My gripe with all console manufacturers using AMD powered graphics ...

[ICStats]

fatslob-:O said:

ICStats said:

fatslob-:O said:

ICStats said:
Last year nVidia chips used too much power. The 7790 which is I think is closest to what's in the consoles, was at least 1.5X more power efficient than equivalent nVidia GPUs, until this year.

I was pretty sure that kepler was more efficient perf/watt wise in terms of gaming performance ...

No, not last year when the hardware for XB1/PS4 would have been pretty fixed.

Radeon HD 7790
 - Released March 2013, MSRP $130, die size 221 sqmm, TDP 85W, GFLOPS 1792, GFLOPS/W 21.0

GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost
 - Released March 2013, MSRP $170, die size 160 sqmm,  TDP 134W, GFLOPS 1505, GFLOPS/W 11.2

Comparatively the GTX was ~40% bigger, ~60% hotter, and cost more.

The GTX was slightly faster in real gaming, but slower in some compute tasks.

I was comparing the hd 7970 to the gtx 680. Performance is more than GFLOPS! I'm talking about GAME performance. Despite the fact that the 680 and 7970 are roughly neck and neck the 680 still takes less power. 

"Performance is more than GFLOPS! I'm talking about GAME performance."

I did explicitly say the GTX was slightly faster in real gaming...

"680 and 7970 are roughly neck and neck the 680 still takes less power."

The HD 7970 is older tech from 2012, Southern Islands architecture and was a huge chip that took tons of Watts.

The HD 7790 is the Sea Islands (closer to PS4) architecture, and had better performance per watt than equivalent Kepler GPUs from what I could see.

You can easily see that every chip in the HD 7000 and GTX 600 range has a different GFLOPS/W, depending on clock settings, type and amount of RAM, number of cores, etc.  That's why I'm comparing some GPUs that have closer specs to the PS4/XB1.

FWIW I'm not like an AMD fanboy... I have a GTX 670 in one PC and HD 7850 in another.  They are not so comparable in performance though.