Kepler vs 7970

lets theoretically say that the 580 has a performance of 100. if the 7970 is 15% better than the 580 that means the 7970 would have performance of 115. so after looking at some scaling tests of the 580 i discover that 3 580s in sli would have a performance of 259. and if the kepler card used in the samaritan demo has around the same performance of 3 580s in sli (which means a performance of 259, theoretically)

so it seems that the kepler card used on the samaritan demo is 55% better than the 7970

GPU: 580 7970 Kepler
Performance: 100 115 259
Percent Better: 0% 15% 55%

pls tell me if you think this thread is trash or not
10 answers Last reply
More about kepler 7970
  1. Kepler has nowhere near the performance of 3 580s. No information we have on it suggests this to be the case, and if it were the case then the jump from 580-->680 would I think be the greatest GPU generational performance jump ever.

    This thread is misguided.

    It's completely faulty reasoning to say that because Kepler runs a modified Samaritan demo, and previously a more demanding version of the demo was run on 3 580s, that therefore Kepler = 3 580s in performance.

    100 (580) --> 115 (7970) --> 125 (680) is far more likely.
  2. There's no "proof" of anything until the cards are reviewed/released. I never suggested otherwise.

    I'm saying that there's been no rumor/speculation that it is anywhere even close to 2.5-3x as powerful as a GTX 580. Most rumors place it around 10% more powerful than a 7970, give or take. The wildest rumors we ever had say that the GTX 680 would be 45% faster than the 7970 (of course this is the GK110 here).

    As for the particular chip GK104, there's basically been nothing to suggest anything other than "it will trade blows with a 7970" or "it will be slightly faster than a 7970". The big news on GK104 a while back was that it would cost $300, and while they haven't released pricing info, I'd be stunned if they released it at that price point now that GK110 is out of the immediate picture.

    There's been not a single leak out there purporting to show that GK104/GTX 680 is anywhere near as powerful as OP is claiming. Combined with the fact that a performance jump like that has never happened in one generation of GPUs before, and I think it's safe to say that OP's claim/speculation is safely refutable, even without "proof". It would be somewhat analogous to me claiming "Piledriver could be 10x more powerful than Ivy Bridge!!!".

    And as always, please interact with what my posts actually say and not what you imagine they say or wish I were saying. It's not negative about Kepler to say "it's not 3x as powerful as the GTX 580". It's just a conclusion based on reading all available rumors to this point.

    :edit: It's worth noting that even Nvidia (the most biased group towards the card) doesn't claim that Kepler is as powerful as 3 580s. They are careful to note that the demo running on Kepler is significantly less demanding on the GPU due to the replacement of MSAA with FXAA.
  3. Quote:
    No this is negative: "This thread is trash/pointless."

    Get your facts right before opening your mouth and we shall get along better.

    OP explicitly requested "pls tell me if you think this thread is trash or not". I only gave an answer because I was asked for it, and I also changed it afterwards to "misguided" since on second thought I wasn't sure how serious OP was about that language.

    Please inform me, what facts have I gotten wrong?
  4. The GTx 680 is of course is said to be the fastest video card(GPU base) as 7970 is the same performance(probably a little better) than 670...
  5. Wow ...this thread is off to a spicy start.
  6. Quote:
    Not alot obviously... but your judgement and quickness to be negative shows in alot of threads thats all.
    Us who are well known by the community here know how people tend to behave.

    Please show me where I did anything other than answer OP's question(s) by taking a look at the information available to us (and then subsequently defending myself against your slander/insults).

    How exactly does this make me "judgmental" or "quick to be negative"? Because I'm interested in limiting speculation to available and reasonable information? Or is this just like you accusing me of not having my facts straight but then when pressed not being able even to name one thing I mixed up? :heink:

    You know what I think? I think that you see a Radeon 7970 in my sig, and you assume before even reading any of my posts that everything I say is geared towards being negative about Kepler, even when my actual posts do not reflect this at all. Contrary to what is apparently popular belief on this forum, it is possible to own a 7970 and not be an AMD fanboy.

    Kepler is going to be fast, almost certainly a little faster than a 7970. It is impressive that it can run a modified Samaritan demo. None of this comes close to suggesting that Kepler approaches the performance of 3 580s.
  7. I would guess you dear.

    there is the link to the article by Tom's. This seems to suggest the major difference in the 3 580's vrs the 1 Kepler GPU is the switch from MSAA to FXAA techniques which free up GPU resources.
  9. ^^ I mentioned the move from MSAA to FXAA to lighten GPU load in my second post.

    Whatever, though - I'm done being baited by you. I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread that you're more interested in arguing or insulting me than reading/interacting with what I say.
  10. didnt know that i was starting a hate thread........
  11. LongpastPNR and recon-uk,you BOTH need to knock it off or further action is coming!
  12. Thank you !
  13. i am done with this thread area51. close it at will.
  14. Sorry that you had to deal with that.
  15. This topic has been closed by Area51reopened
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Performance SLI Graphics Product