|
real_scud posted:When you get it, can you run a test of powering down the monitor connected to that dongle if when you turn the monitor off does Windows think you've lost an available monitor or not Sure thing. Ugh, BSOD happened again. Gonna try an older version of the drivers, although that seems counter-intuitive.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
With signs pointing to the GeForce 670s dropping at the end of April and the 660s in the summer, does that mean we won't see any well-priced current-generation mid-range ($200-250) cards for several months? That makes me sad. Or would the 670s have enough of an effect to push the 7850 down in price?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
I sincerely doubt you'll see anything decent in the <$300 range until TSMC gets their 28nm production issues sorted out, there needs to be a lot of excess supply before they have a reason to cut prices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2012 01:27
|
|
|
If AMD dropped the 7970 by 100 dollars, I'd buy a card right now. Otherwise i'm buying a 680 when I get my hands on one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Yup I'm totally with you. I'd like to put a new machine together in time for the diablo three launch (not that that game really needs it, sigh). I use a 30" monitor at work and I'm probably going to get one at home at this time too so I think a beefy card is warranted. It looks like Ivybridge will be pretty tight supply at that point too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
incoherent posted:If AMD dropped the 7970 by 100 dollars, I'd buy a card right now. Otherwise i'm buying a 680 when I get my hands on one. Between 28nm issues and a larger die size than GTX680 that is not going to happen. Oh and how the tables have completely turned from the days of RV770 vs GT200. I wouldn't ever have dreamt of Nvidia owning AMD in performance/die size/power until I saw the review. They a took supposedly midrange GK104 and slapped it with a long high-end board presumably designed for GK100 and said "lol, We don't even need GK100 to beat AMD!" and call it a day, and this is incredible IMO. Mod Edit: Don't say "pwn", it makes you sound like a twelve year old. Somebody fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 11:17
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:They a took supposedly midrange GK104 and slapped it with a long high-end board presumably designed for GK100 Big Kepler seems like it wouldn't really increase game performance much, rather it'd have more CUDA cores, proper hardware thread scheduling, and usable double precision. Things that the HPC market wants, but don't really do much for games and take up a lot of die space. To this end, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes straight into some future Tesla card and never makes it into anything mainstream.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
The rumor mill is showing that the Playstation 4 will be an AMD x86 CPU with a Southern Islands GPU. Here's an Ars link.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
All indications seem to be that it's a Trinity APU, two Piledriver modules (four cores) and a VLIW4 GPU.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Honestly, it makes sense. More common code bases mean hopefully less lovely console ports, and all your heat concentrated in one physical location means you can more easily design the console to be smaller and quieter. Sony hasn't given two shits about backwards compatibility of late, so that's no real surprise. Maybe they'll offer a super expensive version with Cell, and then phase it out..
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
Alereon posted:All indications seem to be that it's a Trinity APU, two Piledriver modules (four cores) and a VLIW4 GPU. That's probably all for the best anyway. Experimental chip designs like the Emotion Engine and Cell in the PS2/PS3 had enormous theoretical power, but in practice that just meant that developers had no idea how to code well with the system for the first few years, and cross-platform development needed extra work even after that. I just hope the new console generation errs heavy on RAM, that's the part that always seems to hit limits relative to the PC first. These days aging console CPU/GPU power means multiplatform games don't look quite as nice as they could on the PC. Console memory limitations more directly mean they have to cut actual gameplay features.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
Thankfully, DRAM is currently cheap. I doubt you could kit each console with 8GB of RAM, but an APU and DDR3 ought to be a good sight cheaper than a Cell and XDR, especially as there will be a process size drop, too. Not that savings haven't already occurred - process drops and BluRay hardware have gotten tons cheaper. Goodness. When the PS3 first came out, it cost about $800 to produce, sold for $500, and was built on a 90nm process - same process as the second to last generation of Pentium 4. Nowadays it costs ~$240 to build on a 40nm GPU/45nm CPU. Power use has dropped roughly 60%. Console oomph has certainly stagnated over the past whole lotta years, but the hardware has been updating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 12:12
|
|
|
Chuu posted:The rumor mill is showing that the Playstation 4 will be an AMD x86 CPU with a Southern Islands GPU. The thing that would be amazing is if their media playback support improves from abysmal. Even the cheapest set-top media boxes give you SMB/CIFS share support + hardware decoding of MKVs (ASP and AVC), audio (mine will do AC3/DTS/MP3/AAC/etc), and even basic subtitle support (though usually the stock UI leaves something to be desired). Last I checked, the current consoles either require very specific encoding parameters, or a DLNA/similar middle-man running on your machine. They certainly pale in comparison to a dedicated XBMC machine. The problem isn't hardware though, it's software. With an x86-based system, they could afford to throw some money and developers at current FOSS projects like libav/ffmpeg, which support a huge variety of formats, and are written for x86 systems (they have large quantities of x86 assembly too, which makes porting difficult). This would be a large selling point for a lot of people, because you can consolidate your devices, and any TV you hook console up to could become a portal to your entire media collection. Though, it'll open a hilarious amount of attack vectors into the system, but that's another story entirely, I guess. Wonder what the target goal for these consoles are, 60FPS@1920x1080 at all times? Or a (kind of) lofty 120FPS for  3D
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
movax posted:Wonder what the target goal for these consoles are, 60FPS@1920x1080 at all times? Or a (kind of) lofty 120FPS for I hope they just do 1080p @ 60fps as opposed to 720p @ 30fps which is what you get mostly from current consoles. 120fps would be ridiculous, and the machine would cost a lot to make, or you'd have to seriously sacrifice visual quality. Maybe you could have a "3D" edition of the console, with an assload more GPU power, for several hundred more, and games would note whether they are 3D compatible or not, and switch into a profile to move the FPS cap to 120..
