Thursday, January 14th 2010
Gigabyte Working on Radeon HD 5870 1 GHz Super Overclock Model
Gigabyte is expanding its Super Overclock family of graphics cards with a highly tweaked model based on the ATI Radeon HD 5870. The Gigabyte GV-R587SO-1GD features a complete design overhaul over AMD's reference design, with the card sporting a typical Gigabyte-blue colored PCB, and a custom-design double-slot VGA cooler. The PCB uses Gigabyte's Ultra Durable VGA construction which makes use of a PCB with 2 oz copper layer, ferrite core chokes, low RDS (on) MOSFETs, and Japanese solid-state capacitors. The VGA cooler consists of a GPU base from which four copper heat pipes convey heat to aluminum fin blocks cooled by two 90 mm fans.
The GV-R587SO-1GD comes with out of the box clock speeds of 1000 MHz (core), and 1300 MHz / 5.20 GHz effective (memory), against reference AMD clock speeds of 850 MHz (core) and 1200 MHz / 4.80 GHz (memory). ATI Eyefinity support is retained with a display connectivity that resembles the reference design: two DVI-D, and one each of DisplayPort and HDMI. The GPU features DirectX 11 compliance, 1600 stream processors, and a 256-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface. It connects to 1 GB of memory.
Source:
BeHardware
The GV-R587SO-1GD comes with out of the box clock speeds of 1000 MHz (core), and 1300 MHz / 5.20 GHz effective (memory), against reference AMD clock speeds of 850 MHz (core) and 1200 MHz / 4.80 GHz (memory). ATI Eyefinity support is retained with a display connectivity that resembles the reference design: two DVI-D, and one each of DisplayPort and HDMI. The GPU features DirectX 11 compliance, 1600 stream processors, and a 256-bit wide GDDR5 memory interface. It connects to 1 GB of memory.
66 Comments on Gigabyte Working on Radeon HD 5870 1 GHz Super Overclock Model
: ]
But there will be an updated, higher-end, HD5000 GPU somewhere in 2010 (probably after Fermi's launch).
That's been pretty much confirmed by Richard Huddy in his last bittech interview.
Nonetheless, the RV870 doesn't need higher GPU clocks, it desperately needs higher memory bandwidth - be it with a redesigned memory bus or substantially faster GDDR5 memory.
thus far I've not seen memory over clocks make much of a difference so I#ve not seen these bottles neck yet.
I dont know if they have any sinks on the ram or the vrm area but it looks like maybe the cooling solution covers that.
www.bit-tech.net/bits/interviews/2010/01/06/interview-amd-on-game-development-and-dx11/1
It's a great read, the best hardware interview I've seen since this one. The guy is completely honest and he even takes all the blame about what happened with the Saboteur. It's not a "let me evade your questions and do PR crap" session (a la Jen Hsu Huang), it's an actual interview.
About the other part:Maybe because those tests were made in low resolutions or detail?
Memory bottleneck is the only logical explanation for the HD5870 to be slower than a HD4870X2.
@ ToTTenTranz: I agree with you that memory bottleneck is one of the main reasons that the 5870 isn't a double in performance over the 4890. However, I think it also has to do with the fact that games might not fully utilize the number of SPUs on that single core. This could be because of the drivers, or just the fact that games developers need to play catchup with the tech market.
This 5870 OC Edition will be nice, but I still do expect a 5890, which will most likely solve the RAM bottleneck issue with a 384 bit bus (which, incidentally, will mean another 16 ROPs (total of 48 :D)), and higher clocked RAM. This would require a new GPU core, which might come with a die shrink, optimized power systems, or both, allowing for higher clocks. This is what I'm holding out for. ;)
RV890 wouldn't need to be a dramatically new core, it could just be tweaker in order to support higher clocks and be bundled with (a lot) faster GDDR5.
Of course, a 384-bit bus would be welcome, but that would require a new PCB, so it's unlikely to happen.
Why?
overclock the mem you see basically no improvement
if you oc the core you get massive boosts.
In theory that means no memory bottleneck anyways....
