HD6770 picture??

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

More details:

http://www.techpowerup.com/130710/AM...-Pictured.html

Unless the naming strategy has changed this card looks a fail to me! It has a very long PCB and requires two PCI-E power connectors.

Cards like the HD4850,HD4770 and HD5770 had decent performance, relatively short PCBs and required only a single PCI-E power connector too. It seems ATI has forgotten these are important for most people as not everyone has large cases and big PSUs to power their graphics card.

I hope that at least the HD6750 has lower power requirements and a sane PCB length.

[1stRaven]

More details:

http://www.techpowerup.com/130710/AM...-Pictured.html

Unless the naming strategy has changed this card looks a fail to me! It has a very long PCB and requires two PCI-E power connectors.

Cards like the HD4850,HD4770 and HD5770 had decent performance, relatively short PCBs and required only a single PCI-E power connector too. It seems ATI has forgotten these are important for most people as not everyone has large cases and big PSUs to power their graphics card.

I hope that at least the HD6750 has lower power requirements and a sane PCB length.

I wonder if they have hit the limit of what they can produce with that core with regards to clock speed, temp and power. Mind you, makes you wonder how big the 6970 might be......

[MSIC]

+1.

I'd actually really love to see one day a generation-to-generation chart comparing how graphics cards compare to their predecessors, not by marketing or even by cost, but by power consumption.
For me, the 'perfect graphics card' requires absolutely no extra juice beyond what the PCI-E lanes provide, and runs nice and cool.

Any fool (and by that, I mean multinational organisation with millions of dollars in R&D) can develop a new card that is better than the last gen, just make it twice the size and use double the power.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The HD6870 pictures showed that the card needs a six pin and an eight pin power connector. TBH,everyone was laughing at the GTX465,GTX470 and GTX480 power consumption but the HD6000 series looks like it may need a lot of power itself. I thought that the HD6000 series was meant to be more efficient.

[kalniel]

I thought that the HD6000 series was meant to be more efficient.

According to?

It's the same process as the 5000 series, so there's no efficiency savings to be had by changing to a smaller processes. I thought it was widely expected that there wouldn't be power savings over the 5000 series, but instead you're getting much more performance for the power.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

According to?

It's the same process as the 5000 series, so there's no efficiency savings to be had by changing to a smaller processes. I thought it was widely expected that there wouldn't be power savings over the 5000 series, but instead you're getting much more performance for the power.

It makes no sense that the HD6770 needs such a long PCB and will also need two PCI-E power connectors. An HD6770 should be around £100 to £130 at launch like the HD4770 and HD5770. There are many people who would be buying a card in this price range who won't have a large case or even a higher wattage PSU.

Anyway, the HD4850 was a massive increase in performance over the HD3870 but still only required a single PCI-E power connector and both were made on the same process. The HD5770 itself was a decent performance boost over an HD4850 and actually required less power at load.

I was actually thinking of getting an HD6770 but TBH if it requires so much power and has such a huge PCB then I am not interested.

Of course the HD6770 could be where the HD5850 is in the current AMD range.

[scaryjim]

Then again, we're all debating on the basis of one leaked picture that's *assumed* to be the 6770. There's absolutely no proof that it is. Let's wait for a confirmed spec and photoshoot before we start slating the next gen cards, huh?

[nibbler]

According to?

It's the same process as the 5000 series, so there's no efficiency savings to be had by changing to a smaller processes. I thought it was widely expected that there wouldn't be power savings over the 5000 series, but instead you're getting much more performance for the power.

Efficiency is performance/power?
So Same power more performance should mean higher efficiency? Or are you trying to say that power and performance increase?

[Random_guy]

I know power and size are very important to many, but personally I'm more interested in performance per pound. I never saw the 5770 as good value because it was much the same performance as the 4870/ 4890 for much the same price! I know that's more because of the market than they card itself but personally I judge a new generation of cards on the performance at each price point, so if this performs like a 5850 but is priced like a 5770, I don't care what they call it!

[Marvin-HHGTTG]

I expect the 6xxx series to be a fair step up from the 5xxx series, but there's only so much AMD can do with the same process. Basically, once the architecture/design is made, you'll only get more performance by pumping in more power, and the 6xxx series is only a refresh of the 5xxx series anyway.

Besides, let's be honest, how many gamers really value heat, power consumption and noise before performance? It was always a thing to take the piss out of Fermi for these, but plenty have bought them, simply because of the performance and scaling. Those that still use those arguments either do SFF (where it's fair enough) or are clutching at straws.

I expect that this "6770" will be close to the 5850 in performance, if not better, and the 66xx series will take over from the 57xx series. Same as the 57xx series took over from the 48xx series before that.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I expect the 6xxx series to be a fair step up from the 5xxx series, but there's only so much AMD can do with the same process. Basically, once the architecture/design is made, you'll only get more performance by pumping in more power, and the 6xxx series is only a refresh of the 5xxx series anyway.

