You're thought's on GTX 660ti & 192bit bus

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by angmar

It's pretty obvious why amd used a larger bus because they wanted to get higher memory bandwidth. And there memory controller couldn't handle the memory speeds required to get it so they increased the bus instead. Your point?

My point? Let me repeat the question; "if it's so much more efficient to use faster memory/narrow bus as you say then why did AMD use 384bit bus with the 7 series".

Your answer: "because they wanted to get higher memory bandwidth." so obviously you are incorrect - it's NOT more efficient to use faster memory/narrow bus, or AMD would have done so.

Originally Posted by angmar

edit: sorry didn't bother to finish the rest of your post but yes I see you already basically stated what I just did. But again what is your point?

Actually no I didn't, I was disagreeing with you. Do you not read any of these posts?

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by angmar

It's pretty obvious why amd used a larger bus because they wanted to get higher memory bandwidth. And there memory controller couldn't handle the memory speeds required to get it so they increased the bus instead. Your point?

edit: sorry didn't bother to finish the rest of your post but yes I see you already basically stated what I just did. But again what is your point?

Again, you spread misleading informations. You know that thanks to the? You work at AMD as ingeneer or? Anyways, real default clock difference is about 130+-Mhz, and it is funny to claim (again) things you don't know. Just want to point another thing out, and because i don't know, i will not claim you are not right, because me, nor you didn't tested limits of AMD on chip memory controller. This arguing should not continue and leave it blank.

Originally Posted by angmar

No actually I am quite comfortable in saying that the 7870 is inferior to the 660 and also very comfortable in saying that amd's desktop lineup is inferior to intels. With the exception of there APU's if you actually have a situation to utilize them. I would consider it a fact that the current lineup of AMD cpus compared to there intel counterparts are inferior not just my personal point of view.

Again it is your personal opinion, and it is not general statement nor fact. Fact is, that on both sides, you have good things, and bad things, something is better on one, something on another, and, at the end, when you decide to get one product, you will base your decision on things you had experience with, or on things you need, or, if you know nothing about that product you will buy it to test it out (or test before...).

[angmar]

Originally Posted by Pill Monster

My point? Let me repeat the question; "if it's so much more efficient to use faster memory/narrow bus as you say then why did AMD use 384bit bus with the 7 series".

Your answer: "because they wanted to get higher memory bandwidth." so obviously you are incorrect - it's NOT more efficient to use faster memory/narrow bus, or AMD would have done so.


Actually no I didn't, I was disagreeing with you. Do you not read any of these posts?

This is the last response i'm giving you cause I don't like repeating myself.

And I quote my last answer to answer your question again.



"sorry didn't bother to finish the rest of your post but yes I see you already basically stated what I just did. But again what is your point? Like seriously if your going to pick apart everything I say on technicalities don't bother. Obviously I meant if said gpu creater can get the bandwidth they desire from smaller bus with faster memory then they would. Apparently you couldn't comprehend that without me breaking it down for you though."

[Pill Monster]

^The only thing that's obvious is how you talk a lot of drivel.

Originally Posted by angmar

No actually I am quite comfortable in saying that the 7870 is inferior to the 660

You do realize that the 660Ti is not Nvidia's answer to the 7870? No, I guess not.

From AnandTech:

AMD has already bracketed the GTX 660 Ti by positioning the 7870 below it and the 7950 above it, putting them in a good position to fend off NVIDIA.

With the exception of there APU's if you actually have a situation to utilize them.

HTPC for starters....

I would consider it a fact that the current lineup of AMD cpus compared to there intel counterparts are inferior not just my personal point of view.

State the obvious much?

[angmar]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Again, you spread misleading informations. You know that thanks to the? You work at AMD as ingeneer or? Anyways, real default clock difference is about 130+-Mhz, and it is funny to claim (again) things you don't know. Just want to point another thing out, and because i don't know, i will not claim you are not right, because me, nor you didn't tested limits of AMD on chip memory controller. This arguing should not continue and leave it blank.



