# AMD Radeon HD 7000 Series to be PCI-Express 3.0 Compliant



## btarunr (Jul 18, 2011)

AMD's next generation of graphics processors (GPUs) that will be branded under the HD 7000 series, are reported to be PCI-Express Generation 3 compliant. The desktop discrete graphics cards will feature PCI-Express 3.0 x16 bus interfaces, and will be fully backwards-compatible with older versions of the bus, including Gen 1 and Gen 2. Motherboards sold today feature Gen 2 PCI-E slots, although some of the very latest motherboards launched by major vendors feature PCI-Express 3.0 slots. 

The new bus doubles the bandwidth over PCI-E 2.0, with 1 GB/s of bandwidth per lane, per direction. PCI-Express 3.0 x16 would have 32 GB/s (256 Gbps) of bandwidth at its disposal, 16 GB/s per direction. AMD's next generation of GPUs, codenamed "Southern Islands" will be built on the new 28 nm process at TSMC, and will upscale VLIW4 stream processors. Some of the first PC platforms to fully support PCI-Express 3.0 will be Intel's Sandy Bridge-E. Whether AMD's GPUs have hit a bandwidth bottleneck with PCI-E Gen 2, or is AMD trying to just be standards-compliant, is a different question altogether.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm betting on "standards compliant".


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

If this is true ASRock is going to sell a shitload of boards because of it.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 18, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I'm betting on "standards compliant".



I'm gonna have to agree. I don't see most video cards saturating 16x 2.0 in the near future.


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 18, 2011)

The only use for PCI-E 3.0 will be for things like pci-e SSD which are the few things that actually use that bandwidth.


----------



## GSquadron (Jul 18, 2011)

Any date for their launch?


----------



## antuk15 (Jul 18, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I'm betting on "standards compliant".



I reckon just a check box feature to get one over on Nvidia.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 18, 2011)

only thing i don't like about this new stuff is i doubt it will have xp drivers or be xp compatible


----------



## gottistar (Jul 18, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> View attachment 42938
> 
> only thing i don't like about this new stuff is i doubt it will have xp drivers or be xp compatible




XP....your using it?


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> only thing i don't like about this new stuff is i doubt it will have xp drivers or be xp compatible



Boo-friggen-hoo.  It's about damn time, if you ask me.  ANYTHING to get people off that antiquated POS.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 18, 2011)

says the man who is still running it on at least one of his machines(according to his sytem specs)


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm guessing the dual-GPU 7xxx series might need more bandwidth, and the top single-GPU might suffer from x8 PCIe 2.0, but otherwise it's pretty much just another feature on the list.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> says the man who is still running it on at least one of his machines(according to his sytem specs)



Hey, I use it for legacy stuff.  The machine barely gets turned on.

My comment was directed at the people who still use it as their main OS and refuse to upgrade.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 18, 2011)

Graphic cards use far more bandwidth than any SSD available at the moment. Even the Revo thingies.


----------



## Shihab (Jul 18, 2011)

I can imagine it.
6 months from now:
Nvidia fanboys: We got Physx !
AMD fanboys: We got PCIe 3 !


----------



## wolf (Jul 18, 2011)

RejZoR said:


> Graphic cards use far more bandwidth than any SSD available at the moment. Even the Revo thingies.



yeah but pci-e 3.0 will allow pci-e SSD's to use fewer pci connectors and still get bulk bandwidth, for example fitting in a 4x @ 3.0 slot instead of 8x @ 2.0


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jul 18, 2011)

At Last! Some good news (and some news at all) from HD7000. I can't wait for MORE NEWS!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jul 18, 2011)

Swamp Monster said:


> At Last! Some good news (and some news at all) from HD7000. I can't wait for MORE NEWS!



Yeah I agree. Seriously want to start seeing more on the 7 series on the front page news.


----------



## happita (Jul 18, 2011)

Any "extras" like this will be welcomed by me with open arms. Anything that helps it stay competitive with nvidia is fine by me. I just hope that there's a use for this and not just a pure gimmick to sell cards. But I'm sure the top end dual-card solution will be able to use a good chunk of the new bandwidth provided by the 3.0 interface.


----------



## GSquadron (Jul 18, 2011)

Who said nvidia wont have pci-e 3.0???


----------



## MilkyWay (Jul 18, 2011)

Does this supply anymore power to the card than pci ex 2.0?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 18, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> I can imagine it.
> 6 months from now:
> Nvidia fanboys: We got Physx !
> AMD fanboys: We got PCIe 3 !



