Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 21

Thread: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

  1. #1
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    It seems the card will have two full Tahiti XT chips slightly downclocked to 850MHZ:

    http://www.techpowerup.com/162678/AM...n-Surface.html

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    3 times in 1 post

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    I wonder though if we were liquid cooling these we should be able to push it at least up to 1100 mhz is not more give adequate cooling. I think its a better bargain to wait for one of these than to go with two 7970's consider the costs for getting two additional gpu blocks + accessories and the markup for getting two cards vs one.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,096
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked
    83 times in 69 posts
    • Bugbait's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z370 Auros Gaming 7
      • CPU:
      • Intel i8 8700K (Watercooled)
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 16GB DDR4 Corsair LPX 4000Mhz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 960 EVO 500GB, Samsung 850 EVO 500GB, SS 1TB, WD 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Waterforce WB Xtreme Edition
      • PSU:
      • Antec HCP-850 Platinum
      • Case:
      • Corsair Obsidian 900D (Dual D5 in series: 120.7 - EX360 + EX480) Noctua F & P12 Fans
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • LG 31MU97
      • Internet:
      • VM Cable (100Meg)

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by r3quiem View Post
    I wonder though if we were liquid cooling these we should be able to push it at least up to 1100 mhz is not more give adequate cooling. I think its a better bargain to wait for one of these than to go with two 7970's consider the costs for getting two additional gpu blocks + accessories and the markup for getting two cards vs one.
    Pretty much why I went for a 5970 back in the day. Sure, 2x5870's were a little cheaper and easier to source but it was clearly more expensive once I added the additional water block accessories. I've been running it at 950 (default is 725/750 odd) since day one without issues and the max temperatue under water is almost half temperature of the air cooled solution.

    Been watching the 7 series alongside the new Nvidia offering (680). Itching for an upgrade but even with SWTOR at max on a 30" screen I'm not seeing any real hardware bottlenecks. Unfortunately I'm not an FPS player so hard to justify throwing more power at games.

    Bargain? Unsubstantiated Net chatter puts the price of these around USD$850 odd but Nvidia's new line might put a dent in that (hopefully).

  4. #4
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,192
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Given the efficiency of the Keplar chips, is it even worth considering AMD anymore now?
    Surely its better to just wait until NVidia fleshes out their range

  5. #5
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by biscuit View Post
    given the efficiency of the keplar chips, is it even worth considering amd anymore now?
    Surely its better to just wait until nvidia fleshes out their range
    wtf??

    So let me get this right?? No should have bought a Fermi based graphics card in the last two years since Nvidia had worse performance/watt??

    Its like someone looking at the GTX480 and saying that no Nvidia GTX400 series card is worth buying ever. Forget the card called the GTX460?? Of course everyone knows why the GTX480 and GTX580 have worse performance/watt than the rest of the Fermi range. Its blatantly obvious. Of course,lets forget about the HD6850 1GB too.


    Did you even look at the rest of the AMD HD7000 range let alone all the HD6000 range which will be around for the next few months??
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 26-03-2012 at 12:39 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,147
    Thanks
    1,506
    Thanked
    2,923 times in 2,369 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    Given the efficiency of the Keplar chips, is it even worth considering AMD anymore now?
    Surely its better to just wait until NVidia fleshes out their range
    I think you're putting rather more ability in the Kepler cards than they quite deserve

    The 680 is an excellent card, but it's not like it's the most efficient (the 7870 is) or most powerful when used in extreme situations (7970 is arguably). It is however by some way the best blend of efficiency and power at 1080p.

    The 7990 will not be targeting that market - it will be for the ultra high resolutions. A competing card made up of two 680s (as they are currently configured) will be at a disadvantage - they might still do fine, but there's a design limitation especially in terms of memory.

    That could well be overcome, and I'd hope to at least see a 690 made up of two 4GB variants of the 680 - then we'll have a decent battle in the extreme market. But it's wrong to question if AMD are even worth considering.

  7. #7
    Headless Chicken Terbinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,323
    Thanks
    1,096
    Thanked
    672 times in 550 posts
    • Terbinator's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock H61M
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon 1230-V3
      • Memory:
      • Geil Evo Corsa 2133/8GB
      • Storage:
      • M4 128GB, 2TB WD Red
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX Titan
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX760i
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster 130
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp U2711H
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 60Mb.

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    I think he was misunderstood tbh, and at worst, meant the 7970 wasn't worth looking at atm.
    Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
    CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
    TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
    for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.

  8. #8
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,192
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    yeah my comment was blown out of proportion slightly.

    I was more suggesting that seeing as the current high end keplar card has trumps on the AMD equivalent in most modern scenarios, there seems to be little point in buying into something like a 7990 when the Nvidia equivalent looks set to be a much better product in performance per watt/doller scales. It could well be the case that the same is true of the lower end Nvidia cards when they are released, at the very worst i think its worth waiting for.
    If the bus limitations cause a problem and infact the purpose of the card (ultra high res gaming) proves better on the AMD then ok, it was a question afterall, not a statement.

