# AMD Radeon HD 6990 Pictured Up Close



## btarunr (Jan 26, 2011)

Here's the Radeon HD 6990 up close. The HD 6990 is AMD's new dual-GPU graphics card that extends the performance leadership held by Radeon HD 5970. The pictures put rest to some speculation surrounding the cooler design. It now appears that the cooler design is similar to that of the GeForce GTX 295 single-PCB, as far as air-flow is concerned. A single long PCB holds two GPU systems on either sides, a centrally-located blower pushes air on either sides. The exhaust from one GPU is sent out of the case, while that from the other is pushed out of the card from its rear portion.

The Radeon HD 6990 uses two 40 nm Cayman GPUs, it packs a total of 3072 stream processors, and 4096 MB of memory between the two GPU systems. It also features a new kind of display output that consists of one dual-link DVI and four mini-DP 1.2. Power is drawn in from one 6-pin and an 8-pin PCIe connector. The card can pair with another of its kind for 4-GPU CrossFireX. It is expected to be released a little later in this quarter.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## HossHuge (Jan 26, 2011)

So it has been confirmed that it will use two Cayman XT chips?  

One 6 and one 8 pin?  Wow!

No Quad crossfire?.....:shadedshu (sarcasm)

If that fan is only 8cm, I guessing it will be a little on the loud side.


----------



## dir_d (Jan 26, 2011)

I hope this card is a beast.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jan 26, 2011)

long card is looong


----------



## Animalpak (Jan 26, 2011)

some RAW power


----------



## DarkOCean (Jan 26, 2011)

Cant wait to se this beast in action.


----------



## lnd2288 (Jan 26, 2011)

cant wait to see benchmarks. still dont see y should i give up on my 5970. in my opinion design looks nothin less than 5xxx series..lol


----------



## Andrei23 (Jan 26, 2011)

sexy


----------



## blibba (Jan 26, 2011)

What have they done to reign this in to 325W power consumption? Is it running at 600mhz or something? Or am I miscalculating what 6 pin + 8 pin means?


----------



## theJesus (Jan 26, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> If that fan is only 8 inch, I guessing it will be a little on the loud side.


If that fan is 8 inches, the card wouldn't fit in a normal PCIe slot.


----------



## _JP_ (Jan 26, 2011)

A monolith. With a red circle in the center. With the Radeon logo. Perfect!
Although it has a 6+8-pin config, you can see the shroud design left space in the 6-pin so that there could be an 8-pin...instead of a 6-pin.
And Quad crossifre seems enough.


----------



## csendesmark (Jan 26, 2011)

4 miniDP connector?
Can it controll 12 dispalys?


----------



## Nettokun (Jan 26, 2011)

no HDMI output?


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 26, 2011)

Nettokun said:


> no HDMI output?



im sure there will be mini dp to hdmi adapters in the acc.


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 26, 2011)

strange its 6+8 pin with the 6950 being 6+6 and 6970 being 6+8

i take its 2 6970 it there.

i dont get the no hdmi as well specially these days.


----------



## HossHuge (Jan 26, 2011)

theJesus said:


> If that fan is 8 inches, the card wouldn't fit in a normal PCIe slot.


The right side of my face is sore now....


----------



## blibba (Jan 26, 2011)

HossHuge said:


> So it has been confirmed that it will use two Cayman XT chips?
> 
> One 6 and one 8 pin?  Wow!
> 
> ...





theJesus said:


> If that fan is 8 inches, the card wouldn't fit in a normal PCIe slot.



Hopefully he meant 80mm?


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2011)

Super ugly having the stock blower fan in the middle like that. But still it should be shaping out to be a beast of a card performance wise and i hope the benchmarks show that.


----------



## KainXS (Jan 26, 2011)

I bet its based off the XFX 5970 black heatsink












its a really good heatsink too, hope its a vapor chamber one though


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 26, 2011)

the fan in the middle is prolly the best option unless they wanna make some sort of tri slot design cooler to cool the card properly

i had the single pcb 295 and it worked perfect, MUCH better than the 4870x2, gx2, 295 dual,


----------



## SvB4EvA (Jan 26, 2011)

So what do you guys think this monster will cost?


----------



## devguy (Jan 26, 2011)

SvB4EvA said:


> So what do you guys think this monster will cost?



Your soul.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 26, 2011)

I need a price already!


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 26, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I need a price already!



You can bet it's going to be at least $600 and up. 

Way out of my wallets league.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 26, 2011)

3870x2 was around 450 $
4870x2 was around 550 $
5970 was around 600 $

if they follow that pattern i say around 650-700$ for reference cards


----------



## AsRock (Jan 26, 2011)

Nettokun said:


> no HDMI output?



Just use the DVI output and lets face it the DVI connector is MUCH stronger than a HDMI port



devguy said:


> Your soul.



Sold.  But really i was thinking of my marriage


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 26, 2011)

499 or fail.


----------



## blibba (Jan 26, 2011)

This setup will come closer to GTX580 SLi than the 5970 did to GTX480 SLI, if it can be clocked high enough. That, combined with 4GB of not very cheap GDDR5, suggests a massive price tag.

However, unlike the 5970, it may have a rival from the green camp to drive down prices (presumably eating about 600W of power, but then again I'd have said the same about this card).


----------



## devguy (Jan 26, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Just use the DVI output and lets face it the DVI connector is MUCH stronger than a HDMI port
> 
> 
> 
> Sold.  But really i was thinking of my marriage



Yeah, I'm sure it comes with one of those DVI -> HDMI converters that'll transfer audio too.

And yeah, if you got married, you cannot buy this anyway, as your soul is already taken.  [Is that a jab at the marriage paradigm, or a romantic comment?  You decide].


----------



## AsRock (Jan 26, 2011)

devguy said:


> Yeah, I'm sure it comes with one of those DVI -> HDMI converters that'll transfer audio too.
> 
> And yeah, if you got married, you cannot buy this anyway, as your soul is already taken.  [Is that a jab at the marriage paradigm, or a romantic comment?  You decide].



Yup..  You can all so get HDMI to DVI cables too.  I use one here picked it up cheap ( $15 ) and it's about 12 feet long although it's thick as hell to the point that the cable is near as thick as the HDMI connector due to being triple shielded..


----------



## t77snapshot (Jan 26, 2011)

I love the rigid _slick_ design of this card...mmmm yummy


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Only one DVI port?  That seems kind of stupid.  This is the perfect card to do eyefinity with it would only need DVI to do it, but they have totaly screwed that up and force people to use DP.

I'd rather see a DisplayPort connecter or two ditched in favor of and HDMI port or two.  Or better yeat, ditch the DVI port too and give us 4 MIni-HDMI ports.

The card should be a real beast though.  I hope nVidia gets a dual GF110/114 card out soon so this thing isn't priced to the moon.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jan 26, 2011)

Holy moly that looks gigantic. Maybe even longer than the 5970... Only a 6-pin and a 8-pin? Doesn't really make sense that enough power to run one GPU is also enough no run two? They must have seriously underclocked and -volted the card. The display output seems slightly clumsy, 2 DVI and 3 miniDP would of been more convenient. But then they probably wouldn't of had space to use the whole second slot for exhaust.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Only one DVI port?  That seems kind of stupid.  This is the perfect card to do eyefinity with it would only need DVI to do it, but they have totaly screwed that up and force people to use DP.
> 
> I'd rather see a DisplayPort connecter or two ditched in favor of and HDMI port or two.  Or better yeat, ditch the DVI port too and give us 4 MIni-HDMI ports.
> 
> The card should be a real beast though.  I hope nVidia gets a dual GF110/114 card out soon so this thing isn't priced to the moon.



apple machines only have DP on laptop models, they still connect everything.
My workstation pc at work have 3X dp ports, yet I use 3x DVI screens.
It's no issue, it comes with DP to DVI on most stuff i've bought, my 5850 even came with one which have 2xdvi and HDMI.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 26, 2011)

is everyone sure this isn't just a PS2











i think its missing its memory card slots


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 26, 2011)

cdawall said:


> is everyone sure this isn't just a PS2
> 
> http://videogeisha.com/images/ps2.jpg
> 
> ...



what its missing is 2 pins on the 6 pin 
Since they are limited to 5 displays, I feel they've disabled one graphics cards display controllers to save power consumtion, and they've probably saved abit in the PWM, dual cards usually do.
150W+75+75=300w if i'm not mistaken, amd likes staying inside 300W.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 26, 2011)

When is the NDA up on this beast?


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jan 26, 2011)

It looks cool and all, but I'll sit tight and wait for the "7970" or whatever comes next gen. My 5870 is in no rush to get upgraded =).


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 26, 2011)

Is the gap between the 6 & 8 pin to allow for adding a third power plug without changing the pcb design? Would aid asus/sapphire/xfx is they make some overclocked 8gb monster.


----------



## boot_failure (Jan 26, 2011)

i've to save my money n do the hard work to get this monster :hammers


----------



## t77snapshot (Jan 26, 2011)

cdawall said:


> is everyone sure this isn't just a PS2
> 
> http://videogeisha.com/images/ps2.jpg
> 
> ...