It isn't a big deal. Kepler could be Gen 3, too.


----------



## Shihab (Jul 18, 2011)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> Who said nvidia wont have pci-e 3.0???





btarunr said:


> It isn't a big deal. Kepler could be Gen 3, too.



Whether it will support it or not isn't what matters. It's _when_ will a Nvidia PCIe 3 supporting card be released. Remember DX11 and the ATI 5 series ? The first Fermis were DX11 compliant too. But still, the _red camp_ kept going about how AMD was the first to get there.

Personally, I don't give a damn. As long as Nvidia doesn't take the bait and rush Kepler like they did Fermi.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It isn't a big deal. Kepler could be Gen 3, too.



If it wasn't going to be.....it will be now 

I can see the engineers over at Nvidia now.

John Nvidia: "Ok we got the PCB done now we just need to get the yields down and we will be good to go on Kepler"

Bob Nvidia: "Hey John that dick ATI Jim is on the phone. He says how you doing on Kepler because hes got PCI 3.0. What should I say?"

John Nvidia: "Tell that jerk we got PCI 3.0 too!"

Bob Nvidia: "But John we just got the PCB done.....we don't have PCI 3.0."

John Nvidia: "Is he still on the phone?"

Bob Nvidia: "Yeah?"

John Nvidia: "You are such a dip shit. Do you think he heard you?"
-----------------

ATI Jim: (still on the line)


----------



## Recus (Jul 18, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Whether it will support it or not isn't what matters. It's _when_ will a Nvidia PCIe 3 supporting card be released. Remember DX11 and the ATI 5 series ? The first Fermis were DX11 compliant too. But still, the _red camp_ kept going about how AMD was the first to get there.
> 
> Personally, I don't give a damn. As long as Nvidia doesn't take the bait and rush Kepler like they did Fermi.



It's for marketing. AMD HD5000 was first GPUs witch support DX11, but so called "DX11" games was a joke.  No doubt it will be again.


----------



## Mistral (Jul 18, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> Does this supply anymore power to the card than pci ex 2.0?



This was one of my first thoughts when I heard of PCI-Ex3 being around the corner. There were some rumours about that, but I haven't heard anything concrete yet. 



Recus said:


> It's for marketing. AMD HD5000 was first GPUs witch support DX11, but so called "DX11" games was a joke.  No doubt it will be again.



nV was the first with DX10, but there wasn't exactly a slew of awesome DX10 games raining on us at the time, or even now, either. Your point?


----------



## Recus (Jul 18, 2011)

Mistral said:


> nV was the first with DX10, but there wasn't exactly a slew of awesome DX10 games raining on us at the time, or even now, either. Your point?



AMD advertised DX11 as Eight World Wonder. Lots were fooled.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 18, 2011)

Mistral said:


> nV was the first with DX10, but there wasn't exactly a slew of awesome DX10 games raining on us at the time, or even now, either. Your point?



I think that his point is that being first to any of these technologies is pretty much irrelevant. Just something the marketing department will try to use.


----------



## Casecutter (Jul 18, 2011)

The real point is that if neither pushes the envelope we'd still be AGP, Dx8, single 1280x and still be thumping our chest saying I get great fpS's.  
Innovation I never say it’s not welcome.


----------



## NAVI_Z (Jul 18, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> View attachment 42938
> 
> only thing i don't like about this new stuff is i doubt it will have xp drivers or be xp compatible



your still using XP?......


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

NAVI_Z said:


> your still using XP?......



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Recus (Jul 18, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I think that his point is that being first to any of these technologies is pretty much irrelevant. Just something the marketing department will try to use.



How many times I heard "Physx is dead", "Cuda is dead".?


----------



## Delta6326 (Jul 18, 2011)

Sweet now only if the next gen graphics can push the limits 

That was Very funny TheMailMan78


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

Damn_Smooth said:


> I'm betting on "standards compliant".



I am going to say this is my guess too, I would bet it will be at least 8 if not 9 series before it actually makes use of it and not just compatible.





Pestilence said:


> If this is true ASRock is going to sell a shitload of boards because of it.



I don't know about that atm current cards don't make use of full 2.0 bandwidth, I can't see selecting a board for single or SLI / Xfire based solution based on PCI 3.0 support or lack there of. I'd take the 2-3 FPS hit and go with things that matter to me more like the number of SATA ports and  UEFI support.


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 18, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> Hey, I use it for legacy stuff.  The machine barely gets turned on.
> 
> My comment was directed at the people who still use it as their main OS and refuse to upgrade.



It would break alot of my bussiness software to do so and cuase some serious issues in terms of machine performance. there was nothing really all that wrong with XP@SP3


----------



## Thatguy (Jul 18, 2011)

Recus said:


> How many times I heard "Physx is dead", "Cuda is dead".?



The new AMD GPGPU arch GCN aims to kill it with a open standards compliant design. 

Cuda will be dead when this rolls out or it will become massively less important and more specialized and as AMD is going put this design into APU's in the next 2 years, yep. Cuda is a dead man walking. 

Now if nvidia was smart, they would move to standards compliance.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> The new AMD GPGPU arch GCN aims to kill it with a open standards compliant design.
> 
> Cuda will be dead when this rolls out or it will become massively less important and more specialized and as AMD is going put this design into APU's in the next 2 years, yep. Cuda is a dead man walking.
> 
> Now if nvidia was smart, they would move to standards compliance.



I thin CUDA is far from a dead man walking, especially in the super computer world, it's the standard. PhysX on the other hand is and has been dead IMO for some time, there has just not been a break out title that supported it mainly because all major titles are console ports, and as such *CAN'T* support PhysX, and it will continue to be that way until the next gen consoles come out. IMO Nvidia should have simply offered AMD a licensing agreement, and offered "incentives" to game developers to use PhysX.

As it stand I don't see CUDA going anywhere for a long time, especially for distributed computing (F@H anyone) and super computing applications. I just don't see the point in offering a competing standard to PhysX as it's a dead market, the problem is game developers outside of the RTS and MMO genres have turned their back on the PC platform, and the hardware they develop for is the better part of half a decade old, and can't handle good graphics let alone PhysX.


----------



## Kreij (Jul 18, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> Does this supply anymore power to the card than pci ex 2.0?



From the PCI-SIG FAQ on the PCI-e 3.0 Specification ...


> *Q: Does PCIe 3.0 enable greater power delivery to cards?*
> A: The PCIe Card Electromechanical (CEM) 3.0 specification consolidates all previous form factor power delivery specifications, including the 150W and the 300W specifications.


----------



## Roph (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm still running XP too, I don't see Vista Service Pack 3 (aka Windows 7) as an upgrade. Everything I want to do on my computer, I do great on XP. Smooth as butter


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

Kreij said:


> From the PCI-SIG FAQ on the PCI-e 3.0 Specification ...



So this means we could see 6 or 8 pin plugs on mobos to add power over PCI ?




Roph said:


> I'm still running XP too, I don't see Vista Service Pack 3 (aka Windows 7) as an upgrade. Everything I want to do on my computer, I do great on XP. Smooth as butter



:shadedshu

It's an upgrade trust me especially when you take into account M$ is going to stop adding security updates for XP.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

Roph said:


> I'm still running XP too, I don't see Vista Service Pack 3 (aka Windows 7) as an upgrade. Everything I want to do on my computer, I do great on XP. Smooth as butter



XP = No DX11 

I like XP but would never go back to it. X64 XP was buggy as shit


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

But XP is a pile of bloated shit.  That and you automatically lose as much video RAM you have from your main RAM.

That and no DX10/11.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

I am actually excited to see what the power draw of the 7 series will be, perhaps AMD can get it's drivers in order by then.




Red_Machine said:


> But XP is a pile of bloated shit.  That and you automatically lose as much video RAM you have from your main RAM.
> 
> That and no DX10/11.



Meh lack of DX 11 is still not really an argument given there is maybe barely 2 dozen games that support it.


----------



## seronx (Jul 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I am actually excited to see what the power draw of the 7 series will be, perhaps AMD can get it's drivers in order by then.
> 
> Meh lack of DX 11 is still not really an argument given there is maybe barely 2 dozen games that support it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support

I count 22 games

I wouldn't be worrying over DX11 anytime soon, I would worry about when will us the peeps get 64bit games

64 bit is the only thing that can maximize DX11 graphical/gameplay output

-----------

PCI-e 2.0 -> PCI-e 3.0

Expect that SLi or Crossfire jitter/stutter to disappear


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

seronx said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_11_support
> 
> I count 22 games
> 
> ...



I was off by 2 games  , I agree DX11 isn't a big deal yet but I think 2014 will eb the year of DX11, as that is the rumored year for new consoles.


----------



## Roph (Jul 18, 2011)

There's not a single game that I'd like to play but can't due to me using XP. I played through Crysis 2 fine. Mostly I just play TF2.

I also find it funny that you call XP Bloated, while at the same time push Windows Vista SP3.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jul 18, 2011)

Roph said:


> There's not a single game that I'd like to play but can't due to me using XP. I played through Crysis 2 fine. Mostly I just play TF2.
> 
> I also find it funny that you call XP Bloated, while at the same time push Windows Vista SP3.



there isn't a vista SP3 

if you mean windows 7 thats as far from bloated as you could get, had it running on riva TNT's and MX440 based rigs last week

After having to use Both XP and windows 7 on about 25 different machines each in the past 2 weeks i can tell you windows 7 is infact not very bloated at all

Xp starts off quicker but then the updates come and slow it right down

How is this On topic at all?

i'm just hoping PCI-E v3 is a sign the next gen cards will actually be able to use that bandwidth


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

That is referring to 7.

Well, let me see... When XP was first released, you could run it on a machine with 64MB of RAM, now with all the bloat it's accrued over the years you need at least 1GB.


----------



## devguy (Jul 18, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> XP = No DX11
> 
> I like XP but would never go back to it. X64 XP *was *buggy as shit



Pre-SP2, Xp x64 was a nightmare to work with, both do to problems with the OS, and for limited driver support.  However, by SP2 the OS was quite stable, and the Vista x64 push really brought quite a bit of driver support.

I really was sad to move away from XP x64, as it was truly my favorite of the Microsoft Operating Systems (low resources, 64bit, familiar interface, Server 2003 kernel, very fast).


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

I used XP x64 and the only issue I had was lack of compatibility.  Even then, it was just Microsoft adding incompatibility flags to installers when the software itself had no problems at all.


----------



## seronx (Jul 18, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> i'm just hoping PCI-E v3 is a sign the next gen cards will actually be able to use that bandwidth



It won't 
but will the GPU cards perform better?

Yes

How and where it will perform better we will find out


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 18, 2011)

i swear you's are all noobs,people were bemoanin me yesterday sugesting i didnt need pciex 3 now yall on bout it, catch up!

now the question ive asked 3 times on TPU, does anyone know if the 990 AMD chipset is compatible?????

fair enuff ya dont know


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 18, 2011)

WTF! are they joking? How the release cards bottlenicked by them motherboards and work with intel chipsets‏!‏


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jul 18, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> i swear you's are all noobs,people were bemoanin me yesterday sugesting i didnt need pciex 3 now yall on bout it, catch up!
> 
> now the question ive asked 3 times on TPU, does anyone know if the 990 AMD chipset is compatible?????
> 
> fair enuff ya dont know



It isn't at the moment. Maybe in future boards.

I'm still saying that you don't need it though.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 18, 2011)

Roph said:


> I'm still running XP too, I don't see Vista Service Pack 3 (aka Windows 7) as an upgrade. Everything I want to do on my computer, I do great on XP. Smooth as butter



well it runs fine with my x58 motherboard so i prefer it aswell 



Pestilence said:


> XP = No DX11
> 
> I like XP but would never go back to it. X64 XP was buggy as shit



ye there is that and as my name suggests i like emulators ,and some are supposed to work better with dx 10/11 namely pcsx2 , so i'll upgrade sometime ,
just that i feel pushed into it by all the win 7 lovers  and by the manufacturers ,

i looked the other week for drivers for the latest ati graphics card i was thinking of getting, and they were vista/7 only


----------



## kaneda (Jul 18, 2011)

Mistral said:


> This was one of my first thoughts when I heard of PCI-Ex3 being around the corner. There were some rumours about that, but I haven't heard anything concrete yet.
> 
> 
> 
> nV was the first with DX10, but there wasn't exactly a slew of awesome DX10 games raining on us at the time, or even now, either. Your point?



 The new unified shader architecture allowed immense performance improvements in DX9 gaming. DX11 cards did not offer quite the same.  Slight difference, but I do enjoy nitpicking.


