• 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.

How future proof would a 7950 be?

jesus2nd

jesus2nd

jesus2nd

Associate
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Posts
732
Location
Leeds, YORKSHIRE
Eyup,

I'm gradually upping the anti on my Gaming PC, now I've got round to slapping in a new GPU to replace the HD 5770 that's been in there for a good 4 years now.

Originally when I got set on the project I had my sights set on the 7970 GHZ but looking at the price of it and a few reviews and such I've started considering the 7950 instead (in particular, Gigabyte Windforce)

Only thing I'm worried about though is how long I'll be able to play the latest games at the best settings.

Anyone got any opinions to throw at me I'd much appreciate them, also suggestions on other cards wouldn't go a miss either.

I'm not in a massive rush, but I can't see the high price of the 7970 GHZ dropping within the next few months.

Cheers lads,

EDIT: I'm aware that the games I play could effect suggestion, I mainly play BF3 (I know, nvidia) but I dabble in every major release that comes out where possible.
 
Last edited:
There shouldn't be any scenario where a 7950 would be unable to play games that a 7970 would.
Oh, and BF3 doesn't favour nvidia anywhere near as much as it once did. It's pretty even these days.
 
Last edited:
The new gen of games are starting to hit us now. By that I mean the new gen game engines that use DX11.

Sleeping Dogs and Hitman seem to use the same one from what I can tell, both are Square Enix games. Both are just about playable on high end cards with all of the eye candy turned on so you're safe for now with quite a few cards.

Game engines don't change regularly, nor do the types of Direct X. It's been very slow going thanks to the aging consoles holding everything back. Now, however, game developers seem keen to push the limits more.

As has been said a 7970 will net you nothing that your eyes can see* over a 7950. The difference is also so small that by the time your 7950 can't cut it you can safely say a 7970 won't cut it either.

* I do love looking around me at all of the terminal wallys who say that they prefer 120 FPS to 60 FPS as it's so much smoother. It's kind of like the Christians who say that science lies and there is no god particle.

Basically 27.6 (or so) FPS minimum is enough to provide you with a stutter free game. Anything up to 60 FPS is noticeable by the human eye, anything over is not no matter who you are.

This has all been proven using science and nearly a hundred years of research. These people are silly Billys who have been sold by marketing ploys to actually believe something. It's very similar to religion, it's called brain washing.
 
ALXAndy said:
The new gen of games are starting to hit us now. By that I mean the new gen game engines that use DX11.

Sleeping Dogs and Hitman seem to use the same one from what I can tell, both are Square Enix games. Both are just about playable on high end cards with all of the eye candy turned on so you're safe for now with quite a few cards.

Game engines don't change regularly, nor do the types of Direct X. It's been very slow going thanks to the aging consoles holding everything back. Now, however, game developers seem keen to push the limits more.

As has been said a 7970 will net you nothing that your eyes can see* over a 7950. The difference is also so small that by the time your 7950 can't cut it you can safely say a 7970 won't cut it either.

* I do love looking around me at all of the terminal wallys who say that they prefer 120 FPS to 60 FPS as it's so much smoother. It's kind of like the Christians who say that science lies and there is no god particle.

Basically 27.6 (or so) FPS minimum is enough to provide you with a stutter free game. Anything up to 60 FPS is noticeable by the human eye, anything over is not no matter who you are.

This has all been proven using science and nearly a hundred years of research. These people are silly Billys who have been sold by marketing ploys to actually believe something. It's very similar to religion, it's called brain washing.
Click to expand...


Go for the 7950 then?

Thanks for going into all the detail either way!
 
Wow what a freakin troll. This has been discussed to death. The ability to see a difference in FPS is much more complicated than that.
 
jesus2nd said:
Go for the 7950 then?

Thanks for going into all the detail either way!
Click to expand...

I would yes.

The next time you see some complete plum say that he can tell a difference between 60 and 120 FPS ask him this..


If I flashed 120 similar images at you for one second how many out of the 120 could you remember?

Or, if it's that bad how can you watch TV considering that it is locked to 27.6 FPS and always was.
 
ALXAndy said:
Anything up to 60 FPS is noticeable by the human eye, anything over is not no matter who you are.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. I can see the difference up to 100 fps. Anything over and I can't really see.

If I cap a game at 60fps @ 120hz, then 70, 80, 90, 100 etc. I can feel and see the difference in it.
 
ALXAndy said:
If I flashed 120 similar images at you for one second how many out of the 120 could you remember?

Or, if it's that bad how can you watch TV considering that it is locked to 27.6 FPS and always was.
Click to expand...



That's a different thing compared to interacting with the image.

Are all the guys who swear by XL2411/20 monitors suffering from the placebo effect in your opinion?
 
HarryHill_fight.jpg
 
Uncle Petey said:
That's a different thing from interacting with the image.

Are all the guys who swear by XL2411/20 monitors suffering from the placebo effect in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm not going to make this complicated or argue over it.

Prove it.

Don't come at me bleating about how you can see a difference and blah blah blah, hit me with some concrete proven fact.

I could sit here and spend all day talking about Edison's studies so please, if you want to discuss this do the same. Facts, evidence, science.

illuz said:
I'm sorry but I totally disagree. I can see the difference up to 100 fps. Anything over and I can't really see.

If I cap a game at 60fps @ 120hz, then 70, 80, 90, 100 etc. I can feel and see the difference in it.
Click to expand...


Prove it. Show me some scientific fact to back up what you are saying. I'm not going to take your word for it, much like I would not have taken the word of some one who claims to have seen Jesus reincarnate.

I want facts if you are going to make such bold statements.

But let me save you some time here. There are no facts and you can't prove it, and I am not taking your word for it.

Discussion over.
 
Last edited:
Uncle Petey said:
Ok, no need to get arsey. It was just a question.
Click to expand...

Sorry Pete. I just grow awful tired of people who come out with such bold statements but are unprepared to prove it.

It's kind of like me taking you for a drive in my sport car and hiding the speedometer, then asking you how fast we were going.

If some one constantly runs a FPS counter on their screen then they will be fooled into thinking they can see a difference. If, however, I turned that off andf played a game at 60hz they would think it was perfectly fine and dandy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom