AMD to Nvidia Upgrade time.

SkodaMart · 2 Dec 2012 at 20:58

tommybhoy said:
Not that SkodaMart would overclock a gpu and get that kind of performance though.

No. I just can't see the point, with my card anyhow.

Here's 3DMark11 at stock:

and here's 3DMark11 with the memory at 7008MHz (effective) that's +500 MHz

That's less than a 4% improvement.

Great for benchmarking as I have previously said.

IC3 · 2 Dec 2012 at 21:05

SkodaMart said:
No. I just can't see the point, with my card anyhow.

Here's 3DMark11 at stock:

and here's 3DMark11 with the memory at 7008MHz (effective) that's +500 MHz

That's less than a 4% improvement.

Great for benchmarking as I have previously said.

Your card has low memory bandwith thats the reason...192bit isnt great...

Nelly · 2 Dec 2012 at 21:11

Nelly said:
So if a 670 is clocked to 1300Mhz, and a 7950 is clocked to 1200Mhz, which is the faster card?

Geo-Gamer said:

Some one correct me if I'm wrong .... I read some where a 7950 at 1100 core is similar to a 680? Once again correct me if I'm wrong just read it some where

Click to expand...

MSI GTX 670 Power Edition OC boosts to around 1230Mhz, that's same as a stock GTX 680 in benchmarks.

Still not worth the extra £60-£110 extra on a GTX 670 depending on model I guess.

tommybhoy · 2 Dec 2012 at 21:21

SkodaMart said:
No. I just can't see the point, with my card anyhow.

That's why the 79's are popular, because they have low stock clocks and fly when you release their true potential when they are overclocked.

Martini1991 · 2 Dec 2012 at 21:26

Scaling on the 79XX is pretty decent upto a certain point.
18% clock speed increase gave 16% benchmark improvement, but that's when it starts to tail off, at 1.1GHZ on the core we're talking 37% for ~28% improvement, at least what was my results, and I could have went further with the memory I guess.

SkodaMart · 2 Dec 2012 at 21:31

The amazing performance of the HD 7950 is based on the 12.11 beta drivers and a decent overclock.

Out of the box, pre 12.11 the performance was very similar.

Martini1991 · 2 Dec 2012 at 21:46

Perhaps, but it's irrelevant unless you opt to run old drivers.
Quite frankly, the general user at the common resolution of 1920x1080 isn't going to notice any difference from a 680/670/7950/7970 and even the 660Ti if they haven't got a frame rate monitor running, all a fairly moot argument tbh.

Kaapstad · 2 Dec 2012 at 22:44

SkodaMart said:
No. I just can't see the point, with my card anyhow.

Here's 3DMark11 at stock:

and here's 3DMark11 with the memory at 7008MHz (effective) that's +500 MHz

That's less than a 4% improvement.

Great for benchmarking as I have previously said.

I think your figures above actually show the memory to be the weak link on your card if you are getting a 4% improvement when ocing it alone.

I have just tried using your memory speeds on my cards leaving the GPUs running at stock. The difference between 6008mhz and 7008mhz was about 0.5% or practically nothing in other words.

I then oced the CPU to 4.9ghz and repeated the exercise above and got exactly the same result - practically nothing.

Why is this relevent - my cards run at the same GPU/MEM clocks as a stock GTX 670 and share the same GK104 chips and memory bus.

All tests were done on the 3dmark11 performance preset.

I would post the links but I don't think people want to wade through a load of boring numbers.

SkodaMart · 2 Dec 2012 at 22:55

Kaapstad said:
I think your figures above actually show the memory to be the weak link on your card if you are getting a 4% improvement when ocing it alone.

It is well documented that overclocking the memory on a MSi GTX 660Ti will yield good results.

I still don't think it's worth it however to see an increase of 3.6% which equates to one or two fps in the benchmark.

SkodaMart · 2 Dec 2012 at 22:56

@Kaapstad out of interest what where your results for comparison?