----------



## seronx (Jul 18, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> i swear you's are all noobs,people were bemoanin me yesterday sugesting i didnt need pciex 3 now yall on bout it, catch up!
> 
> now the question ive asked 3 times on TPU, does anyone know if the 990 AMD chipset is compatible?????
> 
> fair enuff ya dont know



http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/chipsets/9-series-integrated/Pages/amd-990fx-chipset.aspx
http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/CHIPSETS/9-SERIES-INTEGRATED/Pages/amd-990x-chipset.aspx
http://www.amd.com/US/PRODUCTS/DESKTOP/CHIPSETS/9-SERIES-INTEGRATED/Pages/amd-970-chipset.aspx

Nope


----------



## Kreij (Jul 18, 2011)

Opps ... stupid slow internet. Carry on.


----------



## seronx (Jul 18, 2011)

Kreij said:


> Let's get back on-topic folks, which in case you missed from the thread title is AMD's 7000 series and PCI-E 3.0
> 
> Thanks.



AMD 7000HD GPUs



> Support for x86 addressing with unified address space for CPU and GPU.
> 64-bit addressing
> GPU sends interrupts to CPU on various memory errors (such as page faults).
> 
> ...




PCI Express 3.0

8b/10b Encoding to 128b/130b encoding
8 bits + 2 syncs bits to 128 bits + 2 sync bits
20% Overhead to 1.54% Overhead
4Gbps to 8Gbps(7.88Gbps actual)
5GT/s to 8GT/s

PCI-e links are for CPU<-->GPU talk
and GPU0 <---> GPU1 talk
but the SLI/CrossfireX bridges help with that but with every speed boost the need of those bridges vanish making it cheaper to make the gpus
(How cheaper, I wouldn't know)



Kreij said:


> Opps ... stupid slow internet. Carry on.



The internet never forgets HA HA!


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 18, 2011)

Is it just me, or is everyone instantly reminded of the Radeon 7000VE and 7500 when they see this thread?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 19, 2011)

Roph said:


> There's not a single game that I'd like to play but can't due to me using XP. I played through Crysis 2 fine. Mostly I just play TF2.
> 
> I also find it funny that you call XP Bloated, while at the same time push Windows Vista SP3.



Ok Windows 7 is not Vista SP3, it is separate code done by a different team at MS. The gui might share alot with vista but compatibility and driver support and overall boot up and shut down speed are even faster than XP was.


N Ya those boards are still made to this day


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

Any news on the 7000 series yet? 2000 shaders?


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Any news on the 7000 series yet? 2000 shaders?



The idea is, We dunna know

But if it follows progression we will get 2000ish shaders

edit: going to find easier pictures


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Ok Windows 7 is not Vista SP3, it is separate code done by a different team at MS. The gui might share alot with vista but compatibility and driver support and overall boot up and shut down speed are even faster than XP was.



It is just Vista Second Edition.  It's only NT 6.1 and the differences are about the same that were between the 98's.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> The idea is, We dunna know
> 
> But if it follows progression we will get 2000ish shaders
> 
> edit: going to find easier pictures



6GB of GDDR5? What for? 2 is PLENTY


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> 6GB of GDDR5? What for? 2 is PLENTY



Ray tracing, MLAA 2.0, WDDM 2.0

Future proofing

The SIMD Unit has 16 ALUs
A Compute Core has 64 ALUs
A Compute Array has 256 ALUs
The max possible compute arrays are 32
32x256 = 8192 ALUs

edit: I dunna know about GPUs forgiveh meh

ALUs = Shaders in GCN


----------



## gottistar (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> Ray tracing, MLAA 2.0, WDDM 2.0
> 
> Future proofing




Always make me laugh...it should be "the next few months proofing"

Is there such a thing these days..


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 19, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> It is just Vista Second Edition.  It's only NT 6.1 and the differences are about the same that were between the 98's.



its far from Vista-Reliability, compatibility, speed Are whats In 7 Vista was sluggish, in compatible with several applications that claimed to be compatible and it tends to freeze up alot.

Far from 98 and 98 SE

ME, Vista both MS biggest mistakes.


----------



## xenocide (Jul 19, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> It is just Vista Second Edition.  It's only NT 6.1 and the differences are about the same that were between the 98's.



Windows 7 is everything Windows Vista wanted to be, but wasn't.  Even Vista after a SP or two was far from bad.  The problem was that Vista was a huge re-write of Windows (mostly under-the-hood stuff), and came with a lot of overhead, and the average hardware wasn't up to the task.  I remember a similar situation when XP came out, but it didn't last nearly as long.  My Q6600\4GB RAM setup had no issues with Vista Ultimate x64.

