AMD today launches the Radeon HD 7970, its first graphics card built at a 28nm production process and the first member of its Southern Islands family of GPUs. As its name suggests, the HD 7970 is the replacement for AMD's fastest single-GPU graphics card to date, the HD 6970. The new card increases transistor count from 2.6b to 4.3b, cranks the engine clock speed up from 880MHz to 925MHz, and adds 33 percent more Stream processors, jumping from 1,536 to 2,048. VRAM is also up from 2GB to 3GB — with a 384-bit memory interface for a bandwidth of 264GBps — but the most important change is in internal architecture, with the new Graphics Core Next setup promising to untap the card's potential to perform more computational tasks (i.e. GPGPU) without sacrificing any of its gaming prowess.
Other novelties with the HD 7970 include PCI Express 3.0 and DirectX 11.1 compatibility, making it the first card compatible with either of the two new standards. AMD is also introducing a new ZeroCore Power Technology, which is part of a number of cool things done on the power management side. The HD 7970 is the first AMD GPU to actually know how much power it's drawing from the system, and it's intelligent enough to "gracefully downclock the engine to ensure it's within power limits," as AMD's Zvika Greenstein explained to us. That allows the company to set the aggressive 925MHz default speed and to also promise some amazing overclocking potential from its new card. More from Zvika:
"I really encourage you to overclock this card ... The clock speed that you will hit will be well above 1GHz."
Basically, most retail graphics cards are designed to endure maximum loads for long periods of time, but only synthetic benchmarks are able to put them through such a gruelling test. Games require full power a lot less frequently, which is why a clock speed that you might not be able to support while running something like Furmark might make sense in aid of higher frames in a game like Battlefield 3. With AMD's new dynamic power management technology, setting that higher clock speed without fear of reprisal from the karma police looks to be a possibility.
Returning to the ZeroCore Power feature, it's a new idling mode that cranks everything down on the card to reduce its idle power consumption to 15W when displaying anything on screen or less than 3W with a black screen. This is particularly relevant to people with CrossFire setups, where the slave video card will consume just 2.6W (with its fan off) when not in use. Maximum power consumption for this new card is rated at 250W, same as with the HD 6970.
The stock heatsink on the HD 7970 is described as the sixth generation of AMD's vapor chamber cooling system, while its fan is equipped with new, wider blades that push more air and result in improved acoustics. It all sounds like a comprehensive upgrade package for anyone looking for the latest and greatest, though some patience will be required. The Radeon HD 7970 won't be on sale until at least January 9th, when AMD's recommended price will be $549 in the US and €499 in Europe.
Update: The early reviews are in and it looks like the HD 7970 is indeed the fastest single-GPU graphics card for gaming, but not by a tremendous margin. It looks to be both faster and cooler than the Nvidia GTX 580, the latter of which should validate AMD's claims of high overclocking potential. The $549 MSRP isn't a steal, however: you're paying for what you're getting, it just happens to be quite a bit. Read some of our favorite reviews at the source links below, or check out AnandTech's in-depth preview of Graphics Core Next right here.


There are 86 Comments. Add yours.
While this thing looks amazing, it’s well out of my price range. I’m curious when the “mid-grade” comes out on the 28nm process. You know, the $150-200 cards.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:12 AM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
You can probably count on those hitting about six weeks after this one does..maybe sooner.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
it is really cheap for a compute device. nvidia Fermi cards are over $1000
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:45 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
When was Fermi over $1000.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:50 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
925 MHz and 3 GB of RAM … that was considered an awesome PC not too long ago. Oh how far we’ve come.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:15 AM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
this is SDRAM
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:49 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
i think you missed his point…
Posted on Jan 05, 2012 | 2:40 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
what about the 7950
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:30 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This 7970 is a paper launch, you probably won’t see stock until the 7950 is out on Jan 9th. Specs on that one are available on the internet. This entire release hasn’t been very secret. The 7950 should retail closer to $400, with the 7870 at $300 and 7850 at $200. Below that I wouldn’t touch anything from this series as they plan to be mixing in rebranded 6xxx series GPUs.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I think 7700 series are still GCN, but below that are Northern Islands rebranded.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:41 AM EST reply Recommend (7) Flag actions
great avatar
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:07 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Question for you guys. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see the point of this. PC gaming is a shrinking market. For better or worse, the best games are now developed for consoles and ported to PC. What exactly is this card going to give you over an average competent card? Better textures? A little better framerate? You will never see games developed to take full advantage of this card. Not against companies making better faster graphics card, I just wonder why they bother making these expensive card that carter to a very small group.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:07 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Please look into a piece of software called “Steam”
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:21 AM EST reply Recommend (13) Flag actions
Lame reply.