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
Sony definitely is pushing the 3D agenda to go along with their 3D blu ray and 3DTV biz. There are some 3D PS3 games already. I think somehow Uncharted 3 even had a 3d mode, can't imagine it would look that great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:120fps would be ridiculous, and the machine would cost a lot to make, The economics pretty strongly favor making large, expensive chips. The added cost is only really substantial for the first year or so, and you'll be selling the system for ~5 years. And the console itself isn't even where the money is at, it's the games, so eating extra cost on the console to sell more games is worth it (or, looking at it the other way around, it's not worth doing a little better on each console sale if your competitor has an advantage that lets them claim more of the market).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Sony definitely is pushing the 3D agenda to go along with their 3D blu ray and 3DTV biz. There are some 3D PS3 games already. I don't remember off-hand what TVs are doing with 3D at the moment. I know in some cases, you need a higher-revision HDMI cable to support the extra bandwidth. Maybe 120FPS isn't necessary if they run at half-resolution or something, and combine the frames. I should really brush up on that. Also, quote:The following AMIBIOS source code has been updated and is now available for use: Goodnight, sweet prince. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Alereon posted:All indications seem to be that it's a Trinity APU, two Piledriver modules (four cores) and a VLIW4 GPU. If this is true then maybe it might work out great for AMD as game developers try to squeeze out the maximum performance from AMD's somewhat peculiar module design. Optimizations learned there might be applicable to more general programs or compilers targeting bulldozer-esqe designs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
movax posted:I don't remember off-hand what TVs are doing with 3D at the moment. I know in some cases, you need a higher-revision HDMI cable to support the extra bandwidth. Maybe 120FPS isn't necessary if they run at half-resolution or something, and combine the frames. I should really brush up on that. There's 2 different methods for 3D like that: side by side and top and bottom. They literally just half either the width or height and show 2 images per frame and 3D TVs are able to combine it correctly. But as far as I know, the PS3 games use frame packing for their 3D, which is the one that you need HDMI 1.4 for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:There's 2 different methods for 3D like that: side by side and top and bottom. They literally just half either the width or height and show 2 images per frame and 3D TVs are able to combine it correctly. But as far as I know, the PS3 games use frame packing for their 3D, which is the one that you need HDMI 1.4 for. Yeah, 1.4 gives you 1080p/24 3D (1080p/48). There's also a new 300 Mhz HDMI standard called Fast HDMI which supports frame packing at 1080p/60 (so 1080p/120), plus 2k and 4k resolutions. At least I think it's a standard, though good luck finding much useful information. AMD already supports Fast HDMI on the 7xxx cards, so I can see why Sony would like that. Gives them all sorts of additional video formats on the next gen console. JBark fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Apr 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Has AMD taken all their high-end Phenom II x6 CPU's off the market? I have an AM3-based system that I do a lot of encoding on (Handbrake / Foobar), and when I'm working at it, I constantly have my Athlon II x3 445 pegged at 100% on all 3 cores. I was shopping around for an 1100T as a possible replacement, and I see that it's not carried by either Newegg or Amazon anymore. I was hoping that there was some sort of upgrade path, but is my only option to move to another motherboard/CPU combo? Moving to an x4 wouldn't be much of an upgrade (and my 4th core won't unlock). I'd consider BD if it were AM3 compatible, but if I need to get a new motherboard as well, I might as well move to intel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:There's 2 different methods for 3D like that: side by side and top and bottom. They literally just half either the width or height and show 2 images per frame and 3D TVs are able to combine it correctly. But as far as I know, the PS3 games use frame packing for their 3D, which is the one that you need HDMI 1.4 for. Yeah this is why the old fat PS3 doesn't support 3D, because only the slim is HDMI 1.4. Also bitstream DTS-HD (fat ps3 problem, not HDMI 1.3 problem there. Don't know why it is that way)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Civil posted:Has AMD taken all their high-end Phenom II x6 CPU's off the market? I have an AM3-based system that I do a lot of encoding on (Handbrake / Foobar), and when I'm working at it, I constantly have my Athlon II x3 445 pegged at 100% on all 3 cores. I was shopping around for an 1100T as a possible replacement, and I see that it's not carried by either Newegg or Amazon anymore. They usually try and phase out the last gen chips pretty quickly, and probably more so in this case since the 1100T was far too competitive with the newer chip.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Yeah this is why the old fat PS3 doesn't support 3D, because only the slim is HDMI 1.4. Also bitstream DTS-HD (fat ps3 problem, not HDMI 1.3 problem there. Don't know why it is that way) My fat PS3 with software PS2 emulation supports 3D. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
