• 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.

HD7850 + 1080p = BF on ultra?

Spenty said:
Tbh Rusty fraps results could easily be altered when posting them like that. Now it just sounds like you're avoiding the situation as you know it will probably dip under 60 a few times and you don't want to be proved wrong.
Click to expand...

You're right - they could but mine weren't. When looking at user benchmarks there's always a question of manipulation but what possibly do I possibly have to gain from that?

I've already said I'll run another one tonight but as to the request for a video of me sitting there doing it - that is frankly a little weird.

LtMatt said:
The 7970GH is abit faster than the 680, is that your point? I don't disagree but i don'th think theres too much difference between them is there? The stock 7970 was a bit slower than the 680 with boost, but amd released the ghz edition to catch up or even overtake slightly.
Click to expand...

No - the 7970 GE is BIOS OC'd whereas the 680 is at stock. As a 7970 and 680 both overclock to the same level of performance roughly this is effectively giving the 7970 a headstart on the overclocking. It doesn't invalidate the results, you just have to factor that in.
 
I honestly do not see why the 7970 GE can't be compared to the GTX 680, it's running at the same or less clocks speeds and still costs less.

BIOS overclock is just a meaningless word to me. the original 7970 was always under-clocked to me anyway, so perhaps the word overclocked is disingenuous, if AMD decided it can easily run at 1Ghz it's just a clock. and frankly it should have been running at that speed right from the start, at which point no one could have called it an overclock. the only reason people are is because it's now running faster than it used to.
 
Rusty0611 said:
You're right - they could but mine weren't. When looking at user benchmarks there's always a question of manipulation but what possibly do I possibly have to gain from that?

I've already said I'll run another one tonight but as to the request for a video of me sitting there doing it - that is frankly a little weird.
Click to expand...

Yeah asking to see you sitting there gaming is a little too far.
 
Missing the point humbug - as they both overclock to the same level of performance (roughly) the 7970 GE is effectively gaining a headstart on the way to that same level of performance over the 680.
 
Why is this turning into a 7970 vs 680 debate anyway? The point of the thread was to show whether cards can cope above 60fps in Ultra.
 
Rusty0611 said:
I've already said I'll run another one tonight but as to the request for a video of me sitting there doing it - that is frankly a little weird.
Click to expand...

Spenty said:
Yeah asking to see you sitting there gaming is a little too far.
Click to expand...

Lol.

We don't want to see you, sitting in your chair sweating over if you can maintain 60+fps rusters. We just want to see the video footage of you playing the game for validation. This means recording with fraps or such. No hidden cams. :D

We'd much prefer if it all parts of your body were kept out of the video for health reasons.


Spenty said:
Why is this turning into a 7970 vs 680 debate anyway? The point of the thread was to show whether cards can cope above 60fps in Ultra.
Click to expand...

Good shout. This was all about minimums and how both sides suffer drops which that benchmark has shown.
 
Last edited:
Oh sorry LtMatt, I thought you'd asked to see him actually playing BF3 by the way he was talking. How has he derived from you asking him to record BF3 to mean video himself actually playing the game lol.
 
Spenty said:
Oh sorry LtMatt, I thought you'd asked to see him actually playing BF3 by the way he was talking. How has he derived from you asking him to record BF3 to mean video himself actually playing the game lol.
Click to expand...

I don't know mate. I worry about Rusty at times. :D
 
Rusty0611 said:
Missing the point humbug - as they both overclock to the same level of performance (roughly) the 7970 GE is effectively gaining a headstart on the way to that same level of performance over the 680.
Click to expand...

It's running at the same or less clocks, had the 7970 been clocked at that speed on release it would not have been called overclocked, nvidia knew what they had to beat and it seems to me the only way they could do that was to clock them higher than the AMD, all AMD did was clock there's to the same level, you could say exactly the same thing about nvidia, they clocked them higher to give them a head start.
 
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
Lol.

We don't want to see you, sitting in your chair sweating over if you can maintain 60+fps rusters. We just want to see the video footage of you playing the game for validation.
Click to expand...

But my 680 WF does it easily :cool:

LtMatt said:
We'd much prefer if it all parts of your body were kept out of the video for health reasons.
Click to expand...

Ha! Got me there you git :)

LtMatt said:
Good shout. This was all about minimums and how both sides suffers drops which that benchmark has shown.
Click to expand...

It had shown you get lower minimums on AK (no surprise). Minimums in the vanilla game were far higher for the three people above who all called nonsense on the original results. We started off talking about BF3, now we're talking about AK specifically. I can't comment directly on AK as I haven't tested. Nor am I treating one review as gospel without my own results to back them up :)
 
humbug said:
It's running at the same or less clocks
Click to expand...

You can't compare clock speeds like for like across nVidia and AMD cards. They have different architecture.

Spenty said:
Oh sorry LtMatt, I thought you'd asked to see him actually playing BF3 by the way he was talking. How has he derived from you asking him to record BF3 to mean video himself actually playing the game lol.
Click to expand...

Well if you're recording in FRAPS performance takes a huge hit rendering the whole exercise pointless. So to record, I would have to record myself playing :D.
 
Rusty0611 said:
You can't compare clock speeds like for like across nVidia and AMD cards. They have different architecture.



Well if you're recording in FRAPS performance takes a huge hit rendering the whole exercise pointless. So to record, I would have to record myself playing :D.
Click to expand...

With an SSD the performance hit is far from huge. Especially with your CPU clocked so high as well.
 
humbug said:
Never the less the 7970 is a little faster at the same speed.
Click to expand...

Mate - how can you say "never the less" and then compare them at the same speed again? :confused:

Spenty said:
With an SSD the performance hit is far from huge. Especially with your CPU clocked so high as well.
Click to expand...

It's large enough to still render the exercise pointless as if you're benchmarking you need to keep everything else constant and by actually recording the video in FRAPS to prove a point on a forum, you aren't.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
Looks like this debate has been done elsewhere. :D

http://www.overclock.net/t/1232948/...eal-king-update-7970-8-better-clock-per-clock

According to all those benchmarks listed in the op a 7970 is 9% faster clock for clock.

Disclaimer - I don't know if that's true, don't shoot me. Rusty, no sending me video's of you playing bf3 either.
Click to expand...


Look at this, at stock 1000Mhz is actually matches an overclocked GTX 680 Lightning in BF3 http://www.overclockers.com/asus-hd7970-directu-ii-top-graphics-card-review

And overclocked; it just runs away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom