Trending Games | ArcheAge | Elder Scrolls Online | Black Gold | World of Warcraft

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,774,396 Users Online:0
Games:721  Posts:6,188,597
Recent forum postsRSS
Active threads
Cloud view
List all forums
General Forums
Developers Corner General Discussion
Popular Game Forums
Click a status to find game forum
Game Forums
Click a letter to find game forum
A-C
2029 Online 2112: Revolution 2Moons 4Story 8BitMMO 9 Dragons A Mystical Land A Tale in the Desert III A3 ACE Online ARGO Online Aberoth Absolute Force Online Absolute Terror Achaea Adellion Aerrevan Aetolia, the Midnight Age Age of Armor Age of Conan Age of Empires Online Age of Mourning Age of Wulin Age of Wushu Aida Arenas Aika Aion Albion Online Alganon All Points Bulletin (APB) Allods Online Altis Gates Amazing World Anarchy Online Ancients of Fasaria Andromeda 5 Angels Online Anime Trumps Anmynor Anno Online Applo Arcane Hearts Arcane Legends ArchLord ArcheAge Archeblade Archlord X Asda 2 Asda Story Ashen Empires Asheron's Call Asheron's Call 2 Astera Online Astonia III Astro Empires Astro Lords: Oort CLoud Asura Force Atlantica Online Atriarch Aura Kingdom Aurora Blade Auto Assault Avatar Star Battle Dawn Battle Dawn Galaxies Battle for Graxia Battle of 3 Kingdoms Battle of the Immortals Battlecruiser Online Battlestar Galactica Online Battlestar Reloaded Beyond Protocol Black Aftermath Black Desert Black Gold Black Prophecy Black Prophecy Tactics: Nexus Conflict Blacklight Retribution Blade & Soul Blade Hunter Blade Wars Blazing Throne Bless Blitz 1941 Blood and Jade Bloodlines Champions Bounty Bay Online Brain Storm Brawl Busters. Brick-Force Bright Shadow Bullet Run Business Tycoon Online CTRacer Cabal Online Caesary Call of Camelot Call of Gods Call of Thrones Camelot Unchained Canaan Online Cardmon Hero Cartoon Universe CasinoRPG Castle Empire Castlot Celtic Heroes Champions Online Champions of Regnum Chaos Online Chrono Tales Citadel of Sorcery CitiesXL Citizen Zero City of Decay City of Heroes City of Steam City of Transformers City of Villains Civilization Online Clan Lord Clash of Clans Cloud Nine Club Penguin Colony of War Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances Company of Heroes Online Conquer Online Conquer Online 3 Continent of the Ninth (C9) Core Blaze Core Exiles Corum Online Craft of Gods Crimecraft Crimelife 2 Cronous Crota II Crusaders of Solaris Cultures Online Cyber Monster 2 Céiron Wars
D-F
D&D Online DC Universe DK Online DOTA DOTA 2 DUST 514 DV8: Exile Dalethaan Dance Groove Online Dark Age of Camelot Dark Ages Dark Legends Dark Orbit Dark Relic: Prelude Dark Solstice Dark and Light DarkEden Online DarkSpace Darkblood Online Darkest Dungeon Darkfall Darkfall: Unholy Wars Darkwind: War on Wheels Das Tal Dawn of Fantasy Dawntide DayZ Dead Earth Dead Frontier Deco Online Deepworld Defiance Deicide Online Dekaron Demons at the Horizon Desert Operations Destiny Diablo 3 Diamonin Digimon Battle Dino Storm Disciple Divergence Divina Divine Souls Dofus Dominus Online Dragon Ball Online Dragon Born Online Dragon Crusade Dragon Empires Dragon Eternity Dragon Nest Dragon Oath Dragon Pals Dragon Raja Dragon's Call Dragon's Call II Dragon's Prophet DragonSky DragonSoul Dragona Dragonica Dragons and Titans Dream of Mirror Online Dreamland Online Dreamlords: The Reawakening Drift City Duels Dungeon Blitz Dungeon Fighter Online Dungeon Overlord Dungeon Party Dungeon Rampage Dungeon Runners Dynastica Dynasty Warriors Online Dynasty of the Magi EIN (Epicus Incognitus) EVE Online Earth Eternal Earth and Beyond Earthrise Eclipse War Ecol Tactics Online Eden Eternal Edge of Space Einherjar - The Viking's Blood Elder Scrolls Online Eldevin Elf Online Elite: Dangerous Embers of Caerus Emil Chronicle Online Empire Empire & State Empire Craft Empire Universe 3 EmpireQuest Empires of Galldon End of Nations Endless Ages Endless Blue Moon Online Endless Online Entropia Universe EpicDuel Erebus: Travia Reborn Eredan Eternal Blade Eternal Lands Eternal Saga Ether Fields Ether Saga Online Eudemons Online EuroGangster EverEmber Online EverQuest Next EverQuest Online Adventures Evernight Everquest Everquest II Evony Exarch Exorace F.E.A.R. Online Face of Mankind Fairyland Online Fall of Rome Fallen Earth Fallen Sword Fallout Online Family Guy Online Fantage Fantasy Earth Zero Fantasy Realm Online Fantasy Tales Online Fantasy Worlds: Rhynn Faunasphere Faxion Online Ferentus Ferion Fiesta Online Final Fantasy XI Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Firefall Fists of Fu Florensia Flyff Football Manager Live Football Superstars Force of Arms Forge Forsaken World Fortnite Fortuna Forum for Discussion of Everlight Freaky Creatures Free Realms Freesky Online Freeworld Fung Wan Online Furcadia Fury Fusion Fall
G-L
GalaXseeds Galactic Command Online Game of Thrones: Seven Kingdoms Gameglobe Gate To Heavens Gates of Andaron Gatheryn Gauntlet Gekkeiju Online Ghost Online Ghost Recon Online Gladiatus Glitch Global Agenda Global Soccer Gloria Victis Glory of Gods GoGoRacer Goal Line Blitz Gods and Heroes GodsWar Online Golemizer Golf Star GoonZu Online Graal Kingdoms Granado Espada Online Grand Chase Grand Fantasia Grepolis Grimlands Guild Wars Guild Wars 2 Guild Wars Factions Guild Wars Nightfall H1Z1 Habbo Hotel Hailan Rising HaloSphere2 Haven & Hearth Hawken Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Helbreath Hellgate Hellgate: London Hello Kitty Online Hero Online Hero Zero Hero's Journey Hero: 108 Online HeroSmash Heroes & Generals Heroes in the Sky Heroes of Bestia Heroes of Gaia Heroes of Might and Magic Online Heroes of Thessalonica Heroes of Three Kingdoms Heroes of the Storm Hex Holic Online Hostile Space Hunter Blade Huxley Illutia Illyriad Immortals USA Imperator Imperian Inferno Legend Infestation: Survivor Stories Infinite Crisis Infinity Infinity Iris Online Iron Grip: Marauders Irth Worlds Island Forge Islands of War Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted Jade Dynasty Jagged Alliance Online Juggernaut Jumpgate Jumpgate Evolution KAL Online Kakele Online Kaos War Karos Online Kartuga Kicks Online King of Kings 3 Kingdom Heroes Kingdom Under Fire II Kingdom of Drakkar Kingory Kings and Legends Kings of the Realm KingsRoad Kitsu Saga Kiwarriors Knight Age Knight Online Knights of Dream City Kothuria Kung Foo! Kunlun Online L.A.W. LEGO Universe La Tale Land of Chaos Online Landmark Lands of Hope: Phoenix Edition LastChaos League of Angels League of Legends - Clash of Fates Legend of Edda: Vengeance Legend of Golden Plume Legend of Katha Legend of Mir 2 Legend of Mir 3 Legendary Champions Lego Minifigures Online Life is Feudal Light of Nova Lime Odyssey Line of Defense Lineage Lineage Eternal: Twilight Resistance Lineage II Linkrealms Loong Online Lord of the Rings Online Lords Online Lost Saga Lucent Heart Lunia Lusternia: Age of Ascension Luvinia World
M-Q
MU Online Mabinogi Maestia: Rise of Keledus MagiKnights Magic Barrage Magic World Online Manga Fighter MapleStory Martial Heroes Marvel Heroes Marvel Super Hero Squad Online Marvel: Avengers Alliance MechWarrior Online Megaten Meridian 59 : Evolution Merlin MetalMercs Metaplace Metin 2 MicroVolts Midkemia Online Might & Magic Heroes: Kingdoms MilMo Minecraft Mini Fighter Minions of Mirth Ministry of War Monato Esprit Monkey King Online Monkey Quest Monster & Me Monster Madness Online MonsterMMORPG Moonlight Online: Tales of Eternal Blood Mordavia Mortal Online Mourning My Lands Myst Online: URU Live Myth Angels Online Myth War Myth War 2 Mytheon Mythic Saga Mythos N.E.O Online NIDA Online Nadirim Naviage: The Power of Capital Navy Field Need for Speed World Nemexia Neo's Land NeoSteam Neocron Nether Neverwinter Nexus: The Kingdom Of The Winds NinjaTrick NosTale Novus Aeterno Oberin Odin Quest Odyssey RPG Ogre Island Omerta 3 Online Boxing Manager Onverse Order & Chaos Online Order of Magic Original Blood Origins Return Origins of Malu Orion's Belt Otherland Forums OverSoul Overkings Oz Online Oz World Pandora Saga Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Panzar Parabellum Parallel Kingdom Parfait Station Path of Exile Pathfinder Online Perfect World Perpetuum Online Phantasy Star Online 2 Phantasy Star Universe Phoenix Dynasty Online Phylon Pi Story Picaroon Pirate Galaxy Pirate Storm Pirate101 PirateKing Online Pirates of the Burning Sea Pirates of the Caribbean Online Pixie Hollow Planeshift Planet Arkadia Planet Calypso PlanetSide 2 Planetside Planets³ Playboy Manager Pocket Legends Pockie Ninja Pockie Pirates Pockie Saints PoxNora Prime World Prime: Battle for Dominus Priston Tale Priston Tale II Prius Online Project Blackout Project Powder Project Titan Forums Project Wiki Puzzle Pirates Quickhit Football
R-S
R2 Online RAN Online RF Online ROSE Online Rage of 3 Kingdoms Ragnarok Online Ragnarok Online II RaiderZ Rakion Rappelz RappelzSEA Ravenmarch Realm Fighter Realm of the Mad God Realm of the Titans Realms Online Reclamation Red Stone Red War: Edem's Curse Regnum Online Remnant Knights Renaissance Repulse Requiem: Memento Mori Rift RiotZone Rise Rise of Dragonian Era Rise of Empire Rise of the Tycoon Rising of King Risk Your Life Rivality Rockfree Rohan: Blood Feud Role Play Worlds Roll n Rock Roma Victor Romadoria Rosh Online Roto X Rubies of Eventide Ruin Online Rumble Fighter Runes of Magic Runescape Rust Rusty Hearts Ryzom S4 League SAGA SD Gundam Capsule Fighter Online SMITE SUN Sagramore Salem SaySayGirls Scarlet Blade Scions of Fate Seal Online: Evolution Second Life Secret of the Solstice Seed Serenia Fantasy Seven Seas Saga Seven Souls Online Sevencore Shadow of Legend Shadowbane Shadowrun Online Shaiya Shards Online Shattered Galaxy Sho Online Shot Online Shroud of the Avatar SideQuest Siege on Stars Sigonyth: Desert Eternity Silkroad Online Skyblade Skyforge SmashMuck Champions Smoo Online Soldier Front Soul Master Soul Order Online Soul of Guardian Space Heroes Universe Sparta: War of Empires Spellcasters Sphere Spiral Knights Spirit Tales Splash Fighters Squad Wars Star Citizen Star Sonata 2 Star Stable Star Supremacy Star Trek Online Star Trek: Infinite Space Star Wars Galaxies Star Wars: Clone Wars Adventures Star Wars: The Old Republic StarQuest Online Stargate Worlds Starlight Story Starpires State of Decay SteelWar Online Stone Age 2 Stormfall: Age of War Storybricks Stronghold Kingdoms Sudden Attack Supremacy 1914 Supreme Destiny Sword Girls Sword of Destiny: Rise of Aions SwordX Swords of Heavens Swordsman
T-Z
TERA TS Online Tabula Rasa Tactica Online Tales Runner Tales of Fantasy Tales of Pirates Tales of Pirates II Tales of Solaris Talisman Online Tamer Saga Tank Ace Tantra Online Tatsumaki: Land at War Terra Militaris TerraWorld Online Thang Online The 4th Coming The Agency The Aurora World The Black Watchmen The Chronicle The Chronicles of Spellborn The Crew The Division The Hammers End The Legend of Ares The Lost Titans The Matrix Online The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot The Missing Ink The Mummy Online The Myth of Soma The Pride of Taern The Realm Online The Repopulation The Secret World The Sims Online The Strategems The West Theralon There Therian Saga Thrones of Chaos Tibia Tibia Micro Edition Tiger Knight Titan Siege Titans of Time Toontown Online Top Speed Topia Online Torchlight Total Domination Transformers Universe Traveller AR Travia Online Travian Trials of Ascension Tribal Hero Tribal Wars Tribes Universe Trickster Online Trove Troy Online True Fantasy Live Online Turf Battles Twelve Sky Twelve Sky 2 Twilight War Tynon U.B. Funkeys UFO Online URDEAD Online Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar Ultima Online Ultima X: Odyssey Ultimate Naruto Ultimate Soccer Boss Uncharted Waters Online Undercover 2: Merc Wars Underlight Unification Wars Universe Online Utopia Valkyrie Sky Vampire Lord Online Vanguard: Saga of Heroes Vanquish Space Vector City Racers Vendetta Online Victory - Age of Racing Vindictus Virtonomics Vis Gladius Visions of Zosimos VoidExpanse Voyage Century Online W.E.L.L. Online WAR (Warhammer Online) WAR2 Glory WYD Global Wakfu War Thunder War of 2012 War of Angels War of Legends War of Mercenaries War of Thrones War of the Immortals WarFlow Waren Story Wargame1942 Warhammer 40,000: Eternal Crusade Warhammer 40K: Dark Millennium Online Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes Warkeepers Warrior Epic Wartune WebLords Wild West Online WildStar Wind of Luck WindSlayer 2 Wings of Destiny Wish Wizard101 Wizardry Online Wizards and Champions Wonder King Wonderland Online World Golf Tour World of Battles World of Darkness World of Heroes World of Kung Fu World of Pirates World of Speed World of Tanks World of Tanks Generals World of Warcraft World of Warplanes World of Warships World of the Living Dead WorldAlpha Wurm Online Xenocell Xiah Xsyon Xulu YS Online Yitien ZU Online Zentia Zero Online Zero Online: The Andromeda Crisis Zodiac Online Zombies Ate My Pizza eRepublik

MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

General Discussion

General Discussion 

Hardware  » AMD Radeon HD 7990 launches. World doesn't care.

5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search
86 posts found
  Mtibbs1989

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/17/10
Posts: 2501

4/24/13 6:44:12 PM#41
Originally posted by Ridelynn

To mince words here, it's not a matter of price at all. As you've clearly stated that you have money, and that you'd rather save that money than spend it....

So if by waiting 18 months, the price gets cut in half for Y level of performance
And in 18 months, cut in half again, for Y level of performance
And in 18 months, cut in half again, for Y level of performance

Here we are, looking 4.5 years down the road, at the same level of performance.

What cost $X dollars to begin with, now only costs $X/4, and in another 4.5 years will cost $X/16. But at the same time, newer technology can now provide a performance level of Y*(some factor).

So if you can afford $X to begin with... the only other parts of the equation are time and performance.

The real question is the ratio of $X/Y (bang for the buck, if you will)-- and of the minimum value of Y required to deliver the performance that you need or desire. And those are going to be subjective and different for everyone, based on budget and personal taste. There are those people out there for which the maximum value of Y will never be enough, and they are willing to pay for as much as they can get. You are clearly not one of those people, and that's OK - but your going about inferring that all those people are somehow inferior because they aren't looking at $X/Y, but I'm pointing out that because those people are willing to spend $X on Day 1, they are making sure that Y keeps increasing over time, rather than just ending up some stagnate "Good Enough" level which they could very easily have fell into.

 You're assuming that I'm going to never buy a product. That's not the case I'm not going to spend the money on a product that's $1,000.00 when it first comes out when I know full well that it'll easily drop to a fraction of the price within 1-2 years. In addition the cards are very far beyond todays current graphics requirements. So there's a lot of leeway for me to hold off until I purchase a product like the Titan.


Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

4/24/13 6:51:21 PM#42
Originally posted by Quizzical

This isn't even an AMD versus Nvidia issue.  Let's ignore Nvidia entirely for a moment.  Let's suppose that you want two top of the line Tahiti GPUs.  You can get a single Radeon HD 7990 for $1000.  Or for $900, you can get two of these:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125439

The latter will run faster because it's clocked substantially higher.  Having a lot more space to work with means you can get much better cooling for the latter, too.  And that's on top of it being cheaper.  So why would you get the 7990 again?

yeah i get your point, super high end dual cards are amassive waste of money - as is the nvidia 690

but... theres 3 reasons they make these cards

1 the marketing kudos for having the fastest card (even if its 2 cards cobbled together like the 7990 and 690)

2 there are whales who will buy these cards, because they are actually going to buy 2 of them and run effectively a quad setup, but then these are  the sort of people that can buy dual processer server boards and advanced water cooling.

3 the world is full of idiots, idiots will buy them to have the fastest,. even though they could dual card 680s and 7970s, spend less and be faster or dual card 670s, 7950s and not get much far off for a quarter of the price.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13167

 
OP  4/24/13 7:10:50 PM#43
Originally posted by Cleffy
Its still true today a little bit.  AMDs architecture is more effecient, just not utilized.  There are actually some CPU applications where AMD is the better pick like Software 3D rendering.  This is with a CPU that is a full node behind the closest competition and costs less then any competition close to its results.

No, AMD's CPU architecture certainly is not more efficient than Intel's.  Never mind Ivy Bridge.  Compare Sandy Bridge-E to Vishera if you like, as those are both 32 nm.  A Core i7-3960X beats an FX-8350 at just about everything, in spite of having a much smaller die and using about the same power.

3D rendering is a corner case of, if you support an instruction before your competitor, then you win at applications that can spam that new instruction.  Piledriver cores support FMA and Ivy Bridge cores don't.  But that's a temporary advantage for AMD, as Haswell will support FMA.

FMA is Fused Multiply Add.  What it does is to take three floating-point inputs, a, b, and c, and return a * b + c in a single step.  Obviously, it's trivial to do the same thing in two steps, by doing multiplication first and then addition.  But doing it in a single step means that you can do it twice as fast.

FMA is hugely beneficial for dot products and computations that implicitly use dot products, such as matrix multiplication.  3D graphics uses a ton of matrix multiplication, as rotating a model basically means multiplying every single vertex by some particular orthogonal matrix.

But what else can make extensive use of FMA outside of 3D graphics?  Not much, really.  Some programs can use it here and there.  Doing the same thing for integer computations isn't supported at all.  That's why video cards have long supported FMA (any rated GFLOPS number you see is "if the video card can spam FMA and do nothing else"), but x86 CPUs didn't support it until recently.

Corner cases from new instructions happen from time to time.  When Clarkdale launched, a Core i5 dual core absolutely destroyed everything else on the market in AES encryption, even if threaded to scale to many cores, because it supported AES-NI and nothing else did.  But that advantage only applied to AES, and now recent AMD CPUs support AES-NI, too.  So now it's a case of Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron processors are awful at AES because Intel disables AES-NI on them, while all other recent desktop processors are fast at it.

  Jockan

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/03/08
Posts: 4079

4/24/13 7:20:47 PM#44
Originally posted by Cleffy
Its still true today a little bit.  AMDs architecture is more effecient, just not utilized.  There are actually some CPU applications where AMD is the better pick like Software 3D rendering.  This is with a CPU that is a full node behind the closest competition and costs less then any competition close to its results.

 

Totally agree but most people live in the world of paper stats.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10417

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

4/24/13 8:48:00 PM#45


Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cleffy Its still true today a little bit.  AMDs architecture is more effecient, just not utilized.  There are actually some CPU applications where AMD is the better pick like Software 3D rendering.  This is with a CPU that is a full node behind the closest competition and costs less then any competition close to its results.
No, AMD's CPU architecture certainly is not more efficient than Intel's.  Never mind Ivy Bridge.  Compare Sandy Bridge-E to Vishera if you like, as those are both 32 nm.  A Core i7-3960X beats an FX-8350 at just about everything, in spite of having a much smaller die and using about the same power.

3D rendering is a corner case of, if you support an instruction before your competitor, then you win at applications that can spam that new instruction.  Piledriver cores support FMA and Ivy Bridge cores don't.  But that's a temporary advantage for AMD, as Haswell will support FMA.

FMA is Fused Multiply Add.  What it does is to take three floating-point inputs, a, b, and c, and return a * b + c in a single step.  Obviously, it's trivial to do the same thing in two steps, by doing multiplication first and then addition.  But doing it in a single step means that you can do it twice as fast.

FMA is hugely beneficial for dot products and computations that implicitly use dot products, such as matrix multiplication.  3D graphics uses a ton of matrix multiplication, as rotating a model basically means multiplying every single vertex by some particular orthogonal matrix.

But what else can make extensive use of FMA outside of 3D graphics?  Not much, really.  Some programs can use it here and there.  Doing the same thing for integer computations isn't supported at all.  That's why video cards have long supported FMA (any rated GFLOPS number you see is "if the video card can spam FMA and do nothing else"), but x86 CPUs didn't support it until recently.

Corner cases from new instructions happen from time to time.  When Clarkdale launched, a Core i5 dual core absolutely destroyed everything else on the market in AES encryption, even if threaded to scale to many cores, because it supported AES-NI and nothing else did.  But that advantage only applied to AES, and now recent AMD CPUs support AES-NI, too.  So now it's a case of Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron processors are awful at AES because Intel disables AES-NI on them, while all other recent desktop processors are fast at it.