Posted on Dec 25, 2011 | 11:11 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re wrong.
Battlefield 3 was not, in fact, developed for consoles and ported to PC. It was primarily a PC title.
Three years ago, Crysis was developed for PC exclusively.
Running modern games on high resolution monitors really requires a card like this. If your idea of “the best games” is Call of Duty, then continue playing on aging consoles.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend (6) Flag actions
Wasn’t Crysis 2 developed for console and ported, though? He has a point; most games are now being developed for console first and then for PC, often via a porting process instead of doing it from the ground up. Battlefield 3 was more an anomaly than a trend setter (and the difference between PC and console was staggering. Entirely glad I bought it on PC, though I will never use Origin again. That was an awful experience)
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 4:16 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This may be true, but Crysis 2 still looks MUCH better on PC. Highres textures, tessellation, to just name a few features.
There are many games which just look way better on PC than on consoles. In addition, it’s just another experience playing games on PC.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 7:37 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I agree completely about games looking better on PC. It is the sole reason I got Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 for PC instead of 360, but most people either do nor care or do not have a machine capable of running those games at settings better than what the 360 or PS3 does. Studios know this and are, for the most part, putting much more effort into consoles than PCs for that reason. There are exceptions, Battlefield 3 being the largest, but for the most part, studios are quickly moving away from PC gaming in favor of consoles being their primary focus. A lot of that is simply because of the money there is to be made from the casual gamers (most casual gamers have consoles) and a lot of it is to prevent piracy, something that is a ton more difficult to do on the consoles than it is on PC (although studios like EA and Ubisoft are fighting a much more annoying war – second hand gaming, but that is a different discussion altogether)
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:43 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is particularly true at this late stage in the console update cycle,. The 360 is 5-year old hardware, which – in hardware years – is ancient.
I generally prefer playing games on the couch with a controller in my hand, but when I see screenshots from the PC version of – say – Skyrim – it’s clear that I’m missing out on quite a bit by choosing to play it on a console.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:42 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
No. The engine that ran the original Crisis, CryEngine, was updated with console support. There was never any “porting” to PC, since it originated on the PC.
Posted on Dec 23, 2011 | 2:03 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I take it you’re not a pc gamer then. What you’re saying isn’t really true, on both counts.
The pc gaming market is currently in a period of growth, and while games could be better optimised for these powerful cards, even the console ports offer much better and demanding options that utilise these cards.
It isn’t just better textures, it’s better anti aliasing, it’s not having to put up with often sub-hd games on a console, it’s better post processing, it’s not having to put up with 30fps games, better AF, DX11, etc.