Kaapstad · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:04

SkodaMart said:
@Kaapstad out of interest what were your results for comparison?

CPU @4.0ghz GPUs @915mhz vram @6008mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5107984

CPU @4.0ghz GPUs @915mhz vram @7008mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5108050

CPU @4.9ghz GPUs @915mhz vram @6008mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5108179

CPU @4.9ghz GPUs @915mhz vram @7008mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5108234

tommybhoy · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:13

SkodaMart said:
Out of the box, pre 12.11 the performance was very similar.

Loads of users keep quoting 12.11's as the wonder drivers, when it was the 12.8's from July when 'proper' performance arrived on GHz clocks to match the 67/80's.

The 7970 on 12.11's surpass the 680, but as above, you won't be able to tell the difference without a fps counter.

Rusty0611 · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:13

LtMatt said:
I just don't buy it that the 7970 cannot provide smooth performance with compute AA enabled but a 680 without any compute units can. I understand the 7970 figures are clearly much higher but thats with SA AA off.

Anyway just my two cents.

The gap isn't that much with AA on 'High'. In fact the 680 can be faster...

On 'Extreme' it's a different story.

Nelly said:
So if a 670 is clocked to 1300Mhz, and a 7950 is clocked to 1200Mhz, which is the faster card?

7950. Marginally.

SkodaMart · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:13

@Kaapstad lol! :eek:

My bad, I thought you had a GTX 670.

Nice system BTW

SkodaMart · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:15

tommybhoy said:
Loads of users keep quoting 12.11's as the wonder drivers.

By 'out of the box' I implied stock clocks too.

tommybhoy · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:16

I'm talking 'out of the box' too on the 12.8's.

weehamish · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:34

Yeah i see this on this website i dont see it on others.

I have tried both 7850 and 660 which are probs the same spec almost. The 7850 is all over the place, 660 steady and smooth, both GB cards so its not the brand difference either, i even OCed the 7850 and the 660 give better results still.

I dunno im just sure Nvidia work better.

Im grabbin a 7970 card this week so will see how it does if crap i think ill grab a 680.

The thing im aiming for is max settings shogun 2 1920x1200, i read the 680 beats the 7970 in this game but will see.

I also see shogun 2 and sleeping dogs are AMD games? By that i mean they show AMD on the load up screens, so why is Nvidia raping them? We dont see AMD cards raping batman and such?

Rusty0611 · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:38

weehamish said:
I dunno im just sure Nvidia work better.

They aren't.

They're both the same competency for single GPU.

I believe nVidia are marginally better for multi GPU.

tommybhoy said:
I'm talking 'out of the box' too on the 12.8's.

That chart who someone posted a while back says otherwise. Performance was moving the right way around that time but the jump was 12.11.

spoffle · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:40

weehamish said:
Yeah i see this on this website i dont see it on others.

I have tried both 7850 and 660 which are probs the same spec almost. The 7850 is all over the place, 660 steady and smooth, both GB cards so its not the brand difference either, i even OCed the 7850 and the 660 give better results still.

I dunno im just sure Nvidia work better.

Im grabbin a 7970 card this week so will see how it does if crap i think ill grab a 680.

The thing im aiming for is max settings shogun 2 1920x1200, i read the 680 beats the 7970 in this game but will see.

I also see shogun 2 and sleeping dogs are AMD games? By that i mean they show AMD on the load up screens, so why is Nvidia raping them? We dont see AMD cards raping batman and such?

You do understand that doesn't constitute as "proof" though, right?

You can't base such a conclusion on such a tiny sample size.

It's like saying "I bought a lottery ticket once and won, so everyone who buys lottery tickets wins". Do you understand what I'm getting at?

weehamish · 2 Dec 2012 at 23:48

I dont mean everycard i mean my personal experience, sorry if i never made that clear. I

m actually hoping the AMD cards are better, rusty knows more then me as he has tried both high end cards.

So yeah i do know what you mean, but you cant argue with Nvidia software its way better and easier to use.