limited by how much the motherboard and PSU are designed to support). The TDP of "high end" processors is still under 200W, while I've seen certain GPUs under load consume close to 500W! And typical is about 250W for a heavy load -- just for the GPU, mind you, and the APU has to also cover CPU functionality at the same time, with a MUCH smaller power budget.

    4. Board size; the supporting board around the GPU on a discrete card can implement a lot of functions that don't have to sit on the GPU die itself, freeing up room in the die for things that require extremely high bandwidth, like the shader cores. The "board" (the long piece that takes up 75% of the length of the card) has things like voltage regulators, memory modules and graphics headers for DisplayPort, etc. But an integrated chip has to either put this stuff on an already-crowded motherboard, or try to cram it into the CPU/APU and still get reasonable general purpose computing performance.

    I would probably be disappointed in whatever they ultimately offer up for GCN in an APU, because of these factors holding back its top-end performance. You may not be able to use all that power in HoN, but there are applications (current and upcoming) which can use it, and it's needed. Not to mention, as wine becomes faster and supports more apps, you can start to run high-end Windows games under emulation, which probably adds a performance penalty, so it's nice to have a high end card to power through it.
    we talk about 2013 amd will use 22nm or smaler also 2013 ddr4 ram will hit the mainstream market with 2500mhz and more also with ddr3 you can use ram like this: http://geizhals.at/783302 with 2666mhz
    even with the same die size you get more MHZ on the cpu and gpu APU because of 22nm but they will be bigger dies as well.
    also 256bit ram interface is on the AMD roadmap for the desktop in 2013 they can't go with 128bit interface forever.

    so what? then the "APU" do have 100% more speed than now will you still claim that its not faster?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I also think that NVidia compute apps generally run a lot faster in CUDA mode than OpenCL.

    I'm not sure if the app developers have just spent more time optimizing CUDA, or if it's something NVidia hasn't done much of yet. But I don't think you can just say that the AMD 79xx > NVidia at compute.
    i personally would prever AMD because "bitcoin" runs faster on AMD cards LOL

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baffledmollusc View Post
    Not sure this is correct - one of the most comprehensive Windows reviews I saw was Anand's: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/n...x-680-review/1

    They tested a large number of games, so of which were well-known to do well with Nvidia hardware, and some that were known to do well with AMD hardware. The 680 was (roughly) 0%-50% faster than the 7950 (the BF3 numbers are ridiculous), and often outdid the 7970.

    Under Windows, the 680 is clearly a vastly better card in all respects. Michael's benchmarks suggest that, under linux, the 7950 outdoes the 680.

    What to take from this? I don't know. AMD has better linux drivers? Nvidia's turbo mode not functioning under linux, as suggested by chithanh?
    Because Anandtech is oh so known to be the unbiased reviewer whose is the bastion of integrity and definitely not taking money from Intel and Nvidia... not... Try HardOCP or some other more legitimate reviewer site that's not to be considered in the same context as TheBrightSideOfNews http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._card_review/3

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,496

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Because Anandtech is oh so known to be the unbiased reviewer whose is the bastion of integrity and definitely not taking money from Intel and Nvidia... not... Try HardOCP or some other more legitimate reviewer site that's not to be considered in the same context as TheBrightSideOfNews http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._card_review/3
    Okay... but that shows that, on average, the 680 was faster than the 7970 at Mass Effect 3. I'm assuming the 7950 wouldn't fare much better.

    It wasn't just AnandTech though. Hexus.net, Tom's Hardware... it was pretty much across the board IIRC.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    920

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Okay... but that shows that, on average, the 680 was faster than the 7970 at Mass Effect 3. I'm assuming the 7950 wouldn't fare much better.

    It wasn't just AnandTech though. Hexus.net, Tom's Hardware... it was pretty much across the board IIRC.
    Not so fast, while single monitor other than Deus Ex gave Nvidia the lead (although the AMD card tended to have higher highs), Multimonitor which tests the extremes of what a card can do gave AMD the lead.

    It's also worth noting that GCN is a completely new architecture which they really haven't tuned all of the performance out of yet so tests from 3 months ago fail to give the whole story. So while Nvidia has probably gotten most of the performance out of their 680 because it's an evolutionary and a simplification step off of Fermi, AMD actually has some real play left in terms of optimization.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,622

    Default

    Yes AMD is still working on problems with the new design. In theory it has got a hardware h264 ENCODER like kepler but there is still no software that can access it.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjamin545 View Post
    if i was bridgeman i would even ever respond to any forum post Q has been in. its like, whats the point.
    Hey, why are you so biased? Yes, Q's posts are often out of limits. But not recently and surely not his comment 19. It was on topic and informative and I'd say even true. So what is the problem? No problem for those who can strip out the last 2 sentences

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •