[H]Fall 2012 GPU and Driver Comparison Roundup

[Rusty0611]

I think his signature makes it abundantly clear... It's not as if it's hidden. The thread author was obviously satisfied enough to place the results in the OP.

Honestly? I think it's sad that people spend time to bench and then have their results questioned when there's no real basis for doubt.

I'd have pulled my results too if that happened to me.

 

[humbug]

I think his signature makes it abundantly clear... It's not as if it's hidden. The thread author was obviously satisfied enough to place the results in the OP.

His signature does not make it clear at all, not everyone knows that a lighting is a factory overclocked card.

I don't see what the big deal is with simply adding that information along with the results chart, why not?

 

[psychodil]

Ha ha I didn't know nope. Biased where I did the 680 results first before switching to 7950's wasn't even a thought?

Bias towards AMD? I suppose that's a full circle on the forum war front now!

Anyway on the AMD games (Sleeping Dogs/Dirt Showdown) I ran with and without the AMD favoured enhancements so it's not exactly even slightly true.

I know mate, its funny really. If the results had come out favouring nvidia you would have been accused of favouring nvidia

I and many others appreciated the work you and gregster among others did to get some real results out there, I am saddened to see people question them without valid reason

 

[bru]

Would it be fair for someone to bench a card with a 200Mhz underclock, or a 200Mhz overclock and say that it was stock?
No of course it wouldn't unless that is how the card shipped from the manufacturer.

 

[Gregster]

Because we didn't create that thread to show off our own branded cards with their respective factory overclocks, we created it as an unbiased GPU review thread.

5 FPS on your factory overclocked card is 7%, thats the difference of soneone in the same review with a 7970 that is not factory overclocked labeled the same as yours; stock looking that much slower in comparison than it actually is.

Its a false impression, if you don't want to spend the 2 minutes benching it at reference stock then at least label it as factory overclocked in your charts.

We didn't create the thread.....

Lmao. Me and PGI spoke about doing this thread on steam and never once did we talk about downclocking cards or any of the sort.

As for false impressions, down clocking my card gives false impressions. Why the hell would I do that? Unless some AMD users didn't like the results and wanted to turn the thread into a fanboy thread of course....

You have no worries because I shant be returning to the thread and you can crack on with your benchmarks till the cows come home for all I care.

Bottom line is, I have 2 MSI 680 Lightnings, which give "better" results than stock cards... I can clock them far higher than anything I showed in that bench thread and that would have given a false impression but I stuck with a small overclock. I would expect anybody with a Ghz edition 7970 to run it as stock and not gimp it but for some, this would be acceptable because it is AMD and not Nvidia...All I am reading here is fanboy comments and it is boring me.

 

[humbug]

I know mate, its funny really. If the results had come out favouring nvidia you would have been accused of favouring nvidia

I and many others appreciated the work you and gregster among others did to get some real results out there, I am saddened to see people question them without valid reason

No body is questioning gregster, grester fells like he is being questioned but he is not, i am are simply trying to explain to him that calling a factory overclocked card 'stock' can give people the impression a stock GTX 680 is faster than it actually is.

Its not a big deal, i don't know why he should take that so personaly.

 

[psychodil]

The results with both cards at roughly 1300mhz were very useful, stock vs stock speeds is useful sometimes as a point of reference, but most of us are more interested in overclocked vs overclocked performance.

Edit: I wasn't suggesting you were questioning his results Humbug .

 

[humbug]

We didn't create the thread.....

Lmao. Me and PGI spoke about doing this thread on steam and never once did we talk about downclocking cards or any of the sort.

As for false impressions, down clocking my card gives false impressions. Why the hell would I do that? Unless some AMD users didn't like the results and wanted to turn the thread into a fanboy thread of course....

You have no worries because I shant be returning to the thread and you can crack on with your benchmarks till the cows come home for all I care.

Bottom line is, I have 2 MSI 680 Lightnings, which give "better" results than stock cards... I can clock them far higher than anything I showed in that bench thread and that would have given a false impression but I stuck with a small overclock. I would expect anybody with a Ghz edition 7970 to run it as stock and not gimp it but for some, this would be acceptable because it is AMD and not Nvidia...All I am reading here is fanboy comments and it is boring me.

Your the only one making this AMD vs Nvidia, a 7970 GE would be labeled as a 7970 GE.

Nothing wrong with sticking to an overclock, but you label it as stock.

Why don't you just lable it as it is? a factory overclock, its not a big deal.

You have no worries because I shant be returning to the thread and you can crack on with your benchmarks till the cows come home for all I care.

That's entirely your choice

 

[Gregster]

His signature does not make it clear at all, not everyone knows that a lighting is a factory overclocked card.

I don't see what the big deal is with simply adding that information along with the results chart, why not?

I am tired of zealotry. As you don't seem to be reading what I type, I will put it again.

Why would I gimp my card in a benchmark thread?

Put down your pitch fork and go and have a cup of tea and then re-read the last few comments. It is quite embarrasing.

Maybe I need a new signature that says MSI 680 LTG (lightning for those who don't know) SLI - Factory overclocked at 1202Mhz (for those that can't be bothered to do some research).

Please give it up...

 

[humbug]

I am tired of zealotry. As you don't seem to be reading what I type, I will put it again.

Why would I gimp my card in a benchmark thread?

Put down your pitch fork and go and have a cup of tea and then re-read the last few comments. It is quite embarrasing.

Maybe I need a new signature that says MSI 680 LTG (lightning for those who don't know) SLI - Factory overclocked at 1202Mhz (for those that can't be bothered to do some research).

Please give it up...

Again no one is asking you to "gimp your card" i'm simply suggestion it would be much clearer to an uneducated audience that your posted result is not just stock as you labled it but in-fact a factory overclock.

There is no reason to get upset about that

 

[Gregster]

Your the only one making this AMD vs Nvidia, a 7970 GE would be labeled as a 7970 GE.

Nothing wrong with sticking to an overclock, but you label it as stock.

Why don't you just lable it as it is? a factory overclock, its not a big deal.

That's entirely your choice

Am I? I know what 7970 Ghz Edition is and I know what these are - BE, LTG. I tend to do some research into GPUs because I like and enjoy them (from both sides). You seriously didn't know what LTG means and feel I should be labeling my Graphs as "factory overclocked"?

Ohhhh and I label it as stock because without any overclocking software running what so ever, my card/s is/are running at 1202Mhz. I didn't realise I had to go into every detail. If this was the case, there would be no room for the actual bench results.....

Edit:

I feel like I am in a class room and having to do the two times table...Nobody pays me, nobody gives me free gear, I work on a dock for a living. I don't add "Factory Overclock" to my bench results and I get pulled up on it......If I was upset, it would be because of not getting paid for benchmarks or getting free gear to test/bench and certainly not because I am having to justify Stock and factory overclock.

 

[humbug]

Am I? I know what 7970 Ghz Edition is and I know what these are - BE, LTG. I tend to do some research into GPUs because I like and enjoy them (from both sides). You seriously didn't know what LTG means and feel I should be labeling my Graphs as "factory overclocked"?

Ohhhh and I label it as stock because without any overclocking software running what so ever, my card/s is/are running at 1202Mhz. I didn't realise I had to go into every detail. If this was the case, there would be no room for the actual bench results.....

What you know is an entirely different thing to what every one else knows, your cards clock speed it specific to your individual brand, whats more most people coming here are not going to know your specific brand is in fact faster than a reference GTX 680 they might only be able to afford, because you simply labled it as "stock" they may think they are getting the performance you posted with your labled "stock"

Its common sense.

This is nothing to get yourself so upset over.

 

[Rusty0611]

No body is questioning gregster, grester fells like he is being questioned but he is not, i am are simply trying to explain to him that calling a factory overclocked card 'stock' can give people the impression a stock GTX 680 is faster than it actually is.

Its not a big deal, i don't know why he should take that so personaly.

You're completely missing the point. Gregster doesn't have a stock 680. Why would he bench artificially as one?

As to why he doesn't label his results as Lightning results then I suggest you sent a trust to PGI. He's the thread creator.