I have two ATI 5850s, had them since launch week in 2009, they were the same GPUs the 6000 series were based off. The 5850 was the second best single GPU ATI made of that series, and two of them are now starting to struggle to run games at 1920×1080 at a solid 60 on maximum settings. Bump down the AA or so and it’s generally alright, but games are and have been progressing even in the short time I’ve been using these cards.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:23 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
Actually, I think you have that backward. Console gaming might be popular, but the PC gaming industry is in no way shrinking. If anything it’s growing at a pretty decent rate. Just look at how fast this GPU technology is evolving. Not just better textures, or better framerate… FAR superior textures and superior framerate to a console, especially in comparison to the PS3/360. This card in this article makes the PS3 look like a child’s VTECH toy.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:24 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Studios don’t care how far the parts are advancing, especially if devs are being honest when they say they still have not reached the potential of the 360 and PS3 some three years later. The console industry seems to be far more lucrative and with less chance of piracy nowadays and studios are taking notice, for better or worse.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 4:18 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What “potential”? Every single recent game that came out for both the PC and the consoles had obvious drawbacks and cut corners on consoles.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Mostly due to lack of space on DVDs, at least in the case of the 360. I remember an interview with Cliffy B (can never remember his full name) right before Gears 3 came out that said they believed they still hadn’t tapped the full power of the 360
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:49 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, and please note that they say this every single interview, at every single game launch. They want people to come back and buy the next one, see – and making them think the next one will look way better helps further that goal. Having said that, I will concede to the fact that smart utilization of the power consoles DO have can make quite a difference in visual fidelity. However, it is NOTHING like the image quality delivered even by a two-year old gaming PC.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:16 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But, again, I think that is beside the point here. To studios, it generally isn’t what provides the biggest graphical opportunity (unless you are working on a new CryEngine or Frostbite engine, obviously), it is what provides the biggest financial incentive. At this point… that is consoles. For better or worse. If 5 year old hardware will likely provide an extra million or so sales than current hardware, that is what they will develop for. It’s sad, but true.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, I agree on that part completely – I’m just saying that it is possible to utilize your PC hardware to the point where you get a noticeably increased visual fidelity, even in games aimed mostly at consoles. At the end of the day, this makes PC gaming worthwhile – and justifies the existence of a card like this – beyond the use in HPC. PC gaming is not shrinking, or “losing” – it’s just moved to download only, and MMO. Consoles and PC are not even competing in the same space. That would like saying that the iPhone will bury the PS3, because both devices can play games.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:43 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I have to disagree with that last point… kinda. The PC and Console markets overlap because they share games. They all have their exclusives, sure, but for the most part… each game that is made for PC is made, at least, for PS3 and 360 and vice-versa. Again, there are the exceptions, particularly in the PC MMO and RPG markets.
While no company, other than the console manufacturers, care which system sells the most — the money does all go to one place, regardless of the format — consumers are actually the ones who are competing. If one format falls off and a dev stops developing entirely for it (I know one or two devs have dropped PC development completely due to piracy in recent months), the users of that platform lose out. A great example is the old PS3-360 wars. PS3, while being the better piece of hardware and a great system, lacked the robust interconnected online system that the 360 had with Xbox Live and has suffered because of it, particularly when it comes to DLC. The 360 has gained more and more system exclusives over the years while the PS3 has lost more than it has gained (I think particularly of MGS and FF).
Again, the companies don’t really care. They’ll keep on developing for whatever provides them the largest profit margins. But consumers do have to worry about the competition.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 6:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, the primary reason is to push the envelope on production, R&D and design. I’m sure AMD learned more from making this card that they will be able to incorporate into every price range in the coming year. Your point about consoles isn’t entirely baseless and there are many examples of modern games that seem to underutilize what PC graphics are capable of in an effort to cater to the console market. But it is not the entirety of the market and games are still being made to push the limits on the PC just as well.
Another thing to consider is that we may be on the verge of seeing ultra-HD displays in the very near future. If we start seeing “2160p” or greater displays as well as games and GPUs that support that then in some ways the GPU performance benchmarks will sort of reset themselves.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:29 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
I appreciate all your responses. Here is a Youtube video demonstrating exactly my point. Not exactly night and day is it? Love it when one of the commentators say that if you can’t see the difference you must be blind and need to get your eyes checked.
Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 – Xbox 360 Vs PC Graphics Comparison 720P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGtvEqL1Sa8
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That was eye-opening. Before, I was just mindlessly spouting stuff I’d heard from friends, but that seriously takes the cake. I didn’t even expect to be able to see that big of a difference on 720p, but that was awesome!
And yes, it is night and day! You can see a lot better in the XBOX version, but the PC version is a lot more true to the original concept. I have to say that some of those levels were simply badly textured, but whenever there was a particularly bad graphics part, it switched to xbox. I don’t even know why. Like climbing up that staircase with the shattered pipes and walls? There’s no doubt that would have looked better on the PC, but it still wouldn’t have looked terribly good.
I don’t know when this trend of having so much dust in the console versions begun, but I think it might just be to mask some of the graphics. It absolutely ruined the contrast of the game compared to the PC version.
Thanks for the link!
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:33 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What are you talking about?!
They look totally different: the colours, depth, textures, tessellation, PC looks astonishingly better.
To be honest, I was expecting it to not look much better, and (as a PC gamer) be really disappointed) – but man does that make me never want to use a console again!
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 10:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Bad game choice, COD is “mediocre” compared to BF3 graphics.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:26 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
First off, the Call of Duty engine is a very bad example to use, as it is actually a fairly “primitive” engine, which even the developers using it are not afraid to admit. They make up for this by throwing tons of cash at asset creation and design. However, this kind of a approach will yield less of a difference when viewing the final product on different levels of hardware. Secondly, why would I ever play it at 720p on my PC? I would play it at 1920×1080 or 2560×1440. Maybe I would use three monitors. I would be able to use AA modes not even supported on console hardware. Your “comparison” is like saying that Mike Tyson can outrun Usain Bolt – all the while Usain Bolt’s feet are tied together with duct tape…
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:27 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
as far as i know the next rage will be 4k tvs. There are already 4kp projection displays that are starting to hit the market and its the native resolution of RED cameras.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 8:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
“PC gaming is a shrinking market”
what..
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Here is a quote from an article I found:
Of course, the highest-end gaming PCs are much more powerful machines than Xbox 360s or PS3s. However, the market of highest-end PCs is an exceedinly niche one, leaving game makers to serve the common denominator of game consoles.
http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/58964-pc-gaming-is-dead-even-id-says-so
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:07 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
You trust what id Software says? You do realize they’re a terrible gaming company, right? They hit their prime over a decade ago, and have just been refusing to die ever since.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-PC. Stating it in another way, why aren’t PC games blowing away their console counterparts seeing as they are many many times more powerful?
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:25 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
But they are! Even looking at the video you posted, that’s a big difference! That’s like upgrading from 24-bit to 32-bit color on Windows. You don’t think you’re missing anything, then boom! There it is! And that was at 720p! The disparity will be even greater at 1080p, since the console is already at it’s limits in the 720p version, and the PC still has a ways to go until it hit’s it’s limits.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:37 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I want to reply to your initial post and using your later one as not to get lost in a sea of replies. Games are not “ported” in the way Aspyr created its crappy ports for OSX in the past. Games are from the start made with both the console and the PC in mind. The release is simultaneous as the only difference is upscaling graphics quality for the PC. There are more profits in the console yes but since we are talking about DirectX, dual release is effortless. So the games are not released on the console and then ported on the PC, they are instead created with the lowest denominator in mind, the console.
Some general info; pc games cost way less and the total freedom makes it effortless to play cracked games. Blizzard estimated 300mil. PC gamers. PC gaming is very broad and very “fragmented” but it is in no way shrinking like you wrongly assumed. If you were a PC “gamer” you would’ve known and observed that the PC is still the premier gaming platform that simply runs everything and every kind of game possible. It is the console that is limited and has “simpler” games.
Try in person a DX11 title on full details and then try a console games and you’ll see light and day. Don’t judge youtube videos.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:41 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Now, as to whether this card is worth it right now? That’s a much better question. I’d say yes, if you can reasonably fit it in your budget. It’ll last you about 3-4 years before it can’t play top of the line at top settings, and another 2 for the card to die, at which point you’d be able to replace it with another card at 100$ with the same capability, or repeat the cycle with another high-end card.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:20 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Nope you are wrong. Just look at skyrim sales on steam vs consoles. PC gaming is definitely not shrinking. Sorry to burst your bubble, but PC gaming is the most popular type of gaming in other countries than the US. Look at China and South Korea they play alot of starcraft 2 and WoW. These markets are beginning to emerge because they have so many people.you have to look at it from a global perspective instead of being so blindsighted that you think only people in Amierca play PC….
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 4:50 AM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Even if PC gaming were dead (which it isn’t), these high end graphics card would still be made purely for CAD purposes.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This is also AMD’s answer to Nvidia Tesla GPUs
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:46 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
That’s totally false. PC games look way better if you have the hardware. I personally play on PS3 because that’s what my friends play on, it was cheaper than building my own PC, and I love the exclusives (Uncharted, Gran Turismo) but the couple PC games I play look great even on a mid range GPU
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 10:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
PC vs. consoles aside, don’t you think that the next generation of consoles will also require higher caliber graphics processing? What would be the point in limiting it to consoles? How would that be a smart business move from AMD’s perspective?
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
You are indeed wrong. Most sale numbers do not include Steam and the other online stores. That and some of the MMO games are the biggest chunk of the PC market. Sure it is much smaller compared to consoles and in retail it is on its last legs, but that is not the whole story.