I would just like to point out that on these forums the 3D applications of a cpu are of primary importance. If FMA makes 3D applications faster, and applications such as MMORPG can take advantage of it, especially if they don't have to be recompiled, then it's a primary reason to look at a cpu that has FMA or uses FMA.

To that end though, if you just look at the final result, Intel seems to come out on top, both performance wise and price for performance wise. I think even performance for the power consumed they perform better. I could be wrong about recent history, but that's been the case for awhile. The only thing that AMD gets the consumer is less expensive systems. That's not a bad thing, but we don't seem to be talking about overall cost here, just performance.

So whether AMD's architecture just isn't utilized, or whether AMD's architecture is less efficient it doesn't really matter because in the real world Intel gives a better end result. Even if that better stuff is talking developers into using their stuff, it's still a better end result for the user.

Right now. :-)

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13167

 
OP  4/24/13 8:56:48 PM#46
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cleffy Its still true today a little bit.  AMDs architecture is more effecient, just not utilized.  There are actually some CPU applications where AMD is the better pick like Software 3D rendering.  This is with a CPU that is a full node behind the closest competition and costs less then any competition close to its results.
No, AMD's CPU architecture certainly is not more efficient than Intel's.  Never mind Ivy Bridge.  Compare Sandy Bridge-E to Vishera if you like, as those are both 32 nm.  A Core i7-3960X beats an FX-8350 at just about everything, in spite of having a much smaller die and using about the same power.

 

3D rendering is a corner case of, if you support an instruction before your competitor, then you win at applications that can spam that new instruction.  Piledriver cores support FMA and Ivy Bridge cores don't.  But that's a temporary advantage for AMD, as Haswell will support FMA.

FMA is Fused Multiply Add.  What it does is to take three floating-point inputs, a, b, and c, and return a * b + c in a single step.  Obviously, it's trivial to do the same thing in two steps, by doing multiplication first and then addition.  But doing it in a single step means that you can do it twice as fast.

FMA is hugely beneficial for dot products and computations that implicitly use dot products, such as matrix multiplication.  3D graphics uses a ton of matrix multiplication, as rotating a model basically means multiplying every single vertex by some particular orthogonal matrix.

But what else can make extensive use of FMA outside of 3D graphics?  Not much, really.  Some programs can use it here and there.  Doing the same thing for integer computations isn't supported at all.  That's why video cards have long supported FMA (any rated GFLOPS number you see is "if the video card can spam FMA and do nothing else"), but x86 CPUs didn't support it until recently.

Corner cases from new instructions happen from time to time.  When Clarkdale launched, a Core i5 dual core absolutely destroyed everything else on the market in AES encryption, even if threaded to scale to many cores, because it supported AES-NI and nothing else did.  But that advantage only applied to AES, and now recent AMD CPUs support AES-NI, too.  So now it's a case of Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron processors are awful at AES because Intel disables AES-NI on them, while all other recent desktop processors are fast at it.




I would just like to point out that on these forums the 3D applications of a cpu are of primary importance. If FMA makes 3D applications faster, and applications such as MMORPG can take advantage of it, especially if they don't have to be recompiled, then it's a primary reason to look at a cpu that has FMA or uses FMA.

To that end though, if you just look at the final result, Intel seems to come out on top, both performance wise and price for performance wise. I think even performance for the power consumed they perform better. I could be wrong about recent history, but that's been the case for awhile. The only thing that AMD gets the consumer is less expensive systems. That's not a bad thing, but we don't seem to be talking about overall cost here, just performance.

So whether AMD's architecture just isn't utilized, or whether AMD's architecture is less efficient it doesn't really matter because in the real world Intel gives a better end result. Even if that better stuff is talking developers into using their stuff, it's still a better end result for the user.

Right now. :-)

 

Software 3D renderers aren't relevant to gaming outside of some really weird game engines that don't try to offload any work to the video card.  If an FX-8350 could get you 3 frames per second and a Core i7-3770K could only get you 2 in a software renderer, but a Radeon HD 7750 or GeForce GTX 650 paired with a more modest CPU could get you 50 frames per second in the same game at the same settings, is that really just an important win for AMD over Intel?

The CPU side of a game engine wouldn't heavily use FMA the way that the GPU side would.  You don't rotate or otherwise transform vertices CPU-side.  That's what video cards are for.

  User Deleted
4/24/13 9:10:21 PM#47
All that power consumption goes somewhere.  I bet it cranks out the heat.
  Bookah

Apprentice Member

Joined: 2/04/10
Posts: 235

"you are not prepared!"

4/24/13 9:24:18 PM#48

As with all new Top of the line cards now is NOT the time to buy this card.

As for amd i have had an awesome experience with there gpu's (I would never buy this card, i go for there cool effiecinet versions.)

My wife and I (and my 2 good gaming friends.) all are using 5770's for a couple years now and there still a kickass, efficient card.

I think I bough mine in 2009 and i cans till play pretty much anything with it @ 1900 x 1200 not bad for 100$ 4 years ago.

After dealing with nvidia drivers & cards for a few years that was quiet enough.

 

GO amd!

  Icewhite

Made History

Joined: 7/11/11
Posts: 6495

Pink, it's like red but not quite.

4/24/13 9:25:22 PM#49
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by BlackLightz

One step for mankind, one more step in the endless line of GFX cards with a minor upgrade.

 

"Computer advancements double every 18 months." - Moore's Law

There are salesmen who rely on your regular purchases of new GPUs. "It's got a biggah numbah, must buy."

Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  Darkness690

Novice Member

Joined: 12/30/06
Posts: 176

4/24/13 9:26:41 PM#50
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
Originally posted by Quizzical

AMD today launched the Radeon HD 7990, which basically constitutes two Radeon HD 7970s on a single card.  It's a little faster than a GeForce GTX 690, but also uses a lot more power, so if you're limited by power, the latter is the better buy.  It's also more expensive than two Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition cards while being slower, so if you're not sharply limited by power, two (or three!) 7970 GHz Edition cards make more sense.  If you want the fastest performance you can get in a single slot, the older unofficial 7990s from PowerColor and Asus are clocked higher, so the new 7990 is slower than those.  If you want max performance at any price, then two or three GeForce GTX Titans is the way to go, as that has considerably faster GPUs.

So basically, AMD just launched a new card and I don't see any reason why anyone would want to get one.  But hey, it's finally here after being delayed by a year or so from the initial rumors.

 The Titan isn't a card that's "better" than the GTX 690. They've stated this a few times already. 

“You’re going to see some people who just say, "I want maximum frame rate" and if you want maximum frame rate, GTX 690 is you.” - Nvidia’s Tom Petersen

"If you want the best experience, if you want the best acoustics, then Titan is for you.”  - Nvidia’s Tom Petersen

Don't argue otherwise, this is directly from Nvidia themselves.

The Titan isn't better as a single card, but it has a faster GPU. If you have an unlimited budget, 4 GTX Titans is the way to go. Remember, the GTX 690 is a dual GPU card so you're only limited to having two cards.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10417

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

4/24/13 9:29:35 PM#51


Originally posted by Quizzical
Software 3D renderers aren't relevant to gaming outside of some really weird game engines that don't try to offload any work to the video card.  If an FX-8350 could get you 3 frames per second and a Core i7-3770K could only get you 2 in a software renderer, but a Radeon HD 7750 or GeForce GTX 650 paired with a more modest CPU could get you 50 frames per second in the same game at the same settings, is that really just an important win for AMD over Intel?

The CPU side of a game engine wouldn't heavily use FMA the way that the GPU side would.  You don't rotate or otherwise transform vertices CPU-side.  That's what video cards are for.




I think you've highlighted what I think I'm saying. All of these in depth details* are interesting to discuss, but if you're talking about what's better, then however many frames per second you get in the games you like to play, and how much those frames cost you in dollars and watts are all that's really important. Those details are important from a PR point of view I suppose, but not so much if nobody outside of people who research hardware understand it.

I am totally ignorant of those details. Yes, I've learned how matrix math works and even how it applies to 3d graphics, but the inner details of cpus and gpus are not only a mystery, they are a mystery I'm not going to look into. However, when I'm going to upgrade my system, none of that is really going to matter. I will find out which parts and which combination of parts is going to get me the performance I'm willing to pay for. That's what really matters. In that context, up to this point Intel has been the winner since I'm willing to spend a little more money and frankly it's been a toss up between AMD and Nvidia. Sometimes it's one and sometimes it's the other. It depends a lot on what NewEgg has on sale.

[i]* I had to infer what FMA was from the conversation. Before this thread, I had never heard of it. After reading the posts, I had assumed the point of having FMA would be that it's something that you can't do on a gpu or that it would be faster to do it on the cpu. Your comments about software 3d rendering makes me think that FMA is like a vestigial tail. Interesting and maybe you can do neat stuff with it, but if you didn't have it, it wouldn't matter.[i]

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13167

 
OP  4/24/13 9:47:16 PM#52
It's not that FMA is useless on a CPU.  It's just that it isn't that important on a CPU, unlike a GPU, where it's critical.  But as Moore's Law provides more and more transistors for CPUs to spend on a single core, AMD and Intel try to come up with new instructions that will be useful here and there.
  Ridelynn

Elite Member

Joined: 12/19/10
Posts: 3319

4/24/13 10:03:42 PM#53


Originally posted by Darkness690

Originally posted by Mtibbs1989

Originally posted by Quizzical AMD today launched the Radeon HD 7990, which basically constitutes two Radeon HD 7970s on a single card.  It's a little faster than a GeForce GTX 690, but also uses a lot more power, so if you're limited by power, the latter is the better buy.  It's also more expensive than two Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition cards while being slower, so if you're not sharply limited by power, two (or three!) 7970 GHz Edition cards make more sense.  If you want the fastest performance you can get in a single slot, the older unofficial 7990s from PowerColor and Asus are clocked higher, so the new 7990 is slower than those.  If you want max performance at any price, then two or three GeForce GTX Titans is the way to go, as that has considerably faster GPUs. So basically, AMD just launched a new card and I don't see any reason why anyone would want to get one.  But hey, it's finally here after being delayed by a year or so from the initial rumors.
 The Titan isn't a card that's "better" than the GTX 690. They've stated this a few times already.  “You’re going to see some people who just say, "I want maximum frame rate" and if you want maximum frame rate, GTX 690 is you.” - Nvidia’s Tom Petersen "If you want the best experience, if you want the best acoustics, then Titan is for you.”  - Nvidia’s Tom Petersen Don't argue otherwise, this is directly from Nvidia themselves.
The Titan isn't better as a single card, but it has a faster GPU. If you have an unlimited budget, 4 GTX Titans is the way to go. Remember, the GTX 690 is a dual GPU card so you're only limited to having two cards.

I also kinda chuckled at these nVidia quotes - straight from nVidia's "Director of Technical Marketing".

