• 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.

7990/Ares II Vs Ttian/690

LtMatt

LtMatt

LtMatt

Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
43,715
Location
United Kingdom
Drivers Used

Nvidia GeForce / ION Driver Release 320.20

AMD Catalyst 13.5

Results
RnsyI49.jpg


AHRJs1Z.jpg


U4YuVaS.jpg


oKtmInN.jpg


6lEHCMK.jpg


hqifxm7.jpg


kvjq76F.jpg


zmyyvh9.jpg


p8dEMC3.jpg


2ddDnR6.jpg


k4WxqEf.jpg


4tJogSk.jpg


wU5btRI.jpg


BZ5YPjd.jpg


f9Q62Z1.jpg


M7GN6SB.jpg

gamgpu said:
GEFORCE GTX TITAN - it's the fastest single-chip solution for today, although in most cases inferior to his brother GEFORCE GTX 690. And as we have mentioned before - GEFORCE GTX TITAN is a card game for the next generation, which is especially noticeable when using extreme quality settings.

GEFORCE GTX 690 - this is the fastest solution from NVIDIA to date, with low power consumption and excellent acoustics. GEFORCE GTX 690 allows you to play all modern games on almost all quality settings, the only drawback of this card is the tandem of SLI and a rather meager amount of video memory for ultra-high resolutions.


Radeon HD 7990 - at the moment it is the fastest graphics solution available, which in most cases is faster GEFORCE GTX 690 and allows you to play the game in all modes and all quality settings. The only drawback may not always be well-organized work and AMD CrossFireX delay output frames, which in some games very much appears that gives some discomfort ...

ASUS ARES II - is a champion who is unparalleled both in performance and price. This is a very specific graphics solution that is very problematic to buy, even with the availability of funds. This card has the same advantages and disadvantages as the Radeon HD 7990.
Click to expand...

Source
http://gamegpu.ru/test-video-cards/titany-i-olimpijtsy-test-gpu.html
 
Im surprised nvidia did so well tbh, especially the 690, The 7990 would have been a brilliant card a year ago. Right now there really is no point buying any top end cards as they are either - Too pricey or not worth upgrading from what we already have.
 
LtMatt said:
Drivers Used

Nvidia GeForce / ION Driver Release 320.20

AMD Catalyst 13.5

RnsyI49.jpg


AHRJs1Z.jpg
Click to expand...

I have been looking at the GTX 690 results and they don't look right. The rig my GTX 690s live in is almost identical to what the reviewers were using so I did a few runs on the Futuremark benches using the same settings.

Drivers 320.00

CPU 3960X @ 4.9

Memory 16gbs @2400mhz

3dmark Firestrike Extreme GPU score

Their GTX 690 @stock 5398
My GTX 690 @stock 5850

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/443769

Their GTX 690 OC 5869
My GTX 690 OC 7038

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/443836

3dmark11 Extreme GPU score

Their GTX 690 @stock 5585
My GTX 690 @stock 5783

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6547170

Their GTX 690 OC 6045
My GTX 690 OC 6954

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6547329

The overclocked figures don't really mean much, as they may have had a bad clocker but the stock figures do.

My GTX 690 I used is celebrating it's 1st birthday this month, so if anyone reads this can they sing happy birthday.:D:)
 
Maybe your 690 boost clocks further than theirs. I checked their AMD results against my own using a slower cpu and from around the web and they appear to be a few hundred points down below what i am seeing as well so it looks to be a thing affecting all cards in this bench unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
on their other Titan review I found that I was getting the same or higher scores than them in firestrike on much lower CPU and GPU clock settings than they claimed to be running as well
 
LtMatt said:
Maybe your 690 boost clocks further than theirs. I checked their AMD results against my own using a slower cpu and from around the web and they appear to be a few hundred points down below what i am seeing as well so it looks to be a thing affecting all cards in this bench unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I will have a look at their Titan figures, I think I have got one somewhere.:D
 
HankScorpio said:
Suppose not coming dead last 12 out of 16 times would be a slight comfort.
Click to expand...

Tbh when neither card can achieve a playable frame rate in a test its not that important which one is on the bottom, in the two 3DMARK tests they traded the bottom position and in the one shooter game where they achieved playable FPS they were dead tied, add to that the 680 won in Shogun 2 (a turn based strategy game so "playable" FPS is lower) I don't think that the 680 being on the bottom in a load of tests where the 7970 wasn't playable either is that important.
 
Just noticed they appear to be using newer drivers than Kap Nvidia GeForce / ION Driver Release 320.20 vs 320.00. That could explain some difference i suppose. Its hard to say really especially when things like different boost clocks skew results.
 
Maybe a piad off AMD review site. Maybe id some users with similiar systems can do the benchies with links we can rule that out or not.
 
Stanners said:
Maybe a piad off AMD review site. Maybe id some users with similiar systems can do the benchies with links we can rule that out or not.
Click to expand...

Few hundred points missing from my 7970 ghz results vs theirs so i suggest they should start asking AMD for more money in that case. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom