AMD Rumored to Launch Radeon HD 8000 Series in Third Quarter

14

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

btdog

So here's my concern:

AMD initially announced at the beginning of the year that they would stick with the 7000 series of GPUs for the rest of 2013:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/amd_plans_stick_hd_7000_series_bulk_2013

Now, because of pressure from nVidia, AMD has been forced to push up the release of the 8000 series much sooner than they would have liked. With their already spotty reputation with drivers, I can't imagine how poorly the 8000 series drivers are going to be.

The hardware might be able to compete but releasing hardware with lousy drivers helps no one.

avatar

DnaAngel

AMD had to "re-shuffle" the deck per-say, in regards to the organization and structure of their company to avoid the Bankruptcy bullet. Which inclined the inevitable push back of the 8000 series release.

Initial estimates of the new projected release was set to Q1 2014 which was just pure speculation, as no one knew how long it would take for them to re-structure and re-prioritize the company.

I think it had to do with getting their act together faster then predicted not more so from the pressure of a competitor (though there is always some clout to that. There will always be Pro-AMD and Pro-nVidia consumers regardless, so coming to the game late is not going to hurt that much. AMD's drivers have suffered yes, so has nVidias (cough cough nVidia's historic driver failures at Vista's launch as well as spotty Win 8 release drivers). AMD has improved tenfold in their current driver quality.

I personally lean towards nVidia for Graphics cards, but if AMD has the better performing card for my graphics card budget then they get the business. If anyone has common sense, they would pick what product offers up the best performance for the budget regardless of the maker.

avatar

Dangerous_Dave

So basically the only new ones at the top end are the 8970 and the 8870? The 8950 is just looks like 7950 without the overclocking headroom, because AMD have already overclocked the nuts off it when you get it. Probably the tweaks have added an extra 150MHz to the max overclock, and an extra 1GB RAM, but 3GB was already overkill at the kind of resolutions this card would make playable. Meanwhile the 8850 is just a 7870. They both have the same 2.56 TFlops so I have no idea where they're getting the 15% faster from.

avatar

devin3627

im not kidding guys, the nvidia geforce 780 is 3gb, therefore nvidia isnt future proof. nvidia throw ssmall memory sizes to milk the customer. amd's 4gb and 6gb wont let you down in future pc gaming.

avatar

DnaAngel

Sorry for the Necro post, but I had to comment.

You DONT need more then 2Gb of Vram on a single card for 2 reasons.

1. Gaming on a single monitor with a single card on the highest settings will never go above 80% ram utilization on a 2gb vram card. I play more games then I want to admit and Ive never seen a game use more then 1.7Gb of Vram. If anything, offering 3GB of Vram IS future proofing in a sense as 1080p is becoming outdated and surpassed by 2k and higher resolution monitors. Allowing you some flexibility in the next year or so for single card, single monitor gaming into 2015 and if not that is what throwing another card in SLi/Crossfire is for.

2. The only time you will need more then 2Gb of Vram is for either a. Higher then 1080p resolution on a single monitor (some monitors like the new ASUS ones are 4k resolution) or b. Multi monitor support. Either option, you will be using 2 or more graphics cards in order to push them properly allowing you to use both cards resources. There are higher end cards that can natively support and run 2k+ single monitors or some multi monitor setups just fine by themselves. But they usually offer more Vram and other goodies to aid in that.

Its not that nvidia is milking anyone, they know what does what. if anything AMD is just using marketing gimmicks.

Same applies to the "Bus width" AMD likes to market 384 bit buses on their cards. We go back to the first analogy again. Single monitor on a single card (1080p or lower) will never saturate a 256 bit bus on the highest of settings (AA + AF included). The only time you would need more is pushing higher resolutions on a single monitor or pushing multiple monitors which again the user will be using multiple cards which share resources.

One of the biggest misconceptions to graphics cards is judging its performance or abilities by its amount of Vram. I see and hear it all the time. That is just ignorance in knowledge of what exactly it means and how it is applied.

avatar

devin3627

STILL MORE MEMORY THAN WHAT YOU FUCKS WERE SAYING ABOUT NVIDIA!!!! 2gb and 4gb. nvidia give me shit all the way from the 260 to the 560. 1gb ram that short-lived my cards satification immediately after i bought it. always milking the customer a buck with half-ass shit. thats why AMD knows that 1gb cards are old news. fuck off nvidia. im done with you.

avatar

DnaAngel

Yes, Most newer games now use Between 1-1.75gb of Video Ram (Vram) when cranking the settings to max. No game out uses more then 2Gb of Vram on single monitor 1080p max settings. Some games almost require 2 mid grade+ cards to run at max settings smoothly, which wold negate any issues with not having enough Vram.

You will need more Vram if you are either playing newer games, pushing a single monitor that has a 2k+ resolution or using multiple monitors which in both cases pretty much require 2 or more cards which all share resources with each other anyway.

Starting from Nvidia's 600 series and up, pretty much all cards come with atleast 2gb of Vram standard. Which is plenty for basically any game out at max settings. Some of their lower end 600/700 series cards still might have only 1gb of Vram, but those cards are not designed to do anything intensive anyway.

avatar

AFDozerman

Still not faster than Titan...

avatar

AFDozerman

Actually, I take that back. That's just in line with the titan.

avatar

devin3627

for cheaper! the memory specs are future proof!

avatar

AFDozerman

Still not faster than Titan...

avatar

derTorbs

http://techreport.com/review/24832/nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-graphics-card-reviewed/9

If the Titan is just marginally better than the 7970 GHz as it stands currently, and the 8970 should be 35% faster than the 7970 GHz.... I'll let you do the math.

avatar

Chronologist

And I'll let you learn how to read graphs, especially the labels. The conclusion of the article is that the price to performance ratio of the 780 GTX and the Titan are only marginally better than a 7970 and a 680 GTX at "typical usage conditions".

In terms of raw performance, the 7970 is marginally faster than the 680 GTX, and the 780 GTX is faster than both by about 20 percent.

And until I see actual benchmarks, I'll take that 35% figure as an optimistic one.

avatar

DnaAngel

Performance between the 7970 and the GTX 680 was game/application dependent. Some games the 7970 was marginally better, in others (typically more) the GTX 680 was a heap better. Hell there were a few games the GTX 660 Ti evenly matched the 7970 in FPS.

The Titan is hands down the best single card on the market (as of 7/19/2013). There is a significant difference between it and the GTX 780. more then likely the 8970 will be at or around the GTX 780s performance, just like the top 2 cards always are.

But like you said lets see the actual benchmarks before any smoke is blown. I could careless about the Titan, I just don't know where some of these people are getting off that the 8970 is going to "Smoke" the Titan. Anything is possible, its just HIGHLY unlikely.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.