• 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 said:
I found them they're beta drivers.

I wish the Nvidia users good luck trying to discredit the results.
Click to expand...

link please? if there are newer drivers I'd like to try them

there isn't much luck to it though is there mate? we can plainly see that their scores are much lower than they should be at the stated clocks, so either they are lying about the clock speeds, or something else

no one is saying that a Titan or 690 is faster than a 7990, of course the 7990 should be, however your reliance on that site as the ultimate arbiter is somewhat damaged when everyone can see that their scores are up to 20% lower than they should be
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
yeah, well done, now click the link that takes you to the actual download site - 320.00

exactly as I said
Click to expand...

I used google translate and someone at the bottom is saying they have more points on the 320.00 drivers than these drivers. Didn't Nvidia pull some beta drivers recently because of problems. Could be those maybe.
 
LtMatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Difference in boost not going to make THAT much difference.
 
I see plenty of references to it, but can't find the driver anywhere.
C:\NVIDIA\DisplayDriver\320.20Win8_WinVista_Win7_64 etc etc

Maybe it was pulled. Anyway found this. Some Russian guy commented on what they did.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34994358&postcount=9

"They are not comparing them at the same clocks. The NV clock rates are GPU rates, not the max boosted rates. When you see GTX680 @ 1150mhz that's for the GPU, add more with boost and you are probably looking at the card operating at 1230-1250mhz. Secondly, the review overclocked their samples to the max. They were not doing a comparison of GPUs on a per clock basis.

Goes to show a single Titan is in no man's land as I said before -- not fast enough for 1600P on its own - really need 2 of those bad boys. Fingers crossed 20nm flagship Maxwell = Ares II OC. That would be a nice upgrade."
 
I find it incredible that a Russian site is still being thrown about here Matt at the only credible source for honest reviews when even you say the scores don't add up for a 7970 and I agree the scores are wrong for a Titan.

Why keep promoting a Russian site that just doesn't add up correct for either AMD (your admission) or Nvidia?
 
that doesn't make much sense either - so the boost clocks they are using are actually even higher than they stated in the reviews? wouldn't that lead to higher scores, not lower ones?
 
Gregster said:
I find it incredible that a Russian site is still being thrown about here Matt at the only credible source for honest reviews when even you say the scores don't add up for a 7970 and I agree the scores are wrong for a Titan.

Why keep promoting a Russian site that just doesn't add up correct for either AMD (your admission) or Nvidia?
Click to expand...

I never said it was the only credible source. They cover every major gaming title with generally accurate benchmarks according to my own testing results. The 3dmark scores might be slightly off this time but that happens at every benchmark site from time to time and could be explained by any number of things. If you don't like it, don't comment and stay out. No need to have people crapping on the thread.
 
it isn't just the 3dmark results though matt, the only game they tested that I also have loaded on at the mo - Crysis 3, I get better results on the same settings but lower clocks

how is pointing out that their results are not correct crapping on the thread?
surely the point that you are striving for is the truth?

or what was the point of posting these links if you just wanted no one to point this out?
 
Well only users here seem to find their results incorrect. On Anand, oc.net, even on H you never really see such complaints about them, their results or benchmarks. So for the majority it seems to be fairly accurate. There will always be slight differences from reviewer to reviewer though.
 
LtMatt said:
I never said it was the only credible source. They cover every major gaming title with generally accurate benchmarks according to my own testing results. The 3dmark scores might be slightly off this time but that happens at every benchmark site from time to time and could be explained by any number of things. If you don't like it, don't comment and stay out. No need to have people crapping on the thread.
Click to expand...

Only accurate for one side though perhaps...? As you personally can only confirm one sides results.
 
Rusty0611 said:
Only accurate for one side though perhaps...? As you personally can only confirm one sides results.
Click to expand...

As i say the only reports about they're terribly inaccurate for Nvidia are on ocuk forums. On all the other major hardware forums there is never a major issue with the results. Make of that what you will.

Sometimes their AMD results are off but as we know that happens with everyone. I'm sometimes missing 10-30fps when i look at H 7970 ghz results as just one notable example yet they still get quoted often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom