By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Intel’s Broadwell-K Launching at End of 2014 According to New Roadmap

Shido on 22 October 2013

Tom's Hierarchy chart isn't that great comparing cards between a short timeframe, its better for comparing performance tiers between generations, for example the GTX 690 is clearly a little bit faster than HD 7990, same with the GTX 780 vs the HD 7970Ghz

IMHO and being an AMD user the chart should be something like this 270X>HD 7950>>HD 7970>>GTX 680>7970 Ghz~GTX 770/280X>>GTX 780>>GTX TITAN>>>>HD 7990>GTX 690

Being each ">" about 5% difference

Most of the time AMD wins on the price/performance department though



PS Vita and PC gamer

CPU Intel i5 2500K at 4.5 Ghz / Gigabyte Z68 Mobo / 8 Gb Corsair Vengeance 1600 mhz / Sapphire HD 7970 Dual X Boost / Corsair Obsidian 550d 

Around the Network
Zappykins on 22 October 2013

So the chips are now about a year behind schedule.

Still, they are making some might impressive gains - specifically power consumption - yea longer battery life.

I know AMD said it wasn't worth it to keep getting smaller, but that sounded to me like a cop out.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!
Captain_Tom on 24 October 2013
ethomaz said:
Captain_Tom said:

Look I am not debating this because it is silly to compare the level competition AMD and Nvidia have always had to the domination Intel has over the FX series right now.

I dare you to post this in the Tom's Hardware forums and see if most people agree with you. They will agree that AMD hasn't put up much competition in the CPU space though.


I will close by linking the GPU hierarchy chart (Actually read this one):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

As you can see the 7970 is on the same level as the 680, and the 7970 GHz is in fact higher than both the 770 and 680. Only the Titan and 780 have beaten the 7970 GHz, and the latter was not by much.

Either way in 3 days the 290X will come out and thrash Nvidia again, and the Nvidia will launch a card that beats that within half a year and vice versa. The cycle continues...

I am done here. You need to do some reading. PEACE!

 

P.S.   I never said AMD was dominating Nvidia in performance, just that the competition is right  where it should be compared to the stagnation in the CPU space...

I agree... I'm being a little harsh with AMD

Titan was just destroyed for half the price.  My point exactly...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-35.html



ethomaz on 24 October 2013

Captain_Tom said:

Titan was just destroyed for half the price.  My point exactly...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-35.html

Destoryed?

"and even Nvidia’s GeForce GTX Titan in a number of cases"

Your definition of destroyed is funny.

My thoughts...

GOOD

+ Performance (beat GTX 780... slightly below the Titan)
+ Price (not confirmed yet but seems like $550-600... great price)

BAD (TERRIBLE)

+ Hot hot hot (94°C on load? Hell)
+ Loud (60Db? lol)
+ Power consumption

 

28nm is hurting AMD... bad card in my vision.



Captain_Tom on 24 October 2013
ethomaz said:

Captain_Tom said:

Titan was just destroyed for half the price.  My point exactly...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-35.html

Destoryed?

"and even Nvidia’s GeForce GTX Titan in a number of cases"

Your definition of destroyed is funny.

My thoughts...

GOOD

+ Performance (beat GTX 780... slightly below the Titan)
+ Price (not confirmed yet but seems like $550-600... great price)

BAD (TERRIBLE)

+ Hot hot hot (94°C on load? Hell)
+ Loud (60Db? lol)
+ Power consumption

 

28nm is hurting AMD... bad card in my vision.


If it was  $1000 it wouldn't have destroyed the Titan since it only trades blows with it.  But at nearly half the price I consider it utterly destroyed because price/performance is what really matters.   Also at the resolutions you should actually be using to justify this card, it does soundly beat the Titan.

I posted this to point out that nothing anywhere near close to this is happening in the CPU space and it is really sad for the consumer.  Imagine if AMD launched some $500 Steamroller 8-core that ran at 5+ GHz at 160w and beat the 6-core IB-E!  

 

There is just no one to keep Intel (You from what I hear) in check.  If only IBM would jump into the race again, but we all know that would be a stupid decision...