My current computer runs Windows 7 better than any computer I had in the past ran XP, and at this point I could never imagine going back.

As for the actual topic at hand, I remain doubtful that there are any cards that are actually bottlenecking in PCIe because of a lack of bandwidth, especially since going from 16x -> 8x is only like a 1-3% performance drop.  This is just a feature for AMD to tack onto the list to try and sell more cards.


----------



## WarraWarra (Jul 19, 2011)

+1 ATI.  

And everyone thought I was insane when I kept on banging on the pci-e 3.0 8x and pci-e 2.0 bottlenecks for gpu makers. Maybe I am maybe not 

Image where this can go now with all this PCI-Express 3.0 x16 would have 32 GB/s (256 Gbps) freedom.


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

WarraWarra said:


> +1 ATI.
> 
> And everyone thought I was insane when I kept on banging on the pci-e 3.0 8x and pci-e 2.0 bottlenecks for gpu makers. Maybe I am maybe not
> 
> Image where this can go now with all this PCI-Express 3.0 x16 would have 32 GB/s (256 Gbps) freedom.



Since the PCI-e 3.0 is going to be mostly for people who can buy it, they might as well buy a PCI-e 3.0 gpu

PCI-e Express 3.0 x8(when all slots are used)

All GPUs will get 126.1Gbps(15.8GB/s) on PCI Express 2.0 8x 53.3Gbps(6.6GB/s) a significant boost(Yes, PCI-Express 3.0 8x is 18.46% faster than PCI-Express 2.0 16x)
And PCI-E 3.0 16x is 18.46% faster than PCI-Express 2.0 32x

Intel chipsets that support PCI-e 3.0 are
3x8

No word on any AMD Chipsets supporting PCI-e 3.0


----------



## Thefumigator (Jul 19, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Windows 7 is everything Windows Vista wanted to be, but wasn't.  Even Vista after a SP or two was far from bad.  The problem was that Vista was a huge re-write of Windows (mostly under-the-hood stuff), and came with a lot of overhead, and the average hardware wasn't up to the task.  I remember a similar situation when XP came out, but it didn't last nearly as long.  My Q6600\4GB RAM setup had no issues with Vista Ultimate x64.
> 
> My current computer runs Windows 7 better than any computer I had in the past ran XP, and at this point I could never imagine going back.
> 
> As for the actual topic at hand, I remain doubtful that there are any cards that are actually bottlenecking in PCIe because of a lack of bandwidth, especially since going from 16x -> 8x is only like a 1-3% performance drop.  This is just a feature for AMD to tack onto the list to try and sell more cards.



I'm still using Vista and I didn't do a fresh install since 3 years now, because its running too well to justify the hassle and not it's not running bad enough to justify upgrading to seven. 

Service packs, tons of megabytes of updates, and some care, did the trick. It is solid. It only has a slow startup. That's all I can complain.


----------



## faramir (Jul 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> It's an upgrade trust me especially when you take into account M$ is going to stop adding security updates for XP.



Name a couple (other than TRIM support for SSDs which really shouldn't be OS-dependent and obviously affects only users with SSDs) ?

They are going to stop providing security updates in April 2014, as per their latest announcement.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jul 19, 2011)

Um, DX11, WDM 1.1 (which makes for more stable drivers), support for more than 3GB of RAM, decent 64-bit support.  The list goes on.


----------



## specks (Jul 19, 2011)

Good God! 

I haven't even got my hands on an HD5000 series and now here come the HD7000.

It is sad to be left out in the dust.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 19, 2011)

Running Windows 7 on a Dell XPS Gen 1 Laptop just fine and its faster than XP ever was.



xenocide said:


> Windows 7 is everything Windows Vista wanted to be, but wasn't.  Even Vista after a SP or two was far from bad.  The problem was that Vista was a huge re-write of Windows (mostly under-the-hood stuff), and came with a lot of overhead, and the average hardware wasn't up to the task.  I remember a similar situation when XP came out, but it didn't last nearly as long.  My Q6600\4GB RAM setup had no issues with Vista Ultimate x64.
> 
> My current computer runs Windows 7 better than any computer I had in the past ran XP, and at this point I could never imagine going back.
> 
> As for the actual topic at hand, I remain doubtful that there are any cards that are actually bottlenecking in PCIe because of a lack of bandwidth, especially since going from 16x -> 8x is only like a 1-3% performance drop.  This is just a feature for AMD to tack onto the list to try and sell more cards.


