I'm responding to the 5% comments for the sake of the op and others reading.
No you actually responded to my post as if I was talking to you when I was talking about the overclockability of 7950s. That's different.
I did post evidence on someone else's thread a while back, like yourself, I'm not going to sit and look for them, I take you at face value when you know what your talking about (680v7950) despite the widely reported figures that was out there?
If you can't do the same back, that's your prerogative, I only hope that it's not because you don't like saying a simple 'ok fair enough buddy'.
It might help others that want to know the same answer in the future, but it seems likely, in your eyes that your correct and I'm wrong despite never using/testing them yourself.
It's not about wrong/right Tommy, no matter how much you try to frame the debate that way. The 5% difference clock for clock is the universally agreed figure. If you've got some situations where that's not the case then let's see the actual numbers. I've seen a number of situations here where 7% has magically became 10% or vice versa so numbers are needed.
Why would I make it up(I know you never implied it, but it equates to me pulling numbers out the air) when I'm using both cards despite telling the op to save the money and get a 50 instead?
There's a plethora of reasons why your results could be flawed without them being made up.
Anyway, I'm not really that interested to be honest in arguing the toss over an unnoticeable 5% here or there. I stated my own view on this at the beginning and then started to talk about the overclockability of 7950s (of which I am interested in) with kissenger. I don't really have anything else to add to the subject now
