5970's at newegg for $329

[yochdog]

There is a lot of resentment for smart business sense on this forum.

That was true a few days ago, but maintaining your asking price in the wake of the 7950s @ $450 probably isn't a wise move.

I am not sure I would even begin to compare a 7950 to a 5970.......Not really in the same league in terms of hashing power. 

[1714789556]

1714789556

[1714789556]

1714789556

[1714789556]

1714789556

[1714789556]

1714789556

[1714789556]

1714789556

[1714789556]

1714789556

[DeathAndTaxes]

There is a lot of resentment for smart business sense on this forum.

That was true a few days ago, but maintaining your asking price in the wake of the 7950s @ $450 probably isn't a wise move.

  I think $400 is steep simply because other options will be available for those who wait. But comparing it to a 7950 is just dumb.

7950 will likely be ~75% of the performance of 7970.  7970 are getting 650 MH/s of so.  That would put 7950 @ 480 MH/s.  A 6970 is in the 730 to 760 range.   So $50 more for 1/3 less performance is hardly a deal killer.

Actually the underwhelming launch of 7000 series combined with high prices has caused 5970 prices to go UP not DOWN on ebay (much to my displeasure).  I was hopping to pickup 8 more @ $300 ea.

[Mousepotato]

Oh sure, on the big end, there won't be an comparison between a 7950 and 5970 if both are maxed out running pedal to the metal.  I totally get that.  However, I was referring to downclocked and undervolted performance, which seems to be popular nowadays.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Oh sure, on the big end, there won't be an comparison between a 7950 and 5970 if both are maxed out running pedal to the metal.  I totally get that.  However, I was referring to downclocked and undervolted performance, which seems to be popular nowadays.

Even downclocked there won't be a contest.  5970 holds its own downclocked against a 7970.  A 7950 is going to be 25% to 33% weaker.

[Mousepotato]

Even downclocked there won't be a contest.  5970 holds its own downclocked against a 7970.  A 7950 is going to be 25% to 33% weaker.

You think?  I'm really curious to see benchmarks come in as people start getting their hands on them.  Now I realize the 7950 has a lower shader count than the 7970, but that can be compensated for by increasing the core a little bit which shouldn't increase power consumption too much.  I like the "550 MH/s" benchmark since it's a number that can be easily hit by the 5970 and, ostensibly, all 79XX cards.  Dial the settings all the way down til each card hits 550 MH/s stably, then measure power consumption.

BTW, are you in the Death and Taxes WoW guild?

[yochdog]

Even downclocked there won't be a contest.  5970 holds its own downclocked against a 7970.  A 7950 is going to be 25% to 33% weaker.

You think?  I'm really curious to see benchmarks come in as people start getting their hands on them.  Now I realize the 7950 has a lower shader count than the 7970, but that can be compensated for by increasing the core a little bit which shouldn't increase power consumption too much.  I like the "550 MH/s" benchmark since it's a number that can be easily hit by the 5970 and, ostensibly, all 79XX cards.  Dial the settings all the way down til each card hits 550 MH/s stably, then measure power consumption.

BTW, are you in the Death and Taxes WoW guild?

I think you are expecting way to much out of the 7950.  To even hit 550 MH/s, you are going to have to overclock the shit out of it, and power consumption is going to spike accordingly. 

Conversly, with the 5970, you are going to have to dial it back to hit 550 MH/s. 

Regardless, in my case where power expense is nearly a non issue, I am much more interested in hashing density.  In that regard, it is not even a contest as the 5970 will crush the 7950 hands down.  AND it is much better in terms of MH/$. 

[Mousepotato]

I think you are expecting way to much out of the 7950.  To even hit 550 MH/s, you are going to have to overclock the shit out of it, and power consumption is going to spike accordingly.

You know, you're absolutely right.  I was thinking that the 7970 (and thus the 7950 with a little tweaking) could hit 700 MH/s+ easily, and they'd have to be dialed down to hit 550 MH/s. But looking back at the 7970 threads, I see this is not the case.  I still want to see some 7950 benchmarks though  

Does anybody have any news on the 7850s?  I remember people saying that's going to be the go-to card for efficiency a couple months ago.  Has anything changed since then?

[DeathAndTaxes]

You think?  I'm really curious to see benchmarks come in as people start getting their hands on them.  Now I realize the 7950 has a lower shader count than the 7970, but that can be compensated for by increasing the core a little bit which shouldn't increase power consumption too much.  I like the "550 MH/s" benchmark since it's a number that can be easily hit by the 5970 and, ostensibly, all 79XX cards.  Dial the settings all the way down til each card hits 550 MH/s stably, then measure power consumption.

