The article says no such thing about the GPU being a revision. All it is saying is that as the process is refined there is less voltage leakage and a bit more performance headroom (i.e. the standard deviation curve is moving to higher freqs. If you're expecting Tahiti XTX to be a foundry respin you're in a waking dream.[/I][/B]
less voltage leakage meaning better consumption = higher clocks at the same voltage
whether it is a revised or not it will be a better and more efficient chip, and with 1250mhz capability that is a good 70-80mhz higher than the best overclocked tahitis now
gk104 is clocked at 1006mhz and dynamic clock takes it to 1110mhz or something
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/4, too close to its limit i shall say, especialy noting that tahiti at 925mhz is only 6% slower on average(according to wizz review) than gk104 at 1006-1110
So your idea of comparison is to take the highest efficiency mainstream (and lower) card and measure it against a card a considerable step up in market segment. What next? comparing power consumption of the GTX 680 against that of the HD 6450 ?, acoustics of the GTX 680 against a passive cooled card ?[/I][/B]
no my idea of efficiency comparison is to look at the capability of GCN architecture vs Kepler. pitcairn for example is 40% smaller than tahiti, and has 40% less cores, and has less bandwidth, yet performs only 20%-25% slower. that being said, it is clear that GCN architecture has much more potential than what tahiti is bringing out.
so im putting performance/core, performance/die area, performance/watt, all into perspective
Sorry, not convinced that a binned Tahiti is the next messiah. Don't save me a pew at the Church of Redfanboyism
Amazing how "computer" ( I presume you mean compute function/ GPGPU) has suddenly become of major importance with AMD followers -where was all this corncern when Fermi and Evergreen were having to go round.
On your second point, you do realise 1. that Quadro/Tesla will be based on GK110 since GK104 has no ECC 72-bit memory and is constrained of double precision FP performance, and...2. AMD have had capable workstation cards for generations- they just heaven't put much effort into a software enviroment or drivers for the pro sector. Big engine great. Not being able to figure out how to shift out of neutral bad.
Since you're all for lopsided comparisons, are you willing to bet that Tahiti will be a GPGPU match for GK110...
It sounds like Cray aren't
The link you posted actually quotes 20-25%. Leaving aside your lowballing. The 20-25% is gaming performance not compute. Since you have trouble distinguishing the two:
GTX 680 FLOPS 1006M core x 1536 shader x 2 OPC = 3090.432 GFlop...Double precision artificially capped at 1:24 rate
GK110 would need only a 800M core clock to have a 20% FLOP advantage ( 800 x 2304 x 2 OPC = 3686 GFlops), but here's the kicker. Quadro DP is a full 1:2 rate. Now according to this [URL="http://www.3dcenter.org/news/was-vom-nvidia-gk110-chip-zu-erwarten-ist"]3DCentre article (probably a bit more credible than Videocardz and OBR) single precision is estimated at 4000+ GFlops (2000+ double precision) so;
GK110
4000+ FP32 and
2000+ FP64
Tahiti XT
3788 FP32 and
947 FP64...
and that making a huge assumption that an AMD pro card could be built around Tahiti XT. For AMD's last arch, they used Cayman LE...a HD 6950 with 128 shaders fused off (Firepro V7900)
it isnt the next messiah, it is just an improvement over something that was already great, no one can deny that, if you do then bring your evidence, telling me gk110 WILL be better is not a valid arguement, it is yet to be released and what you post is out of speculation in specs and even more speculation in release dates, as far as i remember i read rumors saying sep/oct but not sure, but either way even if its august then that will be around 3-4 month before amd releases the hd 8970(1 year from tahiti), exactly the same amount of time between tahiti and kepler, and who knows what will they bring by then with the enhanced GCN. but so far its said that its 20% better than tahiti in compute in the SAME power envelope
http://videocardz.com/30786/amd-radeon-hd-8970-speculation-radeon-hd-7990-delayed
this slide states tenerife in single precision did 4500tflops as in MARCH 2012, meaning it can even get better, so if we take ur speculations seriously then 4000tflops for gk110 is already something amd is achieving inhouse, but does it matter? no it doesnt because untill its released there is no point of arguing
as for now, does kepler beat amd in compute? no it doesnt even come close. does it beat it in gaming? barely and amd seems to be closing the gap with the new binned tahiti not to mention they already trade blows depending on the titles.
so its smart to stop bashing amd and be fair and give each camp their credit
oh and for your info i run a gtx460. no1 denied that fermi wasnt a badass architecture except for gtx480 and 470 which pretty much weren't ready and had a bad start, but when fermi was properly refined it was way better than vliw5 in gaming and compute, and while vliw4 was more effiecient if you only look at gaming and performance/watt/die size, it was light years behind in compute, not to mention with nvidia releasing 500mm2+ chips they sure held the performance crown
and nvidia will do the same approach next time around as well, knowing that gk110 is speculated to be 550mm2, that is a good 200mm2 bigger than tahiti, so will it be faster than tahiti and gk104? hell yes it will be, but will also cost more to manufacture and ofcourse consume more power. and i sure can tell you amd cant beat it with a 360mm2 die size, that would require an architecture that is like 40% more efficient than nvidias kepler which i dont think will happen since both amd and nvidia are on par in terms of architectures. but if amd would release a big chip like that they could beat whatever nvidia bringsd but I doubt that will ever happen, its just not amd's methodology to do so