What you know is an entirely different thing to what every one else knows, your cards clock speed it specific to your individual brand, whats more most people coming here are not going to know your specific brand is in fact faster than a reference GTX 680 they might only be able to afford, because you simply labled it as "stock" they may think they are getting the performance you posted with your labled "stock"

I think you're purposefully choosing to underestimate the intelligence of an average PC user. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to match up his signature to a model.

The only person with an issue here with the way it's been done is you. As I said, if you have a problem speak to PGI.

I know mate, its funny really. If the results had come out favouring nvidia you would have been accused of favouring nvidia

Yeah exactly. People will throw stones no matter what you do in the Graphics Card section. Best to just be honest and let the results talk. For everyone arguing and throwing stones there's probably 10 people sitting silently looking at the results only. These are the people I'm interested in.

None of this going on the Battlelog forums "drunk" saying my HD7870 can get to 1350 MHz core in yet another argument with 660Ti users....

Hi Humbug

 

[humbug]

You're completely missing the point. Gregster doesn't have a stock 680. Why would he bench artificially as one?

As to why he doesn't label his results as Lightning results then I suggest you sent a trust to PGI. He's the thread creator.

Your missing the point, a GTX 680 lighting is quite different to a reference GTX 680.

Most people don't know that.

PGI is no longer updating the thread.

 

[Gregster]

Ok, I will pretend I am Humbug and here is my chart. I have not put my CPU down or what speed it is....

For all I know, this could be on a Pentium 4 or a 3960X...You do not state anywhere what the CPU is on that chart. If you was on an E chip for instance, that 7870 could be bottlenecked and could be capable of far faster fps than is actualy shown.

See my point? You don't even bother to say what make of card it is. At least I give all the info I thought was required on my charts.

 

[humbug]

Ok, I will pretend I am Humbug and here is my chart. I have not put my CPU down or what speed it is....

For all I know, this could be on a Pentium 4 or a 3960X...You do not state anywhere what the CPU is on that chart. If you was on an E chip for instance, that 7870 could be bottlenecked and could be capable of far faster fps than is actualy shown.

See my point?

My CPU doesent get anywhere near bottlenecking JC2, None the less its good point, i will add the CPU info.

 

[Rusty0611]

Your missing the point, a GTX 680 lighting is quite different to a reference GTX 680.

You're*

Most people don't know that.

Quantify. Didn't think so.

As I said, it's not difficult to match a product name to a product spec and compare the core clock. I would say there's a decent chance most people buying a 680 are capable of that. Your line of argument is not really sounding very coherent. It sounds like you've made a point and now you're going to stick to it no matter what anybody says. I mean I respect your stubbornness but I'm not going to keep unpicking what you're saying if you aren't going to take much notice...

PGI is no longer updating the thread.

He is. I'm sending him some 7950 results soon. Maybe he's just not listening to you.

p.s. your signature is still too long. 1 line of text .

 

[humbug]

You're*



Quantify. Didn't think so.

As I said, it's not difficult to match a product name to a product spec and compare the core clock. I would say there's a decent chance most people buying a 680 are capable of that. Your line of argument is not really sounding very coherent. It sounds like you've made a point and now you're going to stick to it no matter what anybody says. I mean I respect your stubbornness but I'm not going to keep unpicking what you're saying if you aren't going to take much notice...



He is. I'm sending him some 7950 results soon. Maybe he's just not listening to you.

p.s. your signature is still too long. 1 line of text .

Its you who's stubborn Rusty, its a very valid suggestion and a very simple thing to do, its insane to take it personally and be so argumentative over it.

 

[pgi947]

I am I've just had an absolute nightmare few weeks with my rig, all results will be compiled into one massive chart so you can easily compare all the top cards and in some cases see how well an overclock scales.

It is going to take time but we will get there in the end, may even hook my laptop up to my monitor at the weekend so I can multitask and get it done a little quicker

 

[Rusty0611]

Its you who's stubborn Rusty, its a very valid suggestion and a very simple thing to do, its insane to take it personally and be so argumentative over it.

So I say something and then you say "no you".

It would be a valid suggestion if the majority and pgi agreed. Which they don't. You haven't addressed my points so I think the discussion is pretty much over no?