Don't equate RV790's creation to something similar with Cypress. It doesn't face the issues RV770 faced. To address the memory bandwidth "deficiency" issue, the GPU should be given a complete redesign due to the way the different components of the GPU are arranged. That's a substantially higher R&D than what went into making RV790. The bottomline is AMD can't afford to make performance GPUs every half year. It makes a performance GPU every >1 year. It took 15 months to get from RV770 to Cypress.
So AMD won't roll out two performance GPUs within a span of an year.
After so many charts were made, tests by users who actualy owned a 5870, reviews by W1zz, and other sites if you think that it needs more bandwidth than you need to end yourself.
And, @ Steevo, there's really no reason to tell others to "just die" and "you need to end yourself" when you disagree with them. That's childish.The thing is, you (or me) don't know if there are enough improvements to be made to RV870 to justify a new chip. There's always something to improve, and these improvements wouldn't be the exact same thing as what happened in the RV770->RV790 transition (that would be stupid).
Notice that I'm not insisting that there will be a new chip, I'm just saying that nothing is certain at this point.
Richard Huddy did say they will have an unanounced product prepared to make sure that Fermi won't be the fastest graphics card throughout most of 2010 (like what happened with the GTX285 in 2009). Since Fermi is coming in late Q1, they're sure to launch this product before Q4.They don't, not at all.
All AMD has to do is to pair a Cypress board with the new 7Gb/s memory chips being produced by Samsung and Hynix. It would bump the bandwidth to 224GB/s (45% up from the current 154GB/s that we see in the HD5870).
A Cypress card with 1GHz core and 224GB/s bandwidth could perfectly be the future HD5890 (and the card to compete with a Fermi flagship).
Is that better? Here is a benchmark run from a actual user, back to back changing only the memory speed.
I've tested in Unigine Heaven, SF4 benchmark and DMC4 benchmark, core always at 950mhz, and memory speed varying from 1000-1300.
Heaven 1680x1050 - 4xAA - 16xAF MAX settings
950/1000 = 31.7fps - score 799
950/1100 = 32.6fps - score 822
950/1200 = 33.6fps - score 845
950/1300 = 34.4fps - score 865
1920x1200 4xAA - 16xAF, MAX - Posterization
950/1000 - 134.64
950/1100 - 139.37
950/1200 - 142.01
950/1300 - 145.44
DMC4 I had to do average of 3 runs across the 4 scenes and experienced some issues, so i wont clog up my post with those results, suffice to say it followed these results quite linearly.
my testing shows;
30% difference in memory bandwidth across the 256 bit bus results in a performance difference of ~9%
I dare make the assumption that even if ATi paired this card with 6.4gbs memory instead of 4.8, we'd see performance of around 10%, given my testing between 4gbs to 5.2gbs
I'd love to speculate how the card would perform with a 512 bit bus, but I honestly don't think I could do it justice. But I really think the choice for 4.8gbs memory was based on how cheap and abundant the memory chips are compared to faster clocked stuff, and the fact that performance on this GPU seems to have little to gain from the speed alone.
forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30510&d=1257887705
A simple chart to show the relatinoship of memory speed to gain.
Blue is the memory speed increase, red is the actual performance increase, yellow is the net loss of effect that people are proposing. So for evey 10% increase your 3% of win is overbalanced by 7% of fail, netting your over 200% more fail per clock.
I'm talking from my personal experiences with the HD58 and 57 series.
My contention is that AMD won't release a new performance GPU this soon (within 12 months of Cypress' release), simply because it can't afford to. It can't do to Cypress what it did to RV770 (a change it could afford and desperately needed), because Cypress already has the resources to run at high clock speeds.So you've answered yourself. AMD won't have to come up with a new GPU.
If you ask me this doesn't say that. What they could do is go in a rework the 5870 give it a 1000MHZ clock speed and a 384Bit Bus Speed and call that a 5890. That would easily out class a 5870.
Plus if they went in a reworked the GPU you could actually see a 5890 with a 384 bit bus sure but maybe a core clock of 1200MHZ. Not saying this would happen but look how much more power they got by reworking the 4870 into a 4890 about 20% to 25% more power. I think they could still easily do that.
Although it probably really depends on what Femi does and how fast that is.