Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 2,375
Yay, more proof that vram means nothing 
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Hexus reviews the Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 TOXIC 6GB
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5,267
- Location
- London
Epeen extension imo
Damn, looks like that extra VRAM really does help with Eyefinity!
Would like to see this in Crossfire though!
I cant see any evidence of the extra 3GB helping at all
The clockspeeds help of course, but I cant see any proof of the 3GB card struggling.
I cant see any evidence of the extra 3GB helping at all
The clockspeeds help of course, but I cant see any proof of the 3GB card struggling.
This.
There's nothing in that review that showed that the 6Gb is an improvement over the 3Gb. It doesn't help that the cards are clocked differently.
but they didnt do 2 card tests from what i see, to show if 2 cards with less ram is just as fast
its a bunch of tests showing they are both equally unplayable
this card might even make the 690 look like good value
but they didnt do 2 card tests from what i see, to show if 2 cards with less ram is just as fast
its a bunch of tests showing they are both equally unplayable
this card might even make the 690 look like good value
I'll put my neck on the line and say that the 3GB 7970's in crossfire will perform exactly the same as 6GB 7970's in crossfire at 5780*1080 and even at 7680*1440.
Benchmarks aren't really about determining 'playability' - it's about how a card performs at standard settings (in this case max settings). Lowering settings to get playable performance isn't really what benchmarks are for in this scenario.
Last edited:
Not really:
Even the likes of BF3 are perfectly playable at the highest settings on a single card. The only killer for a single card is AA.
(These are my own results).
All you generally have to do is drop a couple of settings in the majority of games to make them perfectly playable. Having run 670 SLI and now just a single 670 I can say that the second card often added little to the gaming experience.
Yes really.
Averaging 48 FPS would not be acceptable to what I would call your average "enthusiast" and that is without any AA. I don't think I could enjoy it as much without any AA. 2x is a bare minimum. Also, with FPS of that low, nearly dipping into the 20's (680 OC), it would definitely impact game play.
I agree with your argument in principle but the graphs don't back up your point at all. I think they back up my point in fact.
Dropping down settings further would be a compromise too much for most enthusiasts I feel.
But it's definitely an option if you want to game in Surround/Eyefinity but don't want to run a multi-card set up.
Personally, I just don't see the point buying 3 monitors which are by no means cheap and then starving them with one card.
Averaging 48 FPS would not be acceptable to what I would call your average "enthusiast" and that is without any AA. I don't think I could enjoy it as much without any AA. 2x is a bare minimum. Also, with FPS of that low, nearly dipping into the 20's (680 OC), it would definitely impact game play.
I agree with your argument in principle but the graphs don't back up your point at all. I think they back up my point in fact.
Dropping down settings further would be a compromise too much for most enthusiasts I feel.
But it's definitely an option if you want to game in Surround/Eyefinity but don't want to run a multi-card set up.
Personally, I just don't see the point buying 3 monitors which are by no means cheap and then starving them with one card.
Last edited:
Not really:
Even the likes of BF3 are perfectly playable at the highest settings on a single card. The only killer for a single card is AA.
(These are my own results).
All you generally have to do is drop a couple of settings in the majority of games to make them perfectly playable. Having run 670 SLI and now just a single 670 I can say that the second card often added little to the gaming experience.
"No AA" = Not Highest settings at all.
I'm in agreement with Rusty.
My post was slightly incorrect as well. Best card for BF3 is a 680 while overclocked and this actually nearly dips into the 20's (I said 30's). And as you say, that was without any AA.
Normally,
1. pci-express lanes not enough for bandwidth (trifire and up).
2. bandwidth of memory lanes.
3. not enough cpu horsepower.
7900 series have more mem bandwidth than Nvidias 600 serie which helps with larger resolutions when things get on the edge.
Memory dont mean that much and 2gb seems to be good enough.
1. pci-express lanes not enough for bandwidth (trifire and up).
2. bandwidth of memory lanes.
3. not enough cpu horsepower.
7900 series have more mem bandwidth than Nvidias 600 serie which helps with larger resolutions when things get on the edge.
Memory dont mean that much and 2gb seems to be good enough.
Depends on game, BF3 as a game suck but I play all low settings to max out fps if I do play a fps game, even more important with 3 screens due to latency delay, other games I put on visual quality where the fps isnt as important rpg games or such. 5040x1050 res for me.
so saying x card is better for a game dont say much IMO.
Only noobs play with visual quality up in a fps shooter.
I love when I see them stutter trying to turn from one side to another but lagging and then are dead.
Well I play maxed out settings in BF3 and get none of this stutter (FPS drops) while moving which you mention but I guess in your eyes then I'm a noob? Although I'm the first to admit I'm not the greatest BF3 player in the world, I am fairly good.
What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. If you don't have the hardware to run decent settings then fine, drop them to get a playable balance.
Saying X card is better in X game does mean something because it shows exactly what it's saying: it performs better in that game. I understand why people drop settings to max their FPS but at the end of the day most people buy the best hardware to have their games looking nice AND run smoothly.
Last edited:
If you play BF3 online with all the candy you can muster(usually I do it too), then he's right, we are noobs in comparison to the pros/hardcore online fps players.
They will play with lower settings in order to get every advantage possible, even if they have 680's/7970's.
I imagine the stutter he's talking about comes from the folks using mid end gpu's like 5770's etc with the settings set far far too high resulting in **** preformance especially online.
I'm not very good on foot at all Rusty, but I'm in it for the tanks.
Your point (from the post I quoted) was that 3 screen gaming would be a stretch on a single card - it made no reference to the specific graphical settings used.
Here is the same test but at "high" in game settings:
Both the 7970 and GTX680 spend most of theire time above 50fps. This is perfectly playable and looks great.
If we are only talking about absolute max settings in every game then I agree that a single card cannot achieve perfectly playable settings at my resolution (or 5760x1080).
Obviously, whether the framerates achieved will be playable are entirely subjective, just as the definition of enthusiast can be considered subjective.