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 26, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Is the gap between the 6 & 8 pin to allow for adding a third power plug without changing the pcb design? Would aid asus/sapphire/xfx is they make some overclocked 8gb monster.



Oh God,  8gb? Why?
Are we anywhere near using 4gb? I can see 2gb being to little, but i feel like 8gb might just be a bit overki-damn it, now I'm 'that guy'.


----------



## blu3flannel (Jan 26, 2011)

Whoa, 8GB? That's enormous! You won't need another graphics card until DX13 comes out.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 26, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> When is the NDA up on this beast?



Hmm? Whut?

March? April? May? June? July?

What is NDA, by the way?


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 26, 2011)

NDA  No Dosh At this time.


----------



## beautyless (Jan 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Only one DVI port?  That seems kind of stupid.  This is the perfect card to do eyefinity with it would only need DVI to do it, but they have totaly screwed that up and force people to use DP.
> 
> I'd rather see a DisplayPort connecter or two ditched in favor of and HDMI port or two.  Or better yeat, ditch the DVI port too and give us 4 MIni-HDMI ports.








They will supply at least one *free *dongle Mini-DP to DVI passive converter to enable second DVI monitor.

And if you want to setup eyefinity 3 monitors, just buy 1 Active Mini-DP to DVI converter.

This is the good design to balance amount of display output and airflow. Because DP 1.2 can do daisy chain monitors by hub in the future.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Imsochobo said:


> apple machines only have DP on laptop models, they still connect everything.
> My workstation pc at work have 3X dp ports, yet I use 3x DVI screens.
> It's no issue, it comes with DP to DVI on most stuff i've bought, my 5850 even came with one which have 2xdvi and HDMI.



We aren't talking about Apple machines here, that have Apple monitors that have DP anyway.

I'm aware that you can use DVI with DP, using active adapters, and the adapters only cost $30(and they usually don't come with the cards).  My point is that most gamers are still using DVI or HDMI monitors.  So to make a card that is capable of eyefinity with all DVI/HDMI connectors, and then fill it with the relatively unused DP connectors doesn't make sense.  It would have been better to throw a few HDMI or mini-HDMI ports on there instead of 4 DP ports.


----------



## GSG-9 (Jan 26, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> We aren't talking about Apple machines here, that have Apple monitors that have DP anyway.
> 
> I'm aware that you can use DVI with DP, using active adapters, and the adapters only cost $30(and they usually don't come with the cards).  My point is that most gamers are still using DVI or HDMI monitors.  So to make a card that is capable of eyefinity with all DVI/HDMI connectors, and then fill it with the relatively unused DP connectors doesn't make sense.  It would have been better to throw a few HDMI or mini-HDMI ports on there instead of 4 DP ports.



I could not agree more.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 26, 2011)

GSG-9 said:


> I could not agree more.



There are quite specific technical reasons for only a single DVI, and DP for Eyefinity.

The single DVI takes care of like 85%++ of all users. If $60 for adapters for Eyefinity is a concern, you should not be running Eyefinity, IMHO.

This point of view makes no sense to me, and purely based on the fact that Eyefinity is not for those looking to save a buck...it's for those with extra cash to spend on thier entertainment.

As far as I am concerned, as and actual Eyefinity user, there should NOT be any DVI on the card. It has been like a over a year that I've been running Eyefinity. It's like 3D, that has specific hardware requirements, and if they cost more, oh well.

I'm especially dumbfoudned that someone that has bought an unlocked Intel CPU is making these statements, to boot. You, Newtekie1, already paid extra for something you didn't need, but that's OK for CPU, but not GPU? WHUT?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> There are quite specific technical reasons for only a single DVI, and DP for Eyefinity.
> 
> The single DVI takes care of like 85%++ of all users. If $60 for adapters for Eyefinity is a concern, you should not be running Eyefinity, IMHO.
> 
> ...



It isn't about the cost, your paying $600+ for the card, a few $30 adapters are a drop in the bucket.

It is about convenience.  One of the main drawbacks of eyefinity in a lot of people's eyes is the fact that it requires you use a DP.  And the techincal reasons you speak of for that is because each GPU only has a set number of TMDS links, this forces single GPU users to use a DP connection.  This is fine on a single GPU card because that is the only option.  But on a dual GPU card like this one, there are enough TMDS links to allow 3 or more DVI/HDMI connectors, and it is more convienient for people to use those.  So on a card like this I don't really see any good reason to include DP connectors over HDMI/DVI connectors, can you?



cadaveca said:


> I'm especially dumbfoudned that someone that has bought an unlocked Intel CPU is making these statements, to boot. you already paid extra for something you didn't need, but that's OK for CPU, but not GPU? WHUT?



Shows how little you know.  I didn't pay extra for an unlocked Intel CPU.  When the 875K came out is was $200 cheaper than the 870.  And besides that, when I bought the 875K I paid less than what the i5 750 was selling for at the time, in fact I paid less than what an i5 760 goes for today...  If it wasn't for the great deal on the 875K I would have bought an i5-750, actually I wouldn't have I would have kept my X3370...


----------



## KainXS (Jan 26, 2011)

I just hope its faster than the Asus Ares

600 dollars please, no more


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So on a card like this I don't really see any good reason to include DP connectors over HDMI/DVI connectors, can you?



Actually, yes I can. One, signaling voltage for DP vs DVI. Secondly, provided bandwidth of DP vs DVI. 3, there's also that the number of clock-generators required for DVI is twice that of DP. DP can support more devices than DVI, given the hardware restrictions. 

Anyway, the whole point is rather moot...I had an Eyefinity 6 card, and it came with enough dongles to fill 5 of the 6 of the mini-DP ports.

Also, if Eyefinity worked with using seperate display output controllers, there'd be no requirement of having the monitors all plugged into the same GPU. Crossfire and Eyefinity just doesn't work the way you'd like, as software would be required to manage the displsy outputs, and keep them in sync, which of course, will cause a performance penalty, and is contrary to AMD's choice of "hardware-only" based multi-monitor configurations.

To give what you'd like, there'd have to be a seperate driver for Eyefinity with 6990, than what is used for all the rest of the Eyefinity-capable cards. This would increase driver development time, as well as the required workforce, and would make it far more expensive then it already is. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm not sure they made it long enough, also why in gods name did they make it vent out both sides ?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Actually, yes I can. One, signaling voltage for DP vs DVI. Secondly, provided bandwidth of DP vs DVI. 3, there's also that the number of clock-generators required for DVI is twice that of DP. DP can support more devices than DVI, given the hardware restrictions.
> 
> Anyway, the whole point is rather moot...I had an Eyefinity 6 card, and it came with enough dongles to fill 5 of the 6 of the mini-DP ports.
> 
> ...



I know, DP is so awesome, that is why most people using it are using adapters to convert it to DVI or HDMI...


----------



## AsRock (Jan 27, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I'm not sure they made it long enough, also why in gods name did they make it vent out both sides ?




No they should of made it 3" longer with 3 1200 x 38mm fans .  They made it vent both sides due to were the fan is which instead of blowing the heat from GPU2 + VRMS heat over GPU1 and VRMS. At least this way the heat is blown away from both GPU's.

If i end up getting one near release which is a possibility i'll make the bottom front fan output so hot air will get out better although need to test that IF i end up getting one pending on what the reviews are like for it.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I know, DP is so awesome, that is why most people using it are using adapters to convert it to DVI or HDMI...



to be honest i'm with cadeva on this one, the biggest problem with HDMI is its require a license fee, and if AMD use HDMI port instead of DP, it will added overhead cost for already expensive card, and HDMI didn't have enough bandwidth to support 3D gaming, 

and the most important thing we didn't know what accessories that will be bundled with the card, so if they bundled with DP to DVI converter it will be no problem


----------



## jlewis02 (Jan 27, 2011)

$649 I have my money ready lets go I want it now


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> to be honest i'm with cadeva on this one, the biggest problem with HDMI is its require a license fee, and if AMD use HDMI port instead of DP, it will added overhead cost for already expensive card, and HDMI didn't have enough bandwidth to support 3D gaming,
> 
> and the most important thing we didn't know what accessories that will be bundled with the card, so if they bundled with DP to DVI converter it will be no problem



So... You're OK with DP because it is cheaper for AMD, but... you think it will be no problem as long as they include an adapter...

Do you think those adapters are free?  Because the HDMI licensing fee pretty much is, something like 4 Cents a port or something, IIRC.  So we are talking a whole 8 cents a card cost to AMD, I'm guessing the adapters cost more than 8 Cents a piece...