    Perhaps AMD will once again compete on price, wouldn't surprise me.

    I don't see how any retrospective comparisons are relevant

  9. #9
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    That could well be overcome, and I'd hope to at least see a 690 made up of two 4GB variants of the 680 - then we'll have a decent battle in the extreme market. But it's wrong to question if AMD are even worth considering.
    The GTX680 4GB is incoming:

    http://www.techpowerup.com/163044/Ga...ing-Shape.html

    http://www.techpowerup.com/163043/Ga...-Pictured.html

    8GB on one card would be as much as my system RAM!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    . It could well be the case that the same is true of the lower end Nvidia cards when they are released, at the very worst i think its worth waiting for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    I don't see how any retrospective comparisons are relevant
    It is as your statement seemed a general one statement regarding the whole GTX600 and HD7000 series ranges,and looking at prior history it is very relevant to look at previous trends in all ranges. The GK104 is compute light though,so I suspect performance/watt of the GPU won't massively change for lower end gaming cards(might be slightly better due to lower clockspeeds). This is why lower end Fermi cards were a decent improvement. Compute ability was reduced and the internal arrangement was different so they were much more power efficient for gaming.

    As Kalniel mentioned the HD7800 series has significantly better performance/watt than the HD7900 series. The same goes with the GTX480 vs the GTX460,the GTX580 vs the GTX560TI,and even in many ways the HD6970 vs the GTX580 too.

    However,now that you clarified it,yes AMD is in a pickle,however price isn't so much the issue but the TDP. Even in the worst case scenario in reviews,the GTX680 still consumes less power and this means the GK104 dual card is probably going to have full speed cores. It is like the GTX590 against the HD6900 accept now the roles have reserved.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 26-03-2012 at 02:39 PM.

  10. #10
    ALT0153™ Rob_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,876
    Thanks
    301
    Thanked
    645 times in 439 posts

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    What would even need 8GB ?! Now if you could trun GPU RAM into RAM drives....then I'm interested!

  11. #11
    Anthropomorphic Personification shaithis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Last Aerie
    Posts
    10,832
    Thanks
    645
    Thanked
    870 times in 734 posts
    • shaithis's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77 WS
      • CPU:
      • i7 3770k @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 32GB HyperX 1866
      • Storage:
      • Lots!
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire Fury X
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX850
      • Case:
      • Corsair 600T (White)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell 3007
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb Fibre

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    The GTX680 4GB is incoming:
    I wonder how useful it will be though......at least once it's here we will see if it's bandwidth or size limited at higher resolutions.

    My guess....bandwidth limited (large increase in core power but no increase in bandwidth...), in which case the 4GB version would be close to useless......much like a 2GB GTS440 !
    Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
    HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
    HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
    Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
    NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
    Laptop: Lenovo Flex 2 / 12GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: HTC One U11 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM12.1 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive

  12. #12
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by shaithis View Post
    I wonder how useful it will be though......at least once it's here we will see if it's bandwidth or size limited at higher resolutions.

    My guess....bandwidth limited (large increase in core power but no increase in bandwidth...), in which case the 4GB version would be close to useless......much like a 2GB GTS440 !
    Good point. I wonder if the RAM would be higher rated though??

    I might have missed it,but have any of the reviews covered VRAM overclocking performance improvements with the GTX680??

    Another thing which might be worth considering is the core boost. Since the percentage boost is not artificially limited and is dependent on thermal considerations only AFAIK,I just wonder if the dual cards will boost as much as single cards??

  13. #13
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,147
    Thanks
    1,506
    Thanked
    2,923 times in 2,369 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob_B View Post
    What would even need 8GB ?! Now if you could trun GPU RAM into RAM drives....then I'm interested!
    I don't think anyone has suggested 8GB GPUs! 4GB is enough for now!

  14. #14
    ALT0153™ Rob_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,876
    Thanks
    301
    Thanked
    645 times in 439 posts

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    I don't think anyone has suggested 8GB GPUs! 4GB is enough for now!
    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    8GB on one card would be as much as my system RAM!!

    Was in repsonse to that

    My dream of a GPU speed 8GB RAM disk still evades me

  15. #15
    Senior Member kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    29,147
    Thanks
    1,506
    Thanked
    2,923 times in 2,369 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X58A UD3R rev 2
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon X5680
      • Memory:
      • 12gb DDR3 2000
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2311H
      • Internet:
      • O2 8mbps

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Ah cool. Glossed over Cat's post for some reason

  16. #16
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,004
    Thanks
    496
    Thanked
    1,032 times in 876 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: HD7990 clockspeeds detailed

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob_B View Post
    Was in repsonse to that

    My dream of a GPU speed 8GB RAM disk still evades me
    Can be done under Linux, but speed is supposed to be quite poor

    This discussion showed just 33MB/sec.

    http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...s-swap-883900/

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •