• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

Synthetics

As always we’ll also take a quick look at synthetic performance to get a better look at our video cards' underpinnings. These tests are mostly for comparing cards from within a manufacturer, as opposed to directly comparing AMD and NVIDIA cards.

We’ll start with 3DMark Vantage’s Pixel Fill test, a mix of a ROP test and a bandwidth test to see if you have enough bandwidth to feed those ROPs.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Pixel Fill

Moving on, we have our 3DMark Vantage texture fillrate test, which does for texels and texture mapping units what the previous test does for ROPs.

Synthetic: 3DMark Vantage Texel Fill

Finally we’ll take a quick look at tessellation performance with TessMark. We have everything turned up to maximum here, which means we're looking at roughly 11 million polygons per frame.

Synthetic: TessMark, Image Set 4, 64x Tessellation

Compute Performance Power, Temperature, & Noise
POST A COMMENT

107 Comments

View All Comments

  • GivMe1 - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    128bit interface is going to hurt high res textures... Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Sunday, March 24, 2013 - link

    Oh no it won't ! this is amd man! nothing hurts when it's amd ! amd yes it can ! Reply
  • Quizzical - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    Your chart shows Radeon HD 6870 FP64 performance as N/A. I think it's 1/20 of FP32 performance, but I'm not sure of that. It definitely can do FP64, as otherwise, it wouldn't be able to claim OpenGL 4 compliance. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    No, it doesn't have any HARDWARE FP64 capabilities. It's always possible to emulate this at slow performance via software, though. Reply
  • Quizzical - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    It's basically the same as what the 7770, 7790, and 7850 do, but they're not listed as N/A. The relevant question isn't whether you can do it more slowly, but how much more slowly. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - link

    No, it's not the same, the GCN cards have hardware FP64 capabilities. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    Let's be clear here. 85W is not the TDP. The TDP is higher (likely on the order of 110W or so). However AMD chooses not to publish the TDP for these lower end cards, and instead the TBP. Reply
  • alwayssts - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    Yeah, I figure ~85 TBP/105w TDP because that would be smack between 7770/7850 as well as having 20% headroom (which also allows another product to have their TBP between there and 7850's max TDP with it's max tdp above it within 150w....ie ~120-125/150w). IIRC, 80w is the powertune max (TDP) of 7770, 130w for 7850. 85w is the stock operation (TBP) of 7790.

    I really, really dislike how convoluted this power game has become...can you tell?!

    First it was max power. Then it was nvidia stating typical power (so products were within pci-e spec) with AMD still quoting max, which made them look bad. Then we get this 'awesome' product segmentation with 7000 having TBP and max powertune TDPs to separate them, while nvidia quotes TBP and hides the fact the TDP limits for their products exist unless you deduce them from the percentage you can up the boost power.

    AAAAaaaarrrrrghhhhh. I miss when the product you had could do what you wanted it to, ie before software voltage control and multiple states, as for products like this it gives the user less control and the companies a ton to create segmentation. Low-end stock products may have been less-than-stellar back in the day, but with determination you could get something out of it without some marketing stating it should fit x niche so give it y max tdp so it doesn't interfere with the market of z product.
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    Maybe so you couldn't blow the crap out of it then return it for another one, then another one, as "you saved money" and caused everyone else to pay 25% more since you overclock freaks would blow them up, then LIE and get the freebie replacement, over and over again.

    Maybe they got sick of dealing with scam artist liars... maybe they aren't evil but the end user IS.
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, March 22, 2013 - link

    Why would the design power be higher than the total board power? :/ You're correct that the figure they're quoting isn't TDP but then you just went and made up a number.

    Here's some actual power consumption measurements of a 7770:
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7770_iCo...

    So using Ananad's figures to extrapolate you can expect this thing to be ~90W max, usually lower than that at peak, right about where AMD put it.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now