And the crap about HDMI not having enough bandwidth to support a 3D signal is horseshit.  How do all those 3D Blu-Rays manage to do it?  How does nVidia manage to do it?  They must be using magic.  With 10.2Gb/s bandwidth, HDMI has enough bandwidth to support 3D display@1080p.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> If companies would release perfect products, I wouldn't complain.  But if you look, there are plenty of times that I've praised products as well.
> 
> Do you ever stop trolling, or do you occasionally post something useful?
> 
> ...



they can do it because the movie was design to work on 24FPS for each eye, do you really want to game at 24 FPS ?? 
and thats why real 3D monitor (that have 120Hz) require dual link DVI connector.


yeah i didn't know how much HDMI license fee is, but i suspect AMD will try to push DP adoption rate, and i like it,because it will force LCD maker to include DP  connector on their LCD.

and i said IF they include adapter.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> they can do it because the movie was design to work on 24FPS for each eye, do you really want to game at 24 FPS ??
> and thats why real 3D monitor (that have 120Hz) require dual link DVI connector.
> 
> yeah i didn't know how much HDMI license fee is, but i suspect AMD will try to push DP adoption rate, and i like it,because it will force LCD maker to include DP  connector on their LCD.



The 24FPS thing died long ago, 1080p is 60FPS.  Again, why do you think nVidia can do 3D gaming over HDMI?



wahdangun said:


> and i said IF they include adapter.



Exactly, you said it was no problem IF they include an adapter, right after talking about how DP was better because it was cheaper.  The moment you have to inlcude and adapter, or buy one if you're a consumer, the "its cheaper" argument doesn't work, because it isn't.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> wahdangun said:
> 
> 
> > they can do it because the movie was design to work on 24FPS for each eye, do you really want to game at 24 FPS ??
> ...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> here are the quoted when NVDIA 3DTVPLAY was launched
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, so goes back to my original statement that there should be more than one DVI then.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Ok, so goes back to my original statement that there should be more than one DVI then.



i agree with this give me 2 dvi's at least then i can run dual screen cad  DP to everything else is just a PITA really...


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Ok, so goes back to my original statement that there should be more than one DVI then.



because i think AMD want to support 3D surround too, just like nvdia. so thats why i think AMD really want to push DP adoption.

and if there was more than one DVI then it will block the exhaust, and every bit of ventilation is needed because lets face it, it will be really hot inside (and ppl already complained why the card still dump the heat to the PC)


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 27, 2011)

Personally I'm glad to see the second dvi port being removed in favor of more space to vent hot air and as i have never used hdmi the lack of it means nothing to me, i have always seen hdmi as a tv interface mainly as it started out with a max res of 1920×1080/1200 (can't remember to be honest ).

But i think AMD is just looking to the future due to articles like this.

Intel, AMD, Samsung, Dell and Lenovo have all committed to replace analog with digital alternatives by 2015. the companies will push the adoption of alternative interfaces and encourage the use of certified DisplayPort adapters with older screens.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jan 27, 2011)

DigitalUK said:


> strange its 6+8 pin with the 6950 being 6+6 and 6970 being 6+8
> 
> i take its 2 6970 it there.
> 
> i dont get the no hdmi as well specially these days.



nope, its two 6950 stuck in there..


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 27, 2011)

Jonap_1st said:


> nope, its two 6950 stuck in there..



Are you sure it's not two 6970 cores under-clocked to 6950 speeds like the 5970 was two 5870 cores clocked down to 5850 speeds?

I thought there has been no official release of information on the exact spec just pictures so far?

According to this very news article it has a total of 3072 stream processors, two 6970 cores total 3072, if it was two 6950 cores it would total 2816 instead.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jan 27, 2011)

devguy said:


> Your soul.


dang. I knew I shouldve saved it for the rainy seasons


----------



## Zubasa (Jan 27, 2011)

GSG-9 said:


> Oh God,  8gb? Why?
> Are we anywhere near using 4gb? I can see 2gb being to little, but i feel like 8gb might just be a bit overki-damn it, now I'm 'that guy'.


4GB*2 will be useful for eyefinity (more than 3 monitors) users which is a target market for an 8GB 6990.



Jonap_1st said:


> nope, its two 6950 stuck in there..


3072 = 1532*2
So it is two Cayman XT aka the version in the 6970.
It doesn't say anything about the clock speed.


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Jan 27, 2011)

Muhaahah, zee creation. It's alive!!
I must callz it " zee brick of death!"

muahhaha


----------



## TAViX (Jan 27, 2011)

can the mini-DP port take sound also??


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 27, 2011)

TAViX said:


> can the mini-DP port take sound also??



As far as i knew it is no different to a normal display port so it would.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> because i think AMD want to support 3D surround too, just like nvdia. so thats why i think AMD really want to push DP adoption.
> 
> and if there was more than one DVI then it will block the exhaust, and every bit of ventilation is needed because lets face it, it will be really hot inside (and ppl already complained why the card still dump the heat to the PC)



It wouldn't have to block the exhaust, ditch a few DP connectors in favor of a DVI.  I'd rather see more of the more used connectors than more of the less used DP that people just end up having to convert to DVI anyway.

Heck, by the looks of the layout now, they could have stacked the DPs on top of eachother, making room for the extra DVI and keeping the 4 DPs and not blocked any of the exhaust.  Or at the very least, stacked the DPs and included an HDMI port.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

I don't understand, Newtekiie, why you are fighting the progession of technology so much.

As bear jesus posted, Intel *AND* AMD are pushing DP forward. Samsung and Dell, as panel makers, are on the same boat. 

DP, i gues unfortuantely for you, is the way of the future. It offers more than HDMI does, simply by having USB as part of it(thanks to Dell, and thier monitors having USB hubs).

As teh flagship of a generation of cards, and the extreme enthusiast product, it would be foolhardy of them to not push such technologies forward. I can alsmot guarantee that you'll get at least one adapter in the box, if not 4 or 5. Your option of using multiple DVI onnections is mroe than possible..it will happen.

I mean, don't get me wrong...I tihnk the lack of adapters in the box would be a failure...but not on AMD's part. AMD doesn't sell consumers videocards...they sell GPUs to OEM who then sell them to us. It would be the OEM's failure, not AMD's.


----------



## avatar_raq (Jan 27, 2011)

Thank God the cooler is not what I thought it would be. 

@cadaveca:

While DP has the potential to be the way of future, we costumers will suffer till it becomes the standard on all monitors, entry through enthusiast ones. (BTW, miss you on teamspeak  )


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 27, 2011)

avatar_raq said:


> While DP has the potential to be the way of future, we costumers will suffer till it becomes the standard on all monitors, entry through enthusiast ones.



I agree it is a bit of a pain in the ass until more monitors have display port but the ability to use adapters meant i could use £100 screens and one £20 active display port adapter to have an eyefinity setup for the price many people pay for a single screen or graphics card so in a way a pain in the ass but in another way it's great.

I admit it was worse when eyefinity was new as most active adapters were around £60 to £80 but the ability to use cheap monitors and a cheap adapter made me very happy 

Until display port becomes more standard on all monitors i like many others are very happy to use adapters, i see it as pretty much the same as going from VGA to DVI, when i was using a VGA only monitor i just used a DVI to VGA adapter until in the future i got a DVI monitor.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

avatar_raq said:


> @cadaveca:
> 
> While DP has the potential to be the way of future, we costumers will suffer till it becomes the standard on all monitors, entry through enthusiast ones. (BTW, miss you on teamspeak  )



But if there are adapters in the box, who is really suffering? Surely not the consumer...

OEMs want to sell cards, plain and simple. They should, you'd expect, include enough adapters.

And while DP is not on every single monitor, it IS featured on many, and those that do have it aren't more expensive than any other monitor...so I fail to see any negatives about DP.

I have 4 monitors with DP. I will more than likely buy at least one of these cards, and should Eyefinity work well with 2 of them, I'll buy two. I really want to play F1 2010 again...

Scaling with 2x 6970 or 2x 6950 is pretty good. I'm waiting for this card to launch before buying into the 6-series...but it's pretty hard to wait.

Just sent my 5870 in for RMA...again...maybe XFX will send me a 6950 in replacement?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I don't understand, Newtekiie, why you are fighting the progession of technology so much.
> 
> As bear jesus posted, Intel *AND* AMD are pushing DP forward. Samsung and Dell, as panel makers, are on the same boat.
> 
> ...



I'm not fighting the progression of technology, I'm not saying DP should be left off completely.  What I'm fighting is the abandonment of the most commonly used current technology in favor of a technology that is currently more expensive, and currently less readily compatible.  This doesn't help the consumer.

If moving to more DP connecters on the card also comes with the requirement of included adapters to convert it to DVI or HDMI, then what are the benefits of using DP in the first place over just including DVI/HDMI on the card?  So you have the possibility of 3D?  Well, that doesn't go away, because there would still be _some_ DPs on the card.  Cost advantage?  No, DP costs more in reality, both for the consumer and/or the manufacturer.

I understand the push for DP, however on a current product I don't see the need or advantage of 4 DPs at the expense of more widely used connectors.  The card would have been more useful in more situations with a DVI, a HDMI, and 2 or 3 DPs.



cadaveca said:


> And while DP is not on every single monitor, it IS featured on many, and those that do have it aren't more expensive than any other monitor...so I fail to see any negatives about DP.



Oh, I very much beg to differ.  I've yet to see a monitor with DP that is cheaper or even the same price as monitors available without.  What monitors have you found that were the same price with DP?  And it is a feature on many?  So many that newegg doesn't seem to care a single one that I can find...

Edit: Wait, I found one on newegg.  A 23" 1080p LCD for $270.  Of course a few monitors away from that was a 23" 1080p LED for $170 or a 24" 1080p LED for $260...but I guess monitors with DP are going for the same price. Perhaps you know a place to get great deals on monitors, particularly DP capable ones, that you could fill us in on?


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

Meh. I could jsut simply say, if ya are complaining about price, this product wasn't designed with you in mind anyway. Plain and simple.

But me, oh yeah, this product was designed for users like me. I don't care about cost...I want what I want, and am willing to pay for it.

Any high-end SKU is like that. Look at all the other cards...they meet your needs...so clearly they are designed for users like you, and this is not.

As much as you want to pull a bad side to this card, this isn't one. It is what it is, and people will buy it no matter what. DP dongle is as low as $20. No big deal.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 27, 2011)

Hopefully this does not suffer from the same crap driver issues the 69xx's suffered from, and it needs to be priced  sub $550 or it's not worth it and the reference cooler needs to be changed so it doesn't vent inside the case.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 27, 2011)

Apparently Nvidia is doing the same with the fan in the middle venting half in half out and plans to try and take the wind out of AMD's sales with the 590 launch around the same time.

Source

I can't wait to see how these card perform, how they do against each other and how they do in crossfire/sli.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm not fighting the progression of technology, I'm not saying DP should be left off completely.  What I'm fighting is the abandonment of the most commonly used current technology in favor of a technology that is currently more expensive, and currently less readily compatible.  This doesn't help the consumer.



I swear, AMD can do no right in your eyes.  If this was Nvidia, you'd be lauding how "forward-thinking" they were being in promoting DP.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jan 27, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> But me, oh yeah, this product was designed for users like me. I don't care about cost...I want what I want, and am willing to pay for it.



"Willing" really means "able". I'd be "willing" too if I had that much disposable income. I'd be willing to do a lot of things I can't as it stands today. Fairly pertintent distinction, if you ask me.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Meh. I could jsut simply say, if ya are complaining about price, this product wasn't designed with you in mind anyway. Plain and simple.
> 
> But me, oh yeah, this product was designed for users like me. I don't care about cost...I want what I want, and am willing to pay for it.
> 
> ...



You're right, people will buy it no matter what.  And just because someone is willing to pay $600 for a graphics card doesn't mean they enjoy paying extra for something that offers no practical advantage to them.  Paying $100 more for a monitor(or $300 total) just because they use DP is asinine.  It doesn't matter if you willing to put out big money for a graphics card, the graphics card offers you something for that large amount of money, right now DP doesn't, and the extra $100 gets you a lower quality LCD to boot.  You're the one that wanted to say DP is less expensive, and the monitors cost the same, you brought up the price issue remember.  I'm just responding.  Not everyone looking to buy cards in this price point has an unlimitted budget, they still do take notice.

As I said, I don't know why anyone would want DP right now.  It might show the advantage in the future, but right now, it doesn't.  I see people wanting DVI and HDMI far more than DP.  I don't see anyone that would be using this card asking that they drop DVI/HDMI in favor of DP.

Yes, DP is a good technology, yes it is going to grow in the future.  That's great, include a couple ports.  But don't force the majority of your users to use adapters just so you can have an ass load of the new connectors.



mdm-adph said:


> I swear, AMD can do no right in your eyes.  If this was Nvidia, you'd be lauding how "forward-thinking" they were being in promoting DP.



I think you have the reversed.  You think anyone that doesn't say AMD is the best is an Intel/nVidia fanboy.  Of course you would probably never think I would disagree with something nVidia did, right?

Of course, you probably never see anyone disagree with Intel or nVidia, you tend to just glance over those comments for some reason...I wonder why...


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, DP is a good technology, yes it is going to grow in the future.  That's great, include a couple ports.  But don't force the majority of your users to use adapters just so you can have an ass load of the new connectors.




But that's the whole point of flagship cards..to feature new technology. Saving a back isn't part of it. Plain and simple.


And that whole bit about DP being on lesser quality panels is garbage, sry. I've got 4 S-IPS panels here with DP(3xU2311H, + 3008WFP). All Dell high-end LCD's have DP.

Dell U2311H, S-IPS, $250:

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/pro...bk=gr:CategoryRec_default,g:RecentPopular,rk:

I mean, I suppose for pricing, we don't see the same deals, as we are in different countries, but if you are paying more for DP with a good panel, that's purely up to the retailer.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You're right, people will buy it no matter what.  And just because someone is willing to pay $600 for a graphics card doesn't mean they enjoy paying extra for something that offers no practical advantage to them.  Paying $100 more for a monitor(or $300 total) just because they use DP is asinine.  It doesn't matter if you willing to put out big money for a graphics card, the graphics card offers you something for that large amount of money, right now DP doesn't, and the extra $100 gets you a lower quality LCD to boot.  You're the one that wanted to say DP is less expensive, and the monitors cost the same, you brought up the price issue remember.  I'm just responding.  Not everyone looking to buy cards in this price point has an unlimitted budget, they still do take notice.
> 
> As I said, I don't know why anyone would want DP right now.  It might show the advantage in the future, but right now, it doesn't.  I see people wanting DVI and HDMI far more than DP.  I don't see anyone that would be using this card asking that they drop DVI/HDMI in favor of DP.
> 
> Yes, DP is a good technology, yes it is going to grow in the future.  That's great, include a couple ports.  But don't force the majority of your users to use adapters just so you can have an ass load of the new connectors.



If I can afford 600 bones I can afford adapters. I can afford a new monitor. I can afford pretty much anything I want. You pay that because you want the best. If you want to get down to brass tacts paying 600 bucks for a GPU is asinine. With todays games there is no need. Your argument is null.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 27, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> Apparently Nvidia is doing the same with the fan in the middle venting half in half out and plans to try and take the wind out of AMD's sales with the 590 launch around the same time.
> 
> Source
> 
> I can't wait to see how these card perform, how they do against each other and how they do in crossfire/sli.



I have my eyes on the Dual GPU 570 EVGA showed at CES.

IMO either the reference cooler needs fixed, or 3rd party needs to step up and make a version with a better cooler.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> But that's the whole point of flagship cards..to feature new technology. Saving a back isn't part of it. Plain and simple.
> 
> 
> And that whole bit about DP being on lesser quality panels is garbage, sry. I've got 4 S-IPS panels here with DP(3xU2311H, + 3008WFP). All Dell high-end LCD's have DP.
> ...



I disagree, the purpose of the flagship card is to perform better than all the rest, not feature new technology.  And it isn't even featuring any new technology, it is just featuring more of the same technology found on the lower cards.

That dell monitor is $280 in the states, that actually is still pretty comparable to an IPS panel without DP, so I'll give you that point.



TheMailMan78 said:


> If I can afford 600 bones I can afford adapters. I can afford a new monitor. I can afford pretty much anything I want. You pay that because you want the best. If you want to get down to brass tacts paying 600 bucks for a GPU is asinine. With todays games there is no need. Your argument is null.



It isn't about being able to afford it, I can afford it, that doesn't mean I like spending money that I don't have to.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't about being able to afford it, I can afford it, that doesn't mean I like spending money that I don't have to.


 See the thing is they don't ether. So they sell you something they know the market will absorb without extra cost to them. You will buy a 600 GPU and love it. Its like buying a Corvette and bitching it doesn't come with a spare tire.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I disagree, the purpose of the flagship card is to perform better than all the rest, not feature new technology.




So whut? Clearly AMD doesn't agree with you, so I don't understand the complaining about it.

I mean, your points are valid. It does kinda suck, that eyefinity is restricted to DP usage. But at the same time, I am glad that it's DP now, and not something that they will have to upgrade in the future. When eyefinity is really ready for prime-time(or we get much higher-res panels), they will have years of experience with DP


But, with nVidia...you got to buy a whole second card. I'll take DP rather than the second card.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 27, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> So whut? Clearly AMD doesn't agree with you, so I don't understand the complaining about it.
> 
> I mean, your points are valid. It does kinda suck, that eyefinity is restricted to DP usage. But at the same time, I am glad that it's DP now, and not something that they will have to upgrade in the future. When eyefinity is really ready for prime-time(or we get much higher-res panels), they will have years of experience with DP
> 
> ...



So you only have to use 1 card, but you have to pay for more expensive monitors or $30-$50 dollar adapters that may cause things not to work properly.

I'll take the second card and drivers that don't suck.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

Well that's it, isn't it. At the high end, you have to make concessions to get what you want.

Nvidia wants you to buy multiples of thier product.

Amd wants you to spread the wealth around to other companies.

I personally don't have much issue with AMD drivers. both multi-monitor solutions have a fwe driver bugs, but software itself is a much larger part of nVidia's solution, and as such, in my mind, has a higher chance of failure.

I've been trying to build a rig for racing games with three monitors, wheel and such for some time. Still waiting for the right VGA for it. I am hoping the 6990 is it...but that doesn' exclude nVidia fro mthe options..time will tell.