No way we can argue the validity of those quotes - they are straight from nVidia themselves.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13167

 
OP  4/24/13 10:33:50 PM#54
If you're only comparing those two cards to each other and not to anything else, then the quotes are correct.  A GeForce GTX 690 will get you better average frame rates, while a GeForce GTX Titan will get you a better gaming experience due to having to mess with SLI.
  Cleffy

Elite Member

Joined: 5/09/04
Posts: 5471

4/25/13 1:26:42 AM#55
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by Cleffy
Its still true today a little bit.  AMDs architecture is more effecient, just not utilized.  There are actually some CPU applications where AMD is the better pick like Software 3D rendering.  This is with a CPU that is a full node behind the closest competition and costs less then any competition close to its results.

No, AMD's CPU architecture certainly is not more efficient than Intel's.  Never mind Ivy Bridge.  Compare Sandy Bridge-E to Vishera if you like, as those are both 32 nm.  A Core i7-3960X beats an FX-8350 at just about everything, in spite of having a much smaller die and using about the same power.

3D rendering is a corner case of, if you support an instruction before your competitor, then you win at applications that can spam that new instruction.  Piledriver cores support FMA and Ivy Bridge cores don't.  But that's a temporary advantage for AMD, as Haswell will support FMA.

FMA is Fused Multiply Add.  What it does is to take three floating-point inputs, a, b, and c, and return a * b + c in a single step.  Obviously, it's trivial to do the same thing in two steps, by doing multiplication first and then addition.  But doing it in a single step means that you can do it twice as fast.

FMA is hugely beneficial for dot products and computations that implicitly use dot products, such as matrix multiplication.  3D graphics uses a ton of matrix multiplication, as rotating a model basically means multiplying every single vertex by some particular orthogonal matrix.

But what else can make extensive use of FMA outside of 3D graphics?  Not much, really.  Some programs can use it here and there.  Doing the same thing for integer computations isn't supported at all.  That's why video cards have long supported FMA (any rated GFLOPS number you see is "if the video card can spam FMA and do nothing else"), but x86 CPUs didn't support it until recently.

Corner cases from new instructions happen from time to time.  When Clarkdale launched, a Core i5 dual core absolutely destroyed everything else on the market in AES encryption, even if threaded to scale to many cores, because it supported AES-NI and nothing else did.  But that advantage only applied to AES, and now recent AMD CPUs support AES-NI, too.  So now it's a case of Core i3, Pentium, and Celeron processors are awful at AES because Intel disables AES-NI on them, while all other recent desktop processors are fast at it.

lol should have worded it better since it is not more effecient in current workloads.  My main argument is that current software poorly utilizes AMDs current design despite what its architecture is capable of. The current generation intel chips are 1.4 billion transistors on a 22nm process including a GPU die with a TDP of 84 watts.  The current generation AMD chips are 1.2 billion transistors on a 32nm process not including a GPU die with a TDP of 125 watts.  From a fundamental standpoint a chip with more transistors clocked higher will perform better.  So why isn't AMD?  Its clocked higher and if you negate Intels GPU, it has more transistors.
I really don't want to go indepth into the size of L1 caches and operations per cycle possible as a result.  This is not my strong point and I don't do much research into this.  What I can say and you will most likely agree on is that in single threaded applications, Intel will perform significantly better.  In multi-threaded applications, and those that are scaled to more than 4 threads, AMD is better.

I think when you boil it down, single-threaded applications typically don't require much computational power otherwise they would be multi-threaded.  So in the cases of single threaded applications, AMD will do the job.  This is unless 6 seconds compressing a video makes a difference to you.  Yet, in applications that need the threads AMD has an advantage in this sector without factoring in their 2 integer cores per module or FMA instruction set.  To me AMD has a much more forward looking design that just is not being utilized much outside of niche businesses.

Also from rumors, Jaguar will perform 30% better than Piledriver in single threaded apps compared to the 10% increase going from Ivybridge to haswell.

  Zezda

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/27/09
Posts: 703

4/25/13 7:25:33 AM#56
30% better performance than piledriver would be nice. But it still wouldn't catch Intel.
  Ridelynn

Elite Member

Joined: 12/19/10
Posts: 3319

4/25/13 9:07:39 AM#57


Originally posted by Cleffy
What I can say and you will most likely agree on is that in single threaded applications, Intel will perform significantly better.  In multi-threaded applications, and those that are scaled to more than 4 threads, AMD is better.

You can only draw that conclusion from the fact that AMD tends to sell chips with more physical cores than Intel, which has very little to do with anything software-related.

You could make the case that AMD's modular core design makes it cheaper to offer more cores, as each module performs as dual cores, as compared to Intel's method of actual discrete cores and HyperThreading. And then that on the basis of cost versus performance that AMD is superior - which may have some basis: an CPU load designed for 8 cores will likely perform better on AMD's 8350 with 8 full cores presented from 4 modules than it will on Intels i7-3770 with 4 full cores and 4 virtual HT cores.

Now, if this is actually cheaper to produce, or if AMD is just selling them with a lower profit margin to maintain market viability; I can't say, but the retail price is what really matters to the market.

If you want go continue down the software-optimization path, and say that AMD would perform better if software were more efficiently threaded; that would largely be true. However, keep in mind that Intel would not stay stagnate in that case: Intel has optimized their existing CPUs largely for power envelope and single-threaded performance because that's what drives the market ~now~. It would take very little for Intel to start offering more physical cores if/when the market leans more in that direction: they already have dies that have competing numbers of physical cores in the Xeon and E series, they just charge a premium for them because it's hardly a mainstream necessity at this point.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13167

 
OP  4/25/13 9:10:50 AM#58
Originally posted by Cleffy

lol should have worded it better since it is not more effecient in current workloads.  My main argument is that current software poorly utilizes AMDs current design despite what its architecture is capable of. The current generation intel chips are 1.4 billion transistors on a 22nm process including a GPU die with a TDP of 84 watts.  The current generation AMD chips are 1.2 billion transistors on a 32nm process not including a GPU die with a TDP of 125 watts.  From a fundamental standpoint a chip with more transistors clocked higher will perform better.  So why isn't AMD?  Its clocked higher and if you negate Intels GPU, it has more transistors.
I really don't want to go indepth into the size of L1 caches and operations per cycle possible as a result.  This is not my strong point and I don't do much research into this.  What I can say and you will most likely agree on is that in single threaded applications, Intel will perform significantly better.  In multi-threaded applications, and those that are scaled to more than 4 threads, AMD is better.