Around the Network
ethomaz on 24 October 2013

Captain_Tom said:

If it was  $1000 it wouldn't have destroyed the Titan since it only trades blows with it.  But at nearly half the price I consider it utterly destroyed because price/performance is what really matters.   Also at the resolutions you should actually be using to justify this card, it does soundly beat the Titan.

I posted this to point out that nothing anywhere near close to this is happening in the CPU space and it is really sad for the consumer.  Imagine if AMD launched some $500 Steamroller 8-core that ran at 5+ GHz at 160w and beat the 6-core IB-E!

 

There is just no one to keep Intel (You from what I hear) in check.  If only IBM would jump into the race again, but we all know that would be a stupid decision...

I need to add that I said before GREAT price but in fact it is a AMAZING price...

The noise level and temperatures are unaceptable.

28nm is hurting both companies.



Captain_Tom on 24 October 2013
ethomaz said:

Captain_Tom said:

If it was  $1000 it wouldn't have destroyed the Titan since it only trades blows with it.  But at nearly half the price I consider it utterly destroyed because price/performance is what really matters.   Also at the resolutions you should actually be using to justify this card, it does soundly beat the Titan.

I posted this to point out that nothing anywhere near close to this is happening in the CPU space and it is really sad for the consumer.  Imagine if AMD launched some $500 Steamroller 8-core that ran at 5+ GHz at 160w and beat the 6-core IB-E!

 

There is just no one to keep Intel (You from what I hear) in check.  If only IBM would jump into the race again, but we all know that would be a stupid decision...

I need to add that I said before GREAT price but in fact it is a AMAZING price...

The noise level and temperatures are unaceptable.

28nm is hurting both companies.

Oh I have to 100% agree there.  That's why I am not buying until 20nm.  Imagine the performance of this on 20nm with a new architecture!

However I have to quote this:

"Again AMD On This: We have designed the 290 Series to operate at a steady state of 95C. By running at 95C, we are both maximizing the performance and minimizing the acoustics of the product. Be assured, that 95C is a perfectly safe temperature at which the GPU can operate for its entire life. There is no technical reason to reduce the target temperature below 95C. "

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_r9_290x_review_benchmarks,31.html

 

It will be interesting to see if this holds true...



ethomaz on 24 October 2013

Captain_Tom said:

Oh I have to 100% agree there.  That's why I am not buying until 20nm.  Imagine the performance of this on 20nm with a new architecture!

However I have to quote this:

"Again AMD On This: We have designed the 290 Series to operate at a steady state of 95C. By running at 95C, we are both maximizing the performance and minimizing the acoustics of the product. Be assured, that 95C is a perfectly safe temperature at which the GPU can operate for its entire life. There is no technical reason to reduce the target temperature below 95C. "

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_r9_290x_review_benchmarks,31.html

 

It will be interesting to see if this holds true...

I think that too high... a lot high for a processor but if AMD is saying who am I to complain?

But I disagree with the part of the "minimizing the acoustics"... the test shows 60Db in load... that's ridiculous.... it is loud like... I don't know... live close to a train?



Captain_Tom on 24 October 2013
ethomaz said:

Captain_Tom said:

Oh I have to 100% agree there.  That's why I am not buying until 20nm.  Imagine the performance of this on 20nm with a new architecture!

However I have to quote this:

"Again AMD On This: We have designed the 290 Series to operate at a steady state of 95C. By running at 95C, we are both maximizing the performance and minimizing the acoustics of the product. Be assured, that 95C is a perfectly safe temperature at which the GPU can operate for its entire life. There is no technical reason to reduce the target temperature below 95C. "

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_r9_290x_review_benchmarks,31.html

 

It will be interesting to see if this holds true...

I think that too high... a lot high for a processor but if AMD is saying who am I to complain?

But I disagree with the part of the "minimizing the acoustics"... the test shows 60Db in load... that's ridiculous.... it is loud like... I don't know... live close to a train?

I never read into those acoustics tests.  Just get an aftermarket one!  My 7970 is quiet as hell, even under furmark.  Only when overclocked for 30% more performance does it get audible at all (But not noticable while gaming).

 

Just wait for the Toxic addition.  I garuntee it will add 20% to the 290X's performance and never even reach 80c while being at 50% fan usage...