Besides, let's be honest, how many gamers really value heat, power consumption and noise before performance? It was always a thing to take the piss out of Fermi for these, but plenty have bought them, simply because of the performance and scaling. Those that still use those arguments either do SFF (where it's fair enough) or are clutching at straws.

I expect that this "6770" will be close to the 5850 in performance, if not better, and the 66xx series will take over from the 57xx series. Same as the 57xx series took over from the 48xx series before that.

Cards in the 700 series range are not made for enthusiasts though - they are cards meant for midrange gaming systems with power consumption to match. The same goes for the 600 series cards which are usually bus powered and are for lower level gaming systems.

It is pathetic that while CPUs are getting more and more efficient for the performance they are offering graphics cards seem to be going the other way. It is sad that a card like the HD6770 needs around 150W to 225W at load. The GTX460 768MB pricing is more likely to be EOL pricing like the cheap HD4870 and GTX260 cards last year. AFAIK,the GTS455 will be replacing it.

The 800 series and 900 series cards are the enthusiast parts.In fact almost all of the gamers I know do value power consumption and heat production for their graphics cards - the only ones I know who don't care are hardware "enthusiasts" and very hardcore gamers.

Most PC gamers are not hardware enthusiasts though.

OTH,I have an SFF PC and the stupid length of the HD6770 PCB is enough to put me off getting it in the first place.

[Marvin-HHGTTG]

I agree that GPUs could do with some better ways of managing heat and power, but CPUs aren't exactly cool either at the top end. TDPs have swelled over the years on the top end parts there too.

The 2x6 Pin could also be similar to the 5750, just too much power consumption for PCI-E only.

Maybe AMD is moving its naming system towards:

x9xx -> Silly high end
x8xx -> High/mid end enthusiast
x7xx -> mid/low enthusiast
x6xx -> mainstream gaming, low power gaming

Let's face it, they have enough numbers off the bottom of the current scheme, seeing as the lowest current card is the 5450. Could still have 53xx, 52xx (probably not 51xx. Just sounds too low...)

Anyways, this is irrelevant until we find out:
a) what card it actually is (could turn out to be 6800?)
b) how well it performs
c) what else there is in the range

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I agree that GPUs could do with some better ways of managing heat and power, but CPUs aren't exactly cool either at the top end. TDPs have swelled over the years on the top end parts there too.

The 2x6 Pin could also be similar to the 5750, just too much power consumption for PCI-E only.

Maybe AMD is moving its naming system towards:

x9xx -> Silly high end
x8xx -> High/mid end enthusiast
x7xx -> mid/low enthusiast
x6xx -> mainstream gaming, low power gaming

Let's face it, they have enough numbers off the bottom of the current scheme, seeing as the lowest current card is the 5450. Could still have 53xx, 52xx (probably not 51xx. Just sounds too low...)

Anyways, this is irrelevant until we find out:
a) what card it actually is (could turn out to be 6800?)
b) how well it performs
c) what else there is in the range

Hopefully this is a reworking of the naming scheme as you said.

OTH,the PCBs of the newer AMD cards are stupidly long.

[Marvin-HHGTTG]

You are right on the PCB length. The 480 is much shorter than the 5870 (figuratively), and the 460 is pretty small too. Considering how large the die is, I think it's quite impressive really. Shame about the temperatures...

Thing is, if this card is as quick as a 5850, for £120, then I think many won't care about power consumption/noise etc...

[scaryjim]

I still favour this not being a 6770 card - or if it is AMD are realigning their naming scheme massively. It'd be a very strange turn-around for them to go from a 128bit memory bus to a 256bit memory bus for midrange cards in a single generation - unless they're moving to a 384bit or 512bit bus for the 68x0 series it just doesn't make sense to bring the midrange card that much closer to the top end. Also a 256bit memory bus will make this card more expensive to produce than a 5770. If this *is* a 6770 then I think we'll see the 6770 in the £150 - £250 space replacing the 5830 & 5850, with the 68x0s in the performance range of the 5870 - 5970. Then presumably a refined version of the 5770 will become the 6670 as a more or less direct replacement (which is essentially what happened with the 4850 - 5770 transition)...

[Bhavv]

These cards are still in development, its silly to look at current development models and assume that this is what the end product will be like.

As for the 6770, I wouldnt mind it having two 6 pin power connectors as both the 4890 and GTX 460 require two, and I would expect the 6770 to be around the GTX 460 / 4890 / 5830 - 5850 performance range.

It will be very difficult to make a card with this much performance using just a single 6 pin power connector.

However, I would really not want it to be any longer than the 5770 and GTX 460. In terms of size it should remain small like those two are, but I really cant see the possibility of getting much improvement over the 5770 with just a single 6 pin power connector.