I think when you boil it down, single-threaded applications typically don't require much computational power otherwise they would be multi-threaded.  So in the cases of single threaded applications, AMD will do the job.  This is unless 6 seconds compressing a video makes a difference to you.  Yet, in applications that need the threads AMD has an advantage in this sector without factoring in their 2 integer cores per module or FMA instruction set.  To me AMD has a much more forward looking design that just is not being utilized much outside of niche businesses.

Also from rumors, Jaguar will perform 30% better than Piledriver in single threaded apps compared to the 10% increase going from Ivybridge to haswell.

In cost of production terms, the proper measure of efficiency is performance per mm^2 of die space, not performance per transistor.  Some things have more transistors per mm^2 than others, even on exactly the same process node.  But your production cost from a foundry is per wafer, and the number of dies you can fit in a single wafer is limited by die size, not transistor count.

Now, you can argue that Intel has an advantage because they're on a 22 nm process node.  So as I said, compare Vishera on 32 nm to Sandy Bridge-E on 32 nm.  Intel wins pretty clearly there, even in programs that scale well to arbitrarily many cores.

Higher clock speeds don't automatically mean that a processor should be faster if you're comparing different architectures.  A deeper pipeline typically allows you to have higher clock speeds at the expense of not doing as much per clock cycle.  That's how it plays out when comparing Piledriver cores to Ivy Bridge cores (though the deeper pipeline is not Piledriver's only problem, and might not even be a problem at all).

It's not an AMD versus Intel thing; some years ago, AMD's Athlon 64 was faster than Intel's Pentium 4 in spite of being clocked lower.  The same thing happened when you put two of the cores on a chip for an Athlon 64 X2 versus a Pentium D.  Or to take a more modern example, AMD Bobcat cores are much faster than Intel Atom cores in spite of being clocked lower.

Much of that is because Bobcat cores are out-of-order while Atom cores are in-order.  This means that Atom cores have to execute instructions in the order that they come in, and have to stop and wait for a while if something needs data from system memory.  Bobcat cores are able to reorder instructions and set aside something that doesn't have the needed data available yet in order to see if anything else is ready and execute that instead.  That's a big deal, but like many other things in computer chip design, it comes at a cost, in this case, higher power consumption.  Atom cores can go in cell phones and Bobcat cores can't.

Ivy Bridge also benefits from much lower cache latencies than Piledriver; Ivy Bridge's L3 cache has about the same latency as Piledriver's L2, and only about 1/3 that of Piledriver's L3 cache.  Piledriver cores have a substantial bottleneck in the scheduler, and Ivy Bridge cores don't.  AMD says that Steamroller cores will get some major gains over Piledriver by improving the branch predictor; my guess is that Ivy Bridge's branch predictor is already a lot better than Piledriver's, though I don't know that for certain.  There are a lot of little things that go into CPU architectures and affect performance per clock cycle, many of which probably never make it into the tech media.

-----

Jaguar cores most certainly are not going to be faster than Piledriver cores, even in single-threaded applications.  Whoever started that rumor is simply clueless.  It's about as plausible as predicting that the next generation Atom cores will be faster than Ivy Bridge.  Not going to happen, as Jaguar and Atom are targeted at a much lower performance level right from the start.

AMD has already said that they expect Jaguar to beat Bobcat in IPC by about 15%.  That's not enough for it to catch Piledriver.  Meanwhile, recently announced G-series SoCs put the top clock speed of Jaguar at 2 GHz:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/383276/AMD-announces-Gseries-embedded-SoCs-hints-at-Kabini-PS4-Xbox-720-specs.html

And I was surprised to see it go that high, even.  I was expecting around 1.7 or 1.8 GHz.  So Jaguar will typically have lower IPC than Piledriver and less than half of the clock speed.  That's not a way to win at single-threaded performance.

  Caldrin

Hard Core Member

Joined: 10/02/04
Posts: 4067

4/25/13 9:11:06 AM#59
Originally posted by Horusra
I do not think I will ever buy an AMD again.  I got one now after only using NVIDIA and I hate it.  Issues with games.  Display drivers failing.  Look at the site and see it is a common problem that is suppose to be fixed...never get fixed.  I will pay the extra for Nvidia from now on.  I might have a dud for a card, but it has turned me off from the company.

See i never had any of those issues when i was using 2 x 6850s.. the drivers where solid and the cards worked a treat..

Tho i must admit i currently run a Geforce 670.. but mainly because i had an awesome deal on it.

My 3D models
http://dragon3d.webs.com/

  Pixel_Jockey

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/21/13
Posts: 173

4/25/13 9:19:01 AM#60
I think sometimes people spend way too much on GPUs for no reason. It all boils down to how many monitors are you running and are you doing extended display in games with said monitors. I have a 6950 ($200) and play on 1 monitor @ 1920x1080. I can run virtually almost all my games (new games included) at max settings and keep 40+ fps. For me personally, a 7990 would do next to nothing for me and would be a complete waste of money. If I was running a 3 monitor extended display to game in at a very high resoultion, then yes I would have a need for a high end card. 
5 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 » Search