Again it is your personal opinion, and it is not general statement nor fact. Fact is, that on both sides, you have good things, and bad things, something is better on one, something on another, and, at the end, when you decide to get one product, you will base your decision on things you had experience with, or on things you need, or, if you know nothing about that product you will buy it to test it out (or test before...).

Intels desktop lineup is better then amds yes this is a general statement and a fact. It's also backed up by 100s of reviews....go find one. Also done responding to you.

[angmar]

Originally Posted by Pill Monster

My point? Let me repeat the question; "if it's so much more efficient to use faster memory/narrow bus as you say then why did AMD use 384bit bus with the 7 series".

Your answer: "because they wanted to get higher memory bandwidth." so obviously you are incorrect - it's NOT more efficient to use faster memory/narrow bus, or AMD would have done so.


Actually no I didn't, I was disagreeing with you. Do you not read any of these posts?

IDC what anandtech says with 7870s selling for the exact same price as the 660ti list price on newegg I would say thats what it's aimed at.


I swear you must have downs. Why do I have to break everything down to the letter for you. As in its easier and more cost effective to build a gpu around a smaller bus if they can get away with it. Your dumb bro I am seriously not wasting my time on you your an annoying immature troll whos beyond rude and should be banned. Later

[Pill Monster]

Originally Posted by angmar

IDC what anandtech says with 7870s selling for the exact same price as the 660ti list price on newegg I would say thats what it's aimed at.


I swear you must have downs. Why do I have to break everything down to the letter for you. As in its easier and more cost effective to build a gpu around a smaller bus if they can get away with it. Your dumb bro I am seriously not wasting my time on you your an annoying immature troll whos beyond rude and should be banned. Later

I'll just leave this here for you.

^I agree +1000.

[Loophole35]

Damn Pill I think you touched a nerve. By th way why did this turn into an AMD bash fest I thought is was "what are your thoughts on the 660's 192-bit bus". All this AMD hate is making me sick.

[Darren Hodgson]

Didn't the GTX 280 cards have a 512-bit bus? And the GTX 480/580 384-bit ones? The current GTX 670/680 have 256-bit buses but memory that runs at a much higher speed to compensate even though the bandwidth available for the high-end Kepler cards is exactly the same as that of the GTX 580. I suppose that could be viewed as a disappointment to some.

That said, the AMD HD 7950 and 7970 have an advantage from the reviews I've read when it comes to high anti-aliasing as a 384-bit bus @ 6 GHz gives more bandwidth than 256-bit @ 6 GHz (obviously!). It's probably why those cards can run Metro 2033 and Aliens vs. Predator faster than NVIDIA's high end cards. There again, the current Kepler cards are said to have been planned as mid-range models but when NVIDIA discovered they were more than a match for AMD's high end ones they were rebranded as high-end.

A 192-bit bus on the GTX 660 Ti is fine for the market those cards are aimed at (people playing on single displays of 1920x1080 or less). With the shift towards FXAA as a replacement for the more bandwidth-intensive MSAA/SSAA then those cards may fare better in the long run than they would have otherwise.

[angmar]

Originally Posted by Loophole35

Damn Pill I think you touched a nerve. By th way why did this turn into an AMD bash fest I thought is was "what are your thoughts on the 660's 192-bit bus". All this AMD hate is making me sick.

I don't see any "amd hate". Stating one product is better then another one when it's true does not mean the person has a bias against the company....well actually there are plenty of fan boys yes but still. I do not have a bias towards AMD or Intel or NVIDIA or AMD. I have a bias towards whatever is the better product at a given price segment. I don't have brand loyalism. I have performance loyalism.

[Black Mesa]

Originally Posted by angmar

I don't see any "amd hate". Stating one product is better then another one when it's true does not mean the person has a bias against the company....well actually there are plenty of fan boys yes but still. I do not have a bias towards AMD or Intel or NVIDIA or AMD. I have a bias towards whatever is the better product at a given price segment. I don't have brand loyalism. I have performance loyalism.

So then it is largely agreed by way of majority rules for you just admitted the 660ti is faster than competing AMD card even though the 660ti has a smaller 192bit bus vs the 7870s 256bits thanx for clearing that up.

[Loophole35]

Originally Posted by Black Mesa

So then it is largely agreed by way of majority rules for you just admitted the 660ti is faster than competing AMD card even though the 660ti has a smaller 192bit bus vs the 7870s 256bits thanx for clearing that up.

660ti still uses the same gpu core as the 670 so of course it's going to be faster the GK104 is a very fast and efficient chip. That being said the picarin does use less power than the 660ti. On top of that the bench marks that they were compairing the two at were using very old drivers for the 7870 as I'm fairly certain that Hilbert did not rerrun all benches for this test the 660 uses the same gpu core as the 670 and 680 so the drivers are pretty well sorted out when the 7870's came out the amd drivers were still somewhat a mess. I would love to see the benches run again and a max overclock comparison done as well. That's just my take on it.

Also on the "why does amd have the bigger bus" they have been pushing ultra high res and multi monitor for a while now an 192 just don't make sense there.

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by angmar

Intels desktop lineup is better then amds yes this is a general statement and a fact. It's also backed up by 100s of reviews....go find one. Also done responding to you.

Quite a bit off topic, better is not equal to faster at one specific task. End of point, i had long arguing with people here, and when i saw that leads to nowhere, i drop the ball, will do same here.

First line can be especially important for GPU's.


About performance nVidia vs AMD is not that simple, for some, it can be just looking at numbers, and i can't do anything about it. And i find it quite natural for GPU that is out half a year latter (or more) to be faster...,. price correction, and things get on the ground again..., and when AMD get out with new product half a year latter it will be faster, and so on... there is no point in arguing about that, it just goes in cycle... At the end, you get product that serve you well and you have less problems with it.

[angmar]

Originally Posted by Black Mesa

So then it is largely agreed by way of majority rules for you just admitted the 660ti is faster than competing AMD card even though the 660ti has a smaller 192bit bus vs the 7870s 256bits thanx for clearing that up.

I just admitted? I was saying it was the whole time. Did you mean to quote someone else I am confused.

[Black Mesa]

Originally Posted by Loophole35

660ti still uses the same gpu core as the 670 so of course it's going to be faster the GK104 is a very fast and efficient chip. That being said the picarin does use less power than the 660ti. On top of that the bench marks that they were compairing the two at were using very old drivers for the 7870 as I'm fairly certain that Hilbert did not rerrun all benches for this test the 660 uses the same gpu core as the 670 and 680 so the drivers are pretty well sorted out when the 7870's came out the amd drivers were still somewhat a mess. I would love to see the benches run again and a max overclock comparison done as well. That's just my take on it.

Also on the "why does amd have the bigger bus" they have been pushing ultra high res and multi monitor for a while now an 192 just don't make sense there.

With that being said the 660ti is still faster than 7870 regardless of resolution, bit bus and in game and in CP quality settings used. 7870 was close in Metro 2033 and I think Crysis 1 would be tight as well being those games seem to like AMD architecture a bit more than nvidias. I guess you guy's know now where I stand on the memory bit bus topic though my stance would be different if this was a few generations ago.

[Black Mesa]

Originally Posted by angmar

I just admitted? I was saying it was the whole time. Did you mean to quote someone else I am confused.

As well I to am confused this thread is a mess LOL.

[keromyaou]

660Ti seems to be a good card for 1080p resolution. But if you increase resolution of the display to 2560x1600 (or 1440) and/or you want to max out the quality using high AA, the weak part of 660Ti seems to kick in. There are several games (such as BF3, Metro2033, Witcher 2) which 660Ti does not do well. Most likely 192bit bus plays a part of this weakness.

AMD officially decreased the price of several graphic cards yesterday (http://videocardz.com/34516/amd-drop...-hd-7950-cards). Now the competition for 660Ti ($299) is a standard 7950 ($320). The performance seems to be a bit better in 7950 than 660Ti especially at higher resolution and higher AA (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...te-review.html).

Personally I am not interested in any of graphics card of this generation since I want to run any games (BF3, Metro2033, Max Payne 3 and so on) at the max quality at 2560x1440 possibly without multi-gpu solutions.

[Black Mesa]

Originally Posted by keromyaou

660Ti seems to be a good card for 1080p resolution. But if you increase resolution of the display to 2560x1600 (or 1440) and/or you want to max out the quality using high AA, the weak part of 660Ti seems to kick in. There are several games (such as BF3, Metro2033, Witcher 2) which 660Ti does not do well. Most likely 192bit bus plays a part of this weakness.

AMD officially decreased the price of several graphic cards yesterday (http://videocardz.com/34516/amd-drop...-hd-7950-cards). Now the competition for 660Ti ($299) is a standard 7950 ($320). The performance seems to be a bit better in 7950 than 660Ti especially at higher resolution and higher AA (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...te-review.html).

Personally I am not interested in any of graphics card of this generation since I want to run any games (BF3, Metro2033, Max Payne 3 and so on) at the max quality at 2560x1440 possibly without multi-gpu solutions.

The 660ti does well in BF3 and every GPU to date has troubles running Metro 2033 and The Witcher2 with Ubersampling on.

[Sash]

personally i think that nvidia can afford to have a lower bus than ATI because they can afford to "bribe" many developers to enter their "the way it's meant to be played" program and then optimize the game to run as on nvidia as well on ATI, altough most ati cards have the higher memory bus advantage.
if you see in most benchmarks that cards are at the same FPS, and only in nvidia optimized games the FPS are higher, but when you increase the resolution, the larger bus on ATI makes the difference

[Spets]

Originally Posted by Sash

personally i think that nvidia can afford to have a lower bus than ATI because they can afford to "bribe" many developers to enter their "the way it's meant to be played" program and then optimize the game to run as on nvidia as well on ATI, altough most ati cards have the higher memory bus advantage.
if you see in most benchmarks that cards are at the same FPS, and only in nvidia optimized games the FPS are higher, but when you increase the resolution, the larger bus on ATI makes the difference

I think this is one of the reasons why they can afford to have a lower bus:

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Spets

I think this is one of the reasons why they can afford to have a lower bus:

That can't be the reason, since nVidia (nor AMD) do not produce memory. Only thing they do is test, and put in specification for board partners, after that, board partners get mem. from whoever (samsung etc. while is highly questionable if samsung actually produce modules, maybe idk) and put on reference PCB or custom one, with specified clocks or higher/lower clocks.

[Black Mesa]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

That can't be the reason, since nVidia (nor AMD) do not produce memory. Only thing they do is test, and put in specification for board partners, after that, board partners get mem. from whoever (samsung etc. while is highly questionable if samsung actually produce modules, maybe idk) and put on reference PCB or custom one, with specified clocks or higher/lower clocks.

It would not surprise me if all the memory comes from the same factory and brands like Samsung, Hynix, Corsair, Kingston, Mushkin, Nvidia & AMD etc just pay to put there name on it.

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Black Mesa

It would not surprise me if all the memory comes from the same factory and brands like Samsung, Hynix, Corsair, Kingston, Mushkin, Nvidia & AMD etc just pay to put there name on it.

Yeah, that seems very possible, to be honest, i don't know, but it makes sense. It's maybe they brought parts etc. I remember on old Bass guitar amplifiers (PeaVey) when i was looking at resistors, electrolytes etc. most part was made by Motorola, and who knows from who they got base components.

For memory, i do believe they assemble modules, but who makes chips, maybe are them, but maybe is that way around, can't state anything tho.

[Spets]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

That can't be the reason, since nVidia (nor AMD) do not produce memory. Only thing they do is test, and put in specification for board partners, after that, board partners get mem. from whoever (samsung etc. while is highly questionable if samsung actually produce modules, maybe idk) and put on reference PCB or custom one, with specified clocks or higher/lower clocks.

Was mainly looking at the speed, it compensates well. The image was just because it looks cool

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Spets

Was mainly looking at the speed, it compensates well. The image was just because it looks cool

Well, you put it that way so we could wrongly interpret it (as we did), no biggy tho .