As for making these cards… They are aware that neither this or the GTX580 will sell in huge amounts. But there is an opportunity for bigger margins on top of the range products and people who buy these are often hardware junkies who will spend 500£ every year just to make sure they get the fastest possible hardware. Sure they are far smaller in size compared to the console crowd (and minuscule even within the PC community), but most console owners buy one and are done with it while I know two people (and a bunch more through tech forums) who spend 1000£+ on their hardware every year just because they enjoy the tinkering and they can afford it.
Games are already taking advantage of this card. You can find titles that push it to the limit. Also you have to realise this is a top of the range card that should go with a top of the range monitor rather than the usual basic 1080p panel. once you get a 30 inchers or even worse mutli monitor setups and turn all the eye candy to the max then you will know why some people want to pay through the nose for the fastest hardware.
Also slowly you will see a trend of games being much better (not only prettier) on PC. Fact is the Battlefield 3 on PC is a completely different and destroys the console version in terms of gameplay. We are getting to a point when the hardware on the consoles can still render decent looking scenes, but usually that means you are running down a tight, scripted corridor. Skyrim and New Vegas are also far better on PC and have the advantage of mods. I would expect the Xbox360 version of the Withcer 2 to look and feel badly compared to a decent gaming PC.
There is only so much you can do with 6 year + old hardware. Unless we see a new generation of consoles soonish, the Pc versions of the games will become noticeably better, rather than just nicer to look at.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:13 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
PC gaming is re-surging. Bigger than it has been in years, arguably the best community, the cheapest games, the best servers, graphics and resolutions generations beyond the consoles.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:30 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
wait, you think that playing games is the only way you can use a gpu? i dont think amd is expecting gamers to drop that much money for just framerates. gpu computing and acceleration is taking off, thats what this is targeting
Posted on Jan 05, 2012 | 2:45 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
what are the 2 output ports on the left hand side? (Thunderbolt?)
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:14 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Mini DisplayPort.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:19 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you know that for a fact? Thunderbolt would make much, much more sense. Especially given there’s two of them.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:47 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, Mini DP. Thunderbolt would be lovely, but nope.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 10:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Why would it make more sense? MiniDP already exists on graphics cards.
“Especially given there’s two of them”
Take a look at this:
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 10:17 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
This is what Apple is putting into the 15" MacBook Air I’m hoping to buy next year, right?
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:51 AM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
i don’t think it will be in the Air. perhaps the 17 in Macbook Pro or the iMac.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:50 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Can that thing even fit in an air?
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:06 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
He is just joking guys. This card is huge/won’t fit; creates lots of heat/laptop will toast your balls and other components and would probably drain a battery in 20 minutes or so.
it is a bit sad though that GPU options for Apple computers are so poor and overpriced. They seem to get gaming on mobile better than other companies, but are surprisingly inept when it comes to Mac and game support. If MS has been whipping your butt for the last 15+ years then you have to be doing something wrong.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:17 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
The problem is DirectX vs OpenGL. The biggest issue was that OpenGL didn’t really update their library for like 5 years. It was so out of date, that everyone moved to DirectX. Software developers can write code for the XBox and PCs with one code base and it just work for 90% of users.
Meanwhile OpenGL, which works on Macs, has fallen out of favor for several reasons, so Microsoft has the market cornered. Macs are still the vast minority, and gaming companies aren’t willing to invest the man hours to recode games for that limited user base.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:32 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually the opposite is becoming true. More PC games are being made for the Mac these days than ever before, look at Steam. Also, Lion (OS X 10.7) completely overhauled OpenGL on the Mac, and it’s a lot better than it used to be.
Also FYI, the “limited user base” consists of hundreds of millions of people. Just clarifying that. Why do you think Valve made the effort? Not saying anybody should buy a Mac for gaming, just saying you need to keep the exaggeration to a minimum and stick to the facts.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:05 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Whipping your butt in gaming. But Apple has been killing it overall with Macs. The MBP are viewed as a professional workstation computer, you can get away with gaming on it. But if you’re serious about gaming the Mac is not something you should be looking at. Not to mention the lack of DX11 native on OS X.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:33 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder how idle power consumption fares with a single card and two monitors. That used to be a catch22 for both AMD and Nvidia in the past. As soon as you hook up a second monitor, idle clock speeds and power consumption werent the same as with one screen.