And really, that's what I am comparing for purchase. NV vs ATI, for multi-monitor use, and of course, with decent framerates. Seem 6990 is gonna come before a dual card from nV...but you never know.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 27, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> See the thing is they don't ether. So they sell you something they know the market will absorb without extra cost to them. You will buy a 600 GPU and love it. Its like buying a Corvette and bitching it doesn't come with a spare tire.



No, its like buying a corvette and bitching if it requires E100.  Yes, E100 is better, yes it is the new technology.  But it is expensive, hard to find, and unnecessary.  Not everyone that has the money is willing to burn it on unnecessary things.



cadaveca said:


> So whut? Clearly AMD doesn't agree with you, so I don't understand the complaining about it.
> 
> I mean, your points are valid. It does kinda suck, that eyefinity is restricted to DP usage. But at the same time, I am glad that it's DP now, and not something that they will have to upgrade in the future. When eyefinity is really ready for prime-time(or we get much higher-res panels), they will have years of experience with DP
> 
> ...




Well with this solution you essentially are buying a second card, aren't you?  And that is my point, if you are essentially buying two cards, then why not use the most popular display outputs of both cards.  With the nVidia solution you get to use 4 DVI monitors.  I'm not saying the nVidia solution is better, I'm not even comparing it, I'm just saying it is possible when you have 2 cards to have more DVI monitors.  One of the biggest draw backs of eyefinity is the requirement of DP, and with this card that requirement is essentially removed, because it is two cards in one.  IMO, AMD missed the opertunity to make eyefinity more user friendly by not including more DVI ports.

And again, my issue isn't with eyefinity requiring DP on a single GPU card, that as I said is a necessity.  My issue is that I don't see it to be a necessity to have 4 DP ports on this card, especially not with at the expense of DVI or HDMI.  And again, I'm not saying leave DP off completely either, I'm glad they have it, and are using it, and are moving it mainstream, however I just don't think it is to the point where there should be more than 2 on each card and they should be leaving off other more popular connectors to get more than 2.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No, its like buying a corvette and bitching if it requires E100.  Yes, E100 is better, yes it is the new technology.  But it is expensive, hard to find, and unnecessary.  Not everyone that has the money is willing to burn it on unnecessary things.



Sure. But the level of product that is intended "for everyone" is "mainstream", and this card isn't it.


I mean, if that's all you can come up with that is bad about this card, i think they are doing pretty good. I can overlook the extra DP port(s)...heck, I only need three myself! 

And guess what...becaues of timing issues, DP and DVI together for multi-monitor use just plain old sucks balls(even nV isn't mixing display output types). I haven't bought 68xx or 69xx just because of that..from my expereince with eyefinity, you need three native DP ports. 3x DVI just isn't possible with AMD's solution, and I accepted that many moons ago when I bought my monitors.

Because, in the end, you are very right, this is two cards in one...and only eyefinity really needs that sort of grunt. Seems to me that it'd be like the eyefinity6 card, except they left the single DVI for those that will use a single monitor.

I mean, I haven't been talking about the multistream DP boxes and daisy-chainable monitors being the only viable solution for eyefinity for months for no reason. Seem like AMD kinda listened, because I much prefer the right number of DP ports than a completely seperate box, that most likely, would have sold for $99 or better...I paid that for the DP-DVI adapter already.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 27, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No, its like buying a corvette and bitching if it requires E100.  Yes, E100 is better, yes it is the new technology.  But it is expensive, hard to find, and unnecessary.  Not everyone that has the money is willing to burn it on unnecessary things.


 Then you shouldn't be buying a Vett. I picture you more as a Gremlin driver anyway.


----------



## wahdangun (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I disagree, the purpose of the flagship card is to perform better than all the rest, not feature new technology.  And it isn't even featuring any new technology, it is just featuring more of the same technology found on the lower cards.
> 
> That dell monitor is $280 in the states, that actually is still pretty comparable to an IPS panel without DP, so I'll give you that point.
> 
> ...



to be honest. The problem with eyefinity was because they mix it with DVI, and causing cursor coruption, btw if someone want to eyefinity they will just buy an lcd with dp in it or buy it alltogether with lcd, and btw what make its difficult to buy a $30 adaptor? This is enthusiast card, i mean what is the different  with this than buying after market cooler for your cpu,


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Sure. But the level of product that is intended "for everyone" is "mainstream", and this card isn't it.



Where did you get that I was talking about things for everyone?

Again I'll say it.  Not everyone that has the money to burn is willing to spend it on unnecessary things.




cadaveca said:


> I mean, if that's all you can come up with that is bad about this card, i think they are doing pretty good. I can overlook the extra DP port(s)...heck, I only need three myself!



That is exactly why I said this is going to be a beast of a card.  The DP issue isn't a deal breaker by a long rung, I never said that, I just said I would have preferred a different configuration.

As you said, you really only need 3 for eyefinity.  That is my point.  Why use 4?  I've said this serveral times I believe now, why didn't they just use 3 and include an HDMI or Mini-HDMI port in place of the 4th DP?  That makes more sense to me than 4 DPs and a single DVI.



cadaveca said:


> And guess what...becaues of timing issues, DP and DVI together for multi-monitor use just plain old sucks balls(even nV isn't mixing display output types). I haven't bought 68xx or 69xx just because of that..from my expereince with eyefinity, you need three native DP ports. 3x DVI just isn't possible with AMD's solution, and I accepted that many moons ago when I bought my monitors.



See above.  How many times do I have to say I'M NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD REMOVE DP COMPLETE.  I don't know where you have gotten that idea.



cadaveca said:


> Because, in the end, you are very right, this is two cards in one...and only eyefinity really needs that sort of grunt. Seems to me that it'd be like the eyefinity6 card, except they left the single DVI for those that will use a single monitor.



And as I have said, there are many different ways this could have been handled, including stacking the DPs in a 2x2 arrangement to make room for other ports.  I believe they probably could have done this without even blocking any of the vent.  And that is only _if_ they wanted to use 4 DPs.  If they only wanted 3, they could have stuck an HDMI or mini-HDMI in place of the 4th DP.



cadaveca said:


> I mean, I haven't been talking about the multistream DP boxes and daisy-chainable monitors being the only viable solution for eyefinity for months for no reason. Seem like AMD kinda listened, because I much prefer the right number of DP ports than a completely seperate box, that most likely, would have sold for $99 or better...I paid that for the DP-DVI adapter already.



So you think that 4 DPs and one DVI is the right number of DPs and a better configuration than 3 DPs, and HDMI port, and a DVI?



wahdangun said:


> to be honest. The problem with eyefinity was because they mix it with DVI, and causing cursor coruption, btw if someone want to eyefinity they will just buy an lcd with dp in it or buy it alltogether with lcd, and btw what make its difficult to buy a $30 adaptor? This is enthusiast card, i mean what is the different  with this than buying after market cooler for your cpu,



And again, there really isn't a reason that they couldn't have just used 3 DPs a DVI and a HDMI.  You could still do eyefinity with the 3 DPs.  And I'll say it again, and for the last time, it has nothing to do with the money for the adapter, the point is that it isn't necessary if they just put slightly more thought into the design.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> So you think that 4 DPs and one DVI is the right number of DPs and a better configuration than 3 DPs, and HDMI port, and a DVI?



  You missed the part where I said I actually have 4 DP monitors, eh?




> And again, there really isn't a reason that they couldn't have just used 3 DPs a DVI and a HDMI.  You could still do eyefinity with the 3 DPs.  And I'll say it again, and for the last time, it has nothing to do with the money for the adapter, the point is that it isn't necessary if they just put slightly more thought into the design.



I told you, this card is for me. Not you. Hey look, it's got everything I need.

I mean, I understand this card isn't for you, so why are you even posting in the thread?

You can get waht you want, and probably the same functionality, by buying 2x6970. Those have exactly what you need, and probably, more grunt to boot.

Me, I've moved on to Micro-ATX. I want a single card that can do it all, including run all of my monitors at once. I'm not gonna use the 4th monitor to game on, but for monitoring tools, teamspeak, messenger, and IE, most likely.

And to get that all to work, and not have any timing issues that lead to corruption, I need 4 ports. I need 2GB per GPU. I need F1 2010 @ 60fps.

This card should do all that. This is MY card. Everything I've posted here on the forums that i want, this card has. Everything you want...

Is in a different product. They got you covered, too...and likewise, everyone else.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You missed the part where I said I actually have 4 DP monitors, eh?



Most people don't, and almost no one buying this card will.  So you are saying it is a more logical combination to have 4 DPs instead of 3 a HDMI and a DVI?




cadaveca said:


> I told you, this card is for me. Not you. Hey look, it's got everything I need.
> 
> ...



Now you are getting selfish, the card is for the general public, and 4 DPs doesn't make sense to the general public.  3 makes sense, not 4.  Why don't you get a DVI to DP adapter?  Why is that so hard bad?


----------



## wolf (Jan 28, 2011)

looks like it has the potential to perform like 6950 2gb CF or better, that boards well for AMD. can't wait to see if it holds up to the seemingly reasonable expectations.

what I'm more interested in is Nvidia's well kept secret answer, and how it is performing and priced against this card. the midrange price war is stunning at the moment, everybody wins. it would make my day if the high end competiton is as invigorating.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Most people don't, and almost no one buying this card will.  So you are saying it is a more logical combination to have 4 DPs instead of 3 a HDMI and a DVI?



Yep. You got it exactly right. It's my card.




> Now you are getting selfish, the card is for the general public, and 4 DPs doesn't make sense to the general public.  3 makes sense, not 4.  Why don't you get a DVI to DP adapter?  Why is that so hard bad?



I got one. Would you like a pic?

You don't run eyefinity, so you don't understand the problems. I do, and as such, the card makes sense.

The general public doesn't need this card, nor do they run eyefinity. I do. Flagship cards are never meant for the masses, because the masses cannot afford this card. Me, I've bought every high-end card for the last 10 years. It's all here(and elsewhere) on the forums. I expected all of this, and you didn't.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Yep. You got it exactly right. It's my card.
> 
> I got one. Would you like a pic?
> 
> ...



You've got an HD6990, yes I would like several pics, benchmarks as well.

And correction.  I don't run eyefinity on any of the rigs listed in my specs or sig.  Don't assume that just because I don't list every rig I've ever run that I haven't experienced them.  I've run eyefinity on several rigs at work that I've built for customers.  And as I said, 3 DPs would have been ideal.  Besides a very very very rare setup with 4 monitors, I can't see a single reason for 4 DPs.  The far more common 3 monitor setup only needs 3 DPs, and adding an HDMI along side the DVI would have catered to far more people than the 4th DP does.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

I meant adapter, not card. lol. I wish...I'd be playing, not typing lol.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> I meant adapter, not card. lol. I wish...I'd be playing, not typing lol.



And I'd be breaking into your house...

I guess we can just disagree here. You think 4 DPs is better, and I think 3DPs with HDMI is better. To each their own I guess.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> And I'd be breaking into your house...
> 
> I guess we can just disagree here. You think 4 DPs is better, and I think 3DPs with HDMI is better. To each their own I guess.



6 transmitters. 2 for each DVI/HDMI.

1 for DP.

the DVI gets two, that leaves 4. They can do 2xDP, HDMI, and 1 DL-DVI, or 2x SL-DVI. Enter the 6-series.

The 6870/6850 have 1x DL-DVI, 1x SL-DVI, 1xHDMI, and 2xDP. Your choice of connections are limited as to how many DVI/HDMI you can use as once, as the DP have dedicated TMDS.


Its physical limitations that prevent what you want, so, this is the most ideal. We need active adapters currently, as that's what's in the adapter...the needed TMDS, which requires power to run. If you want to run a connection that only uses a single TMDS, like analog, or single-link DVI, you do not need the active adapter.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 6 transmitters. 2 for each DVI/HDMI.
> 
> 1 for DP.
> 
> ...



My issue is rather than the fact they chose DP, it's the fact I have to pay for adapters when they should come with the bleeping card.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You've got an HD6990, yes I would like several pics, benchmarks as well.
> 
> And correction.  I don't run eyefinity on any of the rigs listed in my specs or sig.  Don't assume that just because I don't list every rig I've ever run that I haven't experienced them.  I've run eyefinity on several rigs at work that I've built for customers.  And as I said, 3 DPs would have been ideal.  Besides a very very very rare setup with 4 monitors, I can't see a single reason for 4 DPs.  The far more common 3 monitor setup only needs 3 DPs, and adding an HDMI along side the DVI would have catered to far more people than the 4th DP does.



DP is more powerfull.
I would be angry to see HDMI over DP, and atm I run two screens, and only hdmi, and I still would be pissed off by a hdmi port instead of DP...


----------



## Imsochobo (Jan 28, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> My issue is rather than the fact they chose DP, it's the fact I have to pay for adapters when they should come with the bleeping card.



Eyefinity 6 card my friend bought came with..... 3 adapters..


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> 6 transmitters. 2 for each DVI/HDMI.
> 
> 1 for DP.
> 
> ...



It's physical limitations that prevent what I want?  Really, then how do they manage it with single GPU cards.  The single GPU cards have 2 DVIs, a HDMI, and 2 DPs.  So you are full of shit if you are trying to say that this card is limitted to 1 DVI and 4 DPs, and couldn't do 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 3 DPs.  You eliminate the SL-DVI, add a DP, and bam you've got 3 DPs, 1 HDMI, and one DL-DVI.  So it is certainly more than possible.



Imsochobo said:


> DP is more powerfull.
> I would be angry to see HDMI over DP, and atm I run two screens, and only hdmi, and I still would be pissed off by a hdmi port instead of DP...



I highly doubt that if the card came out with 3 DPs, 1 HDMI, and a DVI, you'd be that upset.  3 DPs is all that is required, if you want more, buy the 6 DP version that will most certainly be released.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> It's physical limitations that prevent what I want?  Really, then how do they manage it with single GPU cards.  The single GPU cards have 2 DVIs, a HDMI, and 2 DPs.  So you are full of shit if you are trying to say that this card is limitted to 1 DVI and 4 DPs, and couldn't do 1 DVI, 1 HDMI, and 3 DPs.




maybe you missed  that *the 6870 and 6850 have 2x DVI, but one is dual link, and one is single link?* (For a total use of 3x TMDS)

Maybe you don't understand that you cannot use both DVI ports, as well as the HDMI, for eyefinity...and that *use of DP is required?* Why is this a requirement?

I mean, you don't use this stuff daily, so I understand why this confuses you.

HDMI 1.4 requires the same of TMDS as dual-link DVI(@ 10.2Gbit). If you want an HDMI 1.1 or 1.2 connector(5Gbit), sure, they could do it, but there'd be no 3d, no resolutions higher than 1920x1200(same limitations as single-link DVI).

So, HDMI 1.4 needs 2x TMDS. Dual-link DVI requires 2x TMDS.

That's 4.

That leaves only 2x TMDS left, and only 2xDP, not 3.


It's quite simple, really. The TMDS in AMD's GPUs isn't advanced enough yet. Maybe the next gen will be capable of what you'd like, but current cards are not. they only supprot 1920x1200 over DP...I cannot run my Dell 3008 @ 2560x1600 over DP...the DP ports on AMD vgas just aren't capable.


Technically, it's possible to get a high-speed TMDS that on it's own, can drive dual-link DVI, or whatever, but this hardware is just not present. 


Anyway, why would you want to use HDMI on a computer monitor? Why do you need HDMI so bad?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> maybe you missed  that *the 6870 and 6850 have 2x DVI, but one is dual link, and one is single link?* (For a total use of 3x TMDS)
> 
> Maybe you don't understand that you cannot use both DVI ports, as well as the HDMI, for eyefinity...and that *use of DP is required?* Why is this a requirement?
> 
> ...



I don't see your point.  Remove the SL-DVI, replace with DP for 3 DPs, 1 HDMI, and 1 DL-DVI.  I didn't miss anything.  I already know that one of the DVIs is single-link.  Again, the current output configuration is HDMI(2 TMDS), DL-DVI(2 TMDS), SL-DVI(1 TMDS), 2x DP(2 TDMS).  But wait...that's more than 6 already...  *Perhaps you are the one that is missing something here*.  Care to explain how that works then?  Oh thats right, you just can have more than 6 active, but you can have connectors for more than 6... you don't seem to know that though... You seem to be more interested in trying to show off how much you "know" than actually knowing that you are talking about.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I'm not saying users should be able to use all these connectors at the same time. Just like on the single GPU cards, only a certain number of ports will be usable at the same time.  I'm not confused at all as to why DP is necessary on the other cards, I've mentioned this several times that I understand why this is, and why the HDMI, and both DVIs can't be used at the same time.

Again, I'm saying remove the SL-DVI on the current output configuration for the HD6970, and replace it with a DP.  I'm saying that should be done.  Yes, I'm saying they should embrase the new technology, contray to what you like to make it seem like.  And Yes, it is certainly possible.  But what I'm saying really is that removing the HDMI also, and replacing it with a 4th DP is stupid.



cadaveca said:


> Anyway, why would you want to use HDMI on a computer monitor? Why do you need HDMI so bad?



The reason is simple, because it is extremely common.  A lot of people use HDTVs as monitors now as well, and you don't see many(any?) of those with DP, but they all have HDMI.  In the high-end group of people that will be buying these cards, far more people will be using an HDMI capable monitor than will be using *4* DP monitors, that is a certainty.  And I even venture to bet that more will be connecting this card to a DVI monitor and an HDMI HDTV than will be using 4 DP monitors as well.  That is the configuration I use on my main rig, a DVI monitor and an HDMI HDTV.  Why?  Because 60" computer monitors don't exist, so when I'm watching movies using my computer or playing games while sitting on the couch I don't want to be sitting on my couch watching a 23" screen accross the room, but when I'm sitting at my desk I don't want to be sitting 2ft away from a 60" screen.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

You cannot run 2x DVI, and HDMI, as well as both DP. That's what you are missing. there are only 6 TMDS, and you are right, running all outputs concurrently is impossible, and hence why current card don't support Eyefinity with 5x panels...the best you can do is 4.