If you google it, apparently all PS3 models can do 3D despite the HDMI 1.3 limitation. It has something to do with having enough bandwidth compared to HDMI 1.4 and firmware upgrades. The XBox, meanwhile, cannot, because HDMI 1.2 does not have sufficient bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
ultrabay2000 posted:If you google it, apparently all PS3 models can do 3D despite the HDMI 1.3 limitation. It has something to do with having enough bandwidth compared to HDMI 1.4 and firmware upgrades. Welp chalk up yet another incorrect assertion for me today. Jesus. I'm still right about the audio thing though! I know that from personal experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
For anyone looking for a late night laugh, AMD just sent out their 2011 Annual Report; I got mine in the mail yesterday so I haven't read through much of it yet but there's gotta be some good stuff in there. (If the direct link doesn't work go here instead to get it.)Civil posted:Has AMD taken all their high-end Phenom II x6 CPU's off the market?...
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
nmfree posted:For anyone looking for a late night laugh, AMD just sent out their 2011 Annual Report; I got mine in the mail yesterday so I haven't read through much of it yet but there's gotta be some good stuff in there. (If the direct link doesn't work go here instead to get it.) I'm glad I got mine when I did back in November. They probably quit making them a while back and the channel finally sold them all. I bet if you look hard enough and are willing to deal with an unknown vendor you can find one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
adorai posted:we received two demo DL165 G7 servers from our reseller this week. We put ESXi 4.1u2 on them, joined them to one of our VMware clusters, and started migrating VMs over. So far, I am actually pretty impressed with the bulldozer processors in them. Since it really all depends on VM load this next number is useless, but the MAX CPU utilization we saw today was 35% on a single proc 6272. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
adorai posted:If anyone wanted an update on this, the per thread performance wasn't enough to satisfy a few of our time sensitive applications so we have had to pass on these. One application in particular took over 3 times as long to run
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's after the fact, but I'm curious, are you 100% sure Turbo Core was enabled and working?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
 Radeon HD 7000-series price drops are incomingUnconfirmed price changes "in the next few days": Radeon HD 7970 3GB: $549 -> $479 (-$70) Radeon HD 7950 3GB: $449 -> $399 (-$50) Radeon HD 7770 1GB: $159 -> $139 (-$20) The Radeon HD 7800-series price remains the same. See the story from HardwareCanucks here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
With that, AMD are back in the game
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Any word on the 670 or other lower priced kepler parts? The 7950 is still out of my price range and I'd love to see a drop on the 78XX series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:With that, AMD are back in the game And to be fair before the 680 came out they were having trouble keeping the 7970 in stock at the old prices, so they cleared some good money by releasing a bit earlier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:With that, AMD are back in the game What's interesting is that the 7970 is more expensive [or rather it should be] than the GTX 680. 3GB of RAM, larger PCB, more expensive VRM components [I'm pretty sure on that one], larger die size. If their yields are good then i'm sure they are still profitable at $480 each, but I'm really surprised they haven't come out with a 1.5GB version of the card yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Is there any videocard that is worth upgrading to from the 6850? In BF3 on High at 1280x1024 I get around 45FPS, which is mildly annoying. But I don't know if the cost of an upgrade is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:Is there any videocard that is worth upgrading to from the 6850? In BF3 on High at 1280x1024 I get around 45FPS, which is mildly annoying. But I don't know if the cost of an upgrade is worth it. What's your CPU? Around 41 fps is what they got over at Tech Report, but at 1920x1080. At such a small resolution, it sounds like you may be CPU bottlenecked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
unpronounceable posted:What's your CPU? Around 41 fps is what they got over at Tech Report, but at 1920x1080. At such a small resolution, it sounds like you may be CPU bottlenecked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:i7-2600k In that case, you definitely aren't CPU bottlenecked. The best price/performance cards out right now are the 7850, or the 560Ti-448 Core. Either one would be a noticeable step up compared to the 6850. When you're looking at the benchmarks, the 560Ti-448 Core performs somewhere in between the 560Ti and the 570, leaning closer to the latter. A comparison for the 7850 vs. 6850.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 08:11
|
|