The 7950 isn't a chopped down 7970. AMD went with a different chip this time (maybe due to cost of 28nm wafers ? ).  It's performance is ~75% of 7970 (based on ALU & clock).  Unless it ends up being an overclocking champ (I guess we can look at game overclocking to get an idea) I think your expectations are too high.  Still we will know for sure in a few days as someone will buy one.

BTW, are you in the Death and Taxes WoW guild?

Nope.  Never played WOW.

[portron]

You think?  I'm really curious to see benchmarks come in as people start getting their hands on them.  Now I realize the 7950 has a lower shader count than the 7970, but that can be compensated for by increasing the core a little bit which shouldn't increase power consumption too much.  I like the "550 MH/s" benchmark since it's a number that can be easily hit by the 5970 and, ostensibly, all 79XX cards.  Dial the settings all the way down til each card hits 550 MH/s stably, then measure power consumption.

The 7950 isn't a chopped down 7970. AMD went with a different chip this time (maybe due to cost of 28nm wafers ? ).  It's performance is ~75% of 7970 (based on ALU & clock).  Unless it ends up being an overclocking champ (I guess we can look at game overclocking to get an idea) I think your expectations are too high.  Still we will know for sure in a few days as someone will buy one.

BTW, are you in the Death and Taxes WoW guild?

Nope.  Never played WOW.

Where are you getting the 25% reduction in performance figures? Just wondering, doesn't line up with what I found, but I could be way off, just wondering.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2012/01/31/amd-radeon-hd-7950-3gb-review/1

"Of course, there’s more to the HD 7950 3GB than the 12.5 per cent drop in stream processor count. AMD has also reduced the card’s stock speeds to match. While the HD 7970 3GB ships with a core frequency of 925MHz, the HD 7950 3GB’s core clock speed is only 800MHz, a 13.5 per cent reduction"



Gross, look at that middle fan   I wonder how the VRM's and Caps will hold up with 24/7 mining and overclocking without them being covered like on the 7970....

Compare that to the 7970:




I guess we'll have to see what the price point for hte 1.5gb model will be:

"a lower price HD 7950 1.5GB will arrive soon to offer a cheaper alternative for those less concerned with ultra-high resolution or multi-monitor gaming. "

Edit: "Somewhere along the way a 1.5GB HD 7950 is also expected at the $399 price point."
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-radeon-hd-7000-series-roadmap-revealed/14693.html#ixzz1l4Bfi1Tv

[DeathAndTaxes]

7950 - 1792 Shaders & 800 Mhz = 1.43 billion OPs per second.
7970 - 2048 Shaders @ 925 Mhz = 1.89 billion OPs per second.



Hashing performance generally is just a metric of how many shaders and how quick they are.

1.43/1.89 = ~75.6%

The article said the same thing they were just a little vague

Of course, there’s more to the HD 7950 3GB than the 12.5 per cent drop in stream processor count. AMD has also reduced the card’s stock speeds to match.

The speed drop (not quantified) is 13.6%.
So 86.4% of the speed & 87.5% of the shaders.
(0.86)(0.875) = ~75.6%.

[portron]

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18366789

Well I know its not perfect, and the BIOS flash won't change anything for mining but this gives us some idea.

Might just pickup a pair of these and see how it goes 

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yeah that fan config (at least on paper) sucks.  VRM are the bottleneck of any high end performance (at least for mining).  Looking at newegg there are "reference" looking models hopefully they cool the VRMs better.

[deepceleron]

7950 = 112 SPUs instead of 128 on 7970. That's not a huge difference, especially if your card can overclock back to 7970 speeds. Likely the die design is 128, and ones that have failed core yields become 7950.
Overclocking (without increasing voltage) is a linear increase in hashes at the same hashes/J, but the overhead of CPU, motherboard, HDD remains the same, and the whole system becomes *more* efficient.

[DeathAndTaxes]

7950 = 112 SPUs instead of 128 on 7970. That's not a huge difference, especially if your card can overclock back to 7970 speeds. Likely the die design is 128, and ones that have failed core yields become 7950.
Overclocking (without increasing voltage) is a linear increase in hashes at the same hashes/J, but the overhead of CPU, motherboard, HDD remains the same, and the whole system becomes *more* efficient.

It is 12% less and at 14% lower clock.  Saying you can overclock back to 7970 STOCK sppeds is kinda silly.  Because you can overclock 7970 another 20%+ beyond that.

Now MH/$ it is much better because it is ~25% less STOCK performance however it is 40% lower price.  

Stock, overclocked, underclocked, undervolted, overvolted, watercooled, oil cooled I would be suprised is it is more than 5% deviation from its paper specs relative to a 7970 IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION.

i.e.
overclocked 7970 vs overclocked 7950
watercooled 7970 vs watercooled 7950
undervolted 7970 vs undervolted 7950