So yeah, they could swap the DVI out for HDMI...or maybe 2xDP for another HDMI...you bet. They could add the conenctor there, and have it inactive...if the market for this card was really anything other than Eyefinity. But it's not.

The current 6990 config allows running with 5 panels, if you want, so that's the kicker with6990... you should be able to use all output at the same time, unlike the current cards(minus the eyefinity6 cards). This is how the 6990 differs.


Personally, I think the inclusion of even the dvi was silly...because you'll get cursor corruption using them all.

AMD requires the use of a DP connector, no matter how you configure your Eyefinity. It's part of how they are helping push DP adoption. You don't really have an issue with the lack of HDMI or whatever...I mean, when AMD is requiring the use of DP, and you should be using 3 monitors of the same model, it almost seems silly to buy anything other than DP-capable displays. What you ahve issues with, it seems to me, is the DP requirement for Eyefinity.

The 6990 is not really intended for anyone other than Eyefinity users. Eyefinity requires the use of DP...and using non-DP monitors while using DP at the same time, leads to cursor corruption. So you gotta use DP for every monitor.

To me it's no different than needing 120hz displays for nV's 3D...it's a requirement to use the technology. And AMD is perfectly fine having this requirement, as really, it's only going to limit a few users. The DVI is there, only for users that are not using Eyefinity.

There will be dongles in the box for at least a secondary DVI connector. Will it be DL-DVI? I doubt it.

In the end, I'm pretty sure we'll see some custom designs with 2x DVI, and one mini-DP, like the 5970. But for Eyefinity users, to get the best possible experience, they will want this card, with 4xDP.


That's why our opinions differ...I am an Eyefinity user, and you are not. My whole point in all of this is just that...as a non-Eyefinity user, the solution you want is not the 6990. You want 2x 6970. The 6990 is NOT for you. And not every product every company releases is for "Everyone"...otherwise we wouldn't have so many products on the market. Complaining about hte functionality of aproduct, when it's not intended for users like you, doesn't make any sense to me. Even so much more so...becuase htey have you covered with other products.

I mean ,you'd have a valid complaint if they did not offer a solution that will do what you personally require...but they do. And ergo, your complaints are invalid.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 28, 2011)

What do you Eyefinity for? Just asking...

I don't think i will ever need more than 1 DP. I probably will just buy the biggest monitor/tv i can afford, except if i ever plan to play Flight simulator.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

If you go to the AMD Eyefintiy page, you'll see what I use Eyefinity for. The extra viewspace.

Eyefinity, really, is for multi-monitor 3d rendering. It can be used to conenct extra panels too, but that's just a side-effect of the real use..for 3D.

F1 2010 is the perfect example. On a single screen, you barely see past the body of the car on either side. With Eyefinity, you can see the road next to the car, and the other drivers next to you.

It's far more immersive, and really, now that i have it, I cannot play F1 2010 any other way. Or any other driving game, for that matter.

I don't use eyefinity for FPS. I play worse, as instead of moving the mouse to see stuff out of direct view, I can move my eyes, and the bit of delay between seeing something, and moving to it, has a huge negative impact on my playing. I'm much better on a signle monitor, so that when I move to look at something, the crosshair is already close by, instead of on another screen.

2x 5870 doesn't have the power I need, for how I want to use Eyefinity, so 6-series is the cards for me, hopefully. But when 2x5870 was not enough, clearly 1x 6970 isn't either.

That leaves me with the option of 2x 6970, or this 6990. The 6990 suits my mATX platform choice better, as then I can also use 2 additional single slot cards..such as an audio card, and a wireless card, that would be impossible with 2x vgas. AN that's what I want...both Eyefinity, and an add-in audio card, in mATX. In a full-size board, I would have already  purchased 2x 6970, and would have no interest in this card...except, of course, for the cursor corruption.


----------



## a_ump (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> If you go to the AMD Eyefintiy page, you'll see what I use Eyefinity for. The extra viewspace.
> 
> Eyefinity, really, is for multi-monitor 3d rendering. It can be used to conenct extra panels too, but that's just a side-effect of the real use..for 3D.
> 
> ...



well said


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> You cannot run 2x DVI, and HDMI, as well as both DP. That's what you are missing.



No, I'm not missing it.  Read my posts, or it is pointless to contue the discussion.  I never said you were able to run them all at the same time, or that you _should_ be able to run them all at the same time. *In fact I specifically said that you already can't run them all at the same time.*



cadaveca said:


> there are only 6 TMDS, and you are right, running all outputs concurrently is impossible, and hence why current card don't support Eyefinity with 5x panels...the best you can do is 4.



Yes, and current cards aren't even great for 3x panels, because of several reasons you and I have already discussed.  Adding a 3rd DP to the card was genius.  Adding a 4th over HDMI was stupid.



cadaveca said:


> So yeah, they could swap the DVI out for HDMI...or maybe 2xDP for another HDMI...you bet. They could add the conenctor there, and have it inactive...if the market for this card was really anything other than Eyefinity. But it's not.



That is where you are wrong.  The market for this card is much greater than just eyefinity.   Just like the market for HD5970 and the other dual-GPU cards before it.  Eyefinity is a feature that is still used by an extremely small percentage of even the super high end market.



cadaveca said:


> The current 6990 config allows running with 5 panels, if you want, so that's the kicker with6990... you should be able to use all output at the same time, unlike the current cards(minus the eyefinity6 cards). This is how the 6990 differs.



I don't see the need to use all the outputs at once to be a requirement.  I don't see where 5 monitors is even that necessary.  In fact you can't even really do eyefinity with 5 monitors.  The 5th monitor is an "extended" monitor, which makes it just like any other extra monitor solution.  You can't extend 3D applications across the 5th monitor, so that pretty much kills the purpose of eyefinity...

And even with 4 monitors, eyefinity sucks, because the division right down the center of the screen is extremely noticeable.  The 3 monitor setup works best because the central monitor moves the divisions to your peripheral, so they aren't notices.

Even with the way you use the 4 monitors, the 4th monitor isn't really an eyefinity monitor.  It is an extended monitor.  Still technically an eyefinity setup with 4 monitors, but not truly in the spirit of eyefinity, which is to seemlessly blend all the monitors into a single logical monitor.  You aren't doing that with an extended 4th monitor.



cadaveca said:


> Personally, I think the inclusion of even the dvi was silly...because you'll get cursor corruption using them all.



And I don't think anyeone will be using the DVI with an eyefinity setup, they will be using 3 DPs.  Which is what I think should have been included on the card.



cadaveca said:


> AMD requires the use of a DP connector, no matter how you configure your Eyefinity. It's part of how they are helping push DP adoption.



Now you are making it sound like AMD is doing this because they just love DP so much, they want to see it adopted.  You're kidding yourself.  They are using it because it is the only way they could get it to work.



cadaveca said:


> You don't really have an issue with the lack of HDMI or whatever...



Actually, that is exactly the issue I have.



cadaveca said:


> I mean, when AMD is requiring the use of DP, and you should be using *3* monitors of the same model, it almost seems silly to buy anything other than DP-capable displays.



Correct, and I'm saying they should still include 3 DPs.  Are you not reading my posts?  The configuration I'm saying would have been ideal would still support 3 panel eyefinity using DP only.



cadaveca said:


> What you ahve issues with, it seems to me, is the DP requirement for Eyefinity.



And where did you pull this from?  Because I don't think a 4th DP is necessary over an HDMI port, suddenly I have a problem with DP being required for eyefinity?  That is quite a leap.  It seems to me that your problem is accepting that a 4th will go unused far more often an HDMI port.



cadaveca said:


> The 6990 is not really intended for anyone other than Eyefinity users. Eyefinity requires the use of DP...and using non-DP monitors while using DP at the same time, leads to cursor corruption. So you gotta use DP for every monitor.



You're repeating yourself.  We've gone over this, and I've alreadly explained why you are incorrect about this card being for eyefinity users only.  Is this card pretty much the only card with enough horsepower capable of doing eyefinity justice?  Yes.  Will more people with single monitors buy this card than people with eyefinity setups?  Hell yes, and don't kid yourself thinking otherwise.  They will buy this card for the same reason they bought the HD5970, and the GTX295, and the HD4870x2, and the HD3870x2, etc. because it is the top performer and they want the top performer no matter what.



cadaveca said:


> To me it's no different than needing 120hz displays for nV's 3D...it's a requirement to use the technology. And AMD is perfectly fine having this requirement, as really, it's only going to limit a few users. The DVI is there, only for users that are not using Eyefinity.



And again, I have nothing wrong with the requirement of DP.  You pulled that idea out of your ass.



> There will be dongles in the box for at least a secondary DVI connector. Will it be DL-DVI? I doubt it.



It doesn't really matter.  If they have to include a dongle because the majority of their users need it, it doesn't really lend to your point that the majority of the users of this card will be using 4 DPs, does it?



cadaveca said:


> In the end, I'm pretty sure we'll see some custom designs with 2x DVI, and one mini-DP, like the 5970. But for Eyefinity users, to get the best possible experience, they will want this card, with 4*3*xDP.