----------



## xenocide (Jul 19, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Running Windows 7 on a Dell XPS Gen 1 Laptop just fine and its faster than XP ever was.



I haven't really tried it on many legacy setups.  My ex-gf's E8300 with 1GB of RAM handled it just as well as XP, so I don't imagine the difference is too huge.  I would actually go as far as to say that as long as you have a decent GPU to power all the pretty effects added in the UI you're fine.


----------



## Shihab (Jul 19, 2011)

Wasn't this thread about AMDs upcoming gfx cards series ?


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

faramir said:


> Name a couple (other than TRIM support for SSDs which really shouldn't be OS-dependent and obviously affects only users with SSDs) ?
> 
> They are going to stop providing security updates in April 2014, as per their latest announcement.



TRIM, less slugish fully patched, DX-11, Aero, Compatibility ect. it's an upgrade! XP needs to GTFO and people need to move on from this 10 year old technology.



Shihabyooo said:


> Wasn't this thread about AMDs upcoming gfx cards series ?



It was till the XP trolls got butt hurt.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 19, 2011)

Not to mention usable x64. Windows XP 64-bit is worse than Windows Millennium.

Anyway, let's get back to topic.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 19, 2011)

Shihabyooo said:


> Wasn't this thread about AMDs upcoming gfx cards series ?



bang on dude im so bored of XPEE, what gwan in the world of 7xxx any clue as to how many compute units and or shaders this will have? and how many grfx engines they gona go for 2 mm 4 or borein 1?.

after reading about their new compute unit shader design, Rage3d site goes and mentions 7xxx and vliw4 in the same paragraph, and no compute unit in sight, is this a continuation of the 2 tier gpu's ala barts/cayman with vliw4 in the mainstream and GCU's in the high end cards?


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 20, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Not to mention usable x64. Windows XP 64-bit is worse than Windows Millennium.
> 
> Anyway, let's get back to topic.



i agree 

i only mentioned i wouldn't be able to use this card on xp ,which for me is a downer ,but this is progress 

still i'd love to see how the devs of emulators could use this new tech ,obviously it won't be for some time yet, but i can't wait


----------



## bear jesus (Jul 20, 2011)

I doubt pci-e 3 will make much difference right now but it could be very handy for more bandwidth per slot and per channel used for internal interconnects, say 4 way sli or crossfire being able to run at x8 pci-e 3 would be similar to pci-e 2 x16, or how many lanes some things currently use up (like chipsets and other controller chips like usb 3, pci-e controller cards and SSD's) could be reduced or kept the same and get a nice jump in bandwidth.

Sure it might not impact the first cards much but most of us are using pci-e 2 instead of 1 for many reasons 



theoneandonlymrk said:


> after reading about their new compute unit shader design, Rage3d site goes and mentions 7xxx and vliw4 in the same paragraph, and no compute unit in sight, is this a continuation of the 2 tier gpu's ala barts/cayman with vliw4 in the mainstream and GCU's in the high end cards?



I was thinking the same as more and more sites have reported about both the new compute unit and VLIW4 on the 7xxx cards, if it uses less space it would probably make sense to keep all of the bottom/low end on VLIW4 as it does pretty well and when made on 28nm I'm sure would lead to some pretty small, cool and cheap to produce low end or even mid range cards.

But as we don't really know much about the new architecture yet there could be many reasons to not use it on low end parts or VLIW4 could be part of the new architecture in some way or all the new cards could use the new compute architecture, i guess we just need many many more leaks.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2011)

xenocide said:


> I haven't really tried it on many legacy setups.  My ex-gf's E8300 with 1GB of RAM handled it just as well as XP, so I don't imagine the difference is too huge.  I would actually go as far as to say that as long as you have a decent GPU to power all the pretty effects added in the UI you're fine.



It has to be a DX9 Compliant GPU, Mine is MR 9800 256MB (R420/23 Core)

It works well on my  Sig Setup but Gaming Performance lacks way behind XP cause NV only developed Drivers for XP and dropped the drivers they were making for Vista.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 20, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by xenocide
> I haven't really tried it on many legacy setups. My ex-gf's E8300 with 1GB of RAM handled it just as well as XP, so I don't imagine the difference is too huge. I would actually go as far as to say that as long as you have a decent GPU to power all the pretty effects added in the UI you're fine.
> 
> ...



get a room......


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 20, 2011)

Lmao!


----------