Besides this, 15W idle and <5W (I’ve read elsewhere that meassured power is close to 5W than 3W) when the screen is in power safe mode , are nice metrics for the high-end model.
I’m not into high-end, though. The 7850 (should there be such a card) is more in my ballpark to replace my 6850 sometime next year.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 3:36 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Power consumption during HD decoding and dual monitor is still pretty bad:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970/15/#abschnitt_leistungsaufnahme
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 7:15 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Sadly, they still did not fix anisotropic filtering. For me a complete “no-go” for a 500$+ card. Sorry AMD, try again. I’ll wait for Kepler.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 7:13 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Lol, “fixed” it? First of all, there’s not that much to fix, but they actually did tweak it a little, just FYI. I’m more annoyed by the fact that they are still only supporting certain AA modes in DX9, not 10 and above. However, the drivers based on GCN (from january and onward), should be a big improvement over the current feature set, bringing them closer to or on par with nVidia.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:36 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
For gaming this card may not be a steal, but for GPGPU tasks this thing is probably worth its weight in g old to computational projects.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 8:51 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
And they were saying PC-gaming is dead?!
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:08 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Will this work with a mac pro?
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 9:52 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It is possible. I’m pretty sure I saw a post about software references to 7xxx Radeons in the latest OS X update, this could mean Apple is developing, or has developed, drivers for this series. Of course, Apple is also historically pretty nonchalant about implementing modern graphics cards, but that could also be changing as both the iMacs and the MacBooks have current-gen GPUs(6xxx series). So, I think it is definitely possible, but no telling when it might happen.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Seems likely that whenever the next Mac Pro comes out, a card from this family will be an option. As always, an off the shelf 7970 won’t work because it has an old school BIOS while Macs use EFI. MS said they would be supporting EFI (which would then cause ATi and nVidia to build cards using EFI, which would be compatible with Macs by default) but they haven’t really delivered on that promise, and all current video cards still use BIOS.
It’ll work if you run Windows in Boot Camp, but not in OS X. But Apple usually works with ATi or nVidia to get an EFI-compatible card from the most recent family of cards when it’s time to come out with a new Mac Pro, so that’s probably what’ll happen here.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:31 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
What on earth are you talking about.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 4:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
http://bit.ly/sz1YWF
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:03 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, no, that is not really the case, as there is plenty of PC hardware using EFI these days.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 5:37 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Yes, it is really the case. As I said, MS has not fully adopted EFI which is why all these video cards are still using BIOS. In order to make the shift I was talking about, MS would need to fully support EFI and stop using BIOS. It’s not about which PC hardware supports EFI, it’s about Windows supporting EFI – or more accurately, switching to EFI completely, not just being compatible with it.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 6:08 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This makes my HD 6770m look……umm…….pathetic. :P
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 10:16 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
Think of how my 4650 feels :(
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 10:52 AM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’m running a 5870 O.O
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:25 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Still a decent GPU. I got two 5770s which sort of work well but crossfire is something I’d never reccomend to anyone. It just isn’t worth it.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 1:34 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Your 6770 is my 5770 in new clothes, yet my 5770 doesnt care. plays Skyrim on Ultra, 1920×1200 :)
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 12:51 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Good: Price is Steep but its the new consumer state of the art and that means it will apply price pressure on other previously high end cards to make them even more affordable now :) Just as Vlad was saying in his how to build a $1K gaming rig, if you buy the model just below state of the art you always get a much better deal. To this I say hurray, for that day has arrived that 28nm beasts have land, and thus will fall the prices of all other discrete graphics solutions: consumer win via innovation.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 2:46 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
¿Para que quiero una tarjeta grafica de otro planeta si con una Ati 5770 muevo todo lo que quiero por 90 euros?
Los juegos sacaran el rendimiento de esta tarjeta dentro de un par de años.
Posted on Dec 22, 2011 | 7:15 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This makes me excited about the price drop of the 6970 :D
Posted on Dec 23, 2011 | 3:10 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
This card will surely be the number 1 single processor GPU in the market..
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 | 7:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.