FTFY



cadaveca said:


> That's why our opinions differ...I am an Eyefinity user, and you are not. My whole point in all of this is just that...as a non-Eyefinity user, the solution you want is not the 6990. You want 2x 6970. The 6990 is NOT for you. And not every product every company releases is for "Everyone"...otherwise we wouldn't have so many products on the market. Complaining about hte functionality of aproduct, when it's not intended for users like you, doesn't make any sense to me. Even so much more so...becuase htey have you covered with other products.



And that is where our opinions differ.  As an eyefinity user, this product doesn't need 4 DPs. Yeah I've setup and tested enough eyefinity setups and dealt with enough of the problems to consider myself an eyefinity user.

And even if I wasn't an eyefinity users, to assume that the super-high end is only reserved for the extremely tiny amount of people running eyefinity is asinine.  I'm glad you feel that you are better than everyone, and that any eyefinity capable card coming out is for you and no one else.  However, as I said, there will still be far more people buying this card to run on a single monitor because they want the best than there will be eyefinity users buying this card.



cadaveca said:


> I mean ,you'd have a valid complaint if they did not offer a solution that will do what you personally require...but they do. And ergo, your complaints are invalid.



You say they offer a solution that will do what I personally require.  Show me such a solution.  My requirements:


Must have the horsepower of this card.
Must output both HDMI and DVI, without the need for adapters, or swapping cables.
Must also be capable of a 3 Panel eyefinity setup using DP natively.
Must only use 1 PCI-E slot.

*Find me the solution that you claim they offer.*  And if your next post doesn't start out with this solution that you claim they offer, don't even bother making it, becuase you'll just look like a fool and I won't respond.  Because by your own logic, if you can't come up with a solution that they offer, my points are valid. And ergo, your points are invalid.


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

wall of text, not gonna read it all. 

You are NOT an eyefinity user. I am.



kid41212003 said:


> What do you Eyefinity for? Just asking...



My setup(so you can see what I was talking about earlier about expanded viewspace):









newtekie1 said:


> Must have the horsepower of this card.
> Must output both HDMI and DVI, without the need for adapters, or swapping cables.
> Must also be capable of a 3 Panel eyefinity setup using DP natively.
> Must only use 1 PCI-E slot.



Ok, I'll give you this.

They don't make a product for you.

The last 2 points are stickers, for sure. Only this card offers more than 2x DP. but actually, I think there is some diamond card, that has and add-on card, or something ,with both DVI/HDMI, and like 6xDP...I'l ltry to find you a link.


EDIT: it was powercolor:





Not exactly what you want, but close...

Of course, you said yourself you only need to conenct 1 monitor, and one HDTV. Make up your MIND!  Argument for argument's sake isn't gonna go nowhere.



> And where did you pull this from?




LoL. From AMD themselves?



> Also, at least 3 simultaneous, active display outputs, including one DisplayPort™ connector are required to support AMD Eyefinity technology




http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/amd-eyefinity-technology/how-to/Pages/faqs.aspx


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> wall of text, not gonna read it all.
> 
> You are NOT an eyefinity user. I am.



Keep making that assumption, and keep being wrong.




cadaveca said:


> Ok, I'll give you this.
> 
> They don't make a product for you.



So my points are valid.  End of discussion right.  Appearently not...



cadaveca said:


> The last 2 points are stickers, for sure. Only this card offers more than 2x DP. but actually, I think there is some diamond card, that has and add-on card, or something ,with both DVI/HDMI, and like 6xDP...I'l ltry to find you a link.
> 
> 
> EDIT: it was powercolor:
> ...



I don't want last generations card.  And I'm not going to be surprised if similar cards are released based on HD6990.  My issue is with the reference output configuration, not 3rd party improvements on it.

And the ironic think about that is that they are using the TMDS links from the second GPU for eyefinity 12... Didn't you say that wasn't possible?



cadaveca said:


> Of course, you said yourself you only need to conenct 1 monitor, and one HDTV. Make up your MIND!  Arguemtn for arguments sake isn;t gonna go nowhere.



I never said that was my only need.  That it just the setup I have now and why I would like both a native DVI and native HDMI.  I would like the option to move to a 3 panel eyefinity setup in the near future, so 3 native DPs would be a requirement.

And It seems at this point, since you already admitted my points are valid by your own logic, you are the one that is arguing for argument sake.



cadaveca said:


> LoL. From AMD themselves?
> 
> http://www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/amd-eyefinity-technology/how-to/Pages/faqs.aspx



Yes, that has been established, and it has been established that I know why that is and have no problem with it.  This would be a valid point if I was aruging that they should completely remove DP from the card.  However, that isn't what I'm aruging, I'm aruging that they should remove a single DP, still leaving 3 for 3 panel eyefinity, and used the spot for an HDMI.  You keep making arguments for why DP is included in the card, but you haven't really made an argument for why 4 are necessary over 3, or rather why 4 is better than 3 with an HDMI.

For that matter, it seems you've completely ignored my other suggestion of stacking the DPs, allowing all 4 to be kept and an HDMI include.  Yes, this might have blocked some of the vent, but not as much as a stacked DVI port.  And really, when you think about it, the amount of heat that the exhaust has to deal with will be less than that of an HD6970, which gets less exhaust space because of the DVI blocking half of it.  With the exhaust only handling air from one of the GPUs, and that GPU being less powerful than an HD6970, blocking the exhaust slightly with 2 DPs wouldn't have been an issue.  The exhaust from the second GPU isn't going through the vent, remember.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 28, 2011)

I don't really want to get into this conversation but how do we know that some if not all board partners will not be including a display port to hdmi adapter like with the eyefinity 6 cards?

If they did would it not kind of make all this pointless?


----------



## cadaveca (Jan 28, 2011)

LoL newtekie. I said a couple of pages ago, your points were valid, but point is, complaining about it isnt gonna change things.

Let's see the pics of your eyefinity setup.

4 DP is needed for those who want to have a 4th monitor for things like teamspeak and messengers, as well as monitoring apps. You get cursor corruption when using different output types, so the inclusion of the 4th has those peopel, like me, that want that functionality.

Like you siad, I'm repeating myself. The only differnce between you and me is that I am actively using Eyefinity. You are not. You infer that you are, but then say you aren't...seems kinda silly. So show us the pics of your setup.

I've benn an eyefintiy user since day one..problably the first here, not that that is important, other than that I have far more experience with this than most. There are a few other users here, 10, i think that have eyefintiy setups, and each has complained about the various issues I have reported over the past 16+ months.

Personally, I like to think that AMD is listening to people like me, that have already invested in Eyefinity and AMD is adapting it to meet the needs of people like me. Our experience dictates what they need to change...like how I was pretty accurate on what the 69xx series was going to be...my expereince with the products told me what they'd change, and how, and in the end, I even had the price points right. So it seems I am more in tune with what AMD is doing, and why. Heck, even Mailman is now listening to me...becuase I've been pretty correct about AMD products.

You HAVe brought up some legitimate points, of course, but that doesn't change that what you want isn't here in this product. Plain and simple AMd cannot meet the needs of everyone with jsut a single product, and clearly, the concernes YOU have, aren't the concerns AMD has, or else the product you want would be what the 6990 is. Unfortuantely for you, you jsut gonna have to look at other alternatives to get what you want.



bear jesus said:


> If they did would it not kind of make all this pointless?



Not for newtkie. He doesn't want to have to deal with dongles, and I have to agree with that. Every additional device needed is another potential point of failure.


----------



## erocker (Jan 28, 2011)

cadaveca, Newtekie.. Move along. This is a News post, it's not a discussion thread. If you feel like it, you can discuss whatever you want about AMD's 6 series here:   Official AMD Radeon 6000 Series Discussion Thread

Thanks much.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 28, 2011)

do we have any specifcations on its dimentions? I just had to ditch a 5970 in favor of dual gtx480's due to length. This thing looks longer than the 5970 and wider too. 

(and yes I realize that for 100$ I could get a case that it would fit in and that was cheaper than the difference between the 320$ I got the 5970 for and the 500$ I paid for 480 sli but damn it changing cases is a pita)


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 28, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> do we have any specifcations on its dimentions? I just had to ditch a 5970 in favor of dual gtx480's due to length. This thing looks longer than the 5970 and wider too.
> 
> (and yes I realize that for 100$ I could get a case that it would fit in and that was cheaper than the difference between the 320$ I got the 5970 for and the 500$ I paid for 480 sli but damn it changing cases is a pita)



According to a guess over at hexus "A rough and ready comparison to a piece of A4 paper (297mm) shows that the card is just slightly longer, making it a fraction shorter than its 309mm predecessor."

Correct me if I'm wrong but i would have expected 480 sli to have given you a noticeable boost in power? so not exactly a really bad choice over the 5970 and a different case.


----------



## TAViX (Jan 29, 2011)

Can anyone take a wild guess for this card's length???


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 29, 2011)

TAViX said:


> Can anyone take a wild guess for this card's length???



I would say around 30cm or 12 inches going by the post right above yours


----------

