7970 CF vs 7950 CF (A clock for clock comparison)

[wolvers]

So this is since they sorted the drivers for the 7950?

It's like 5850 vs 5870. The 5870 just wasn't worth the extra cash. The thing is though, if AMD sort out the xfire driver and I was to go dual GPU again, I'd have to get another 7970 to go with this one. It's unlikely though, I might as well wait for the next range of cards now.

 

[tommybhoy]

So 3.8% is the highest difference in games.

Metro 2033: 9.4%

Still not much at the end of the day though to notice any difference imho, perhaps the other games could show a bigger difference at high res multi monitor, but that's just a guess on my part.

I'd have to get another 7970 to go with this one.

You can use a 7950 in CrossFireX, I used 7970/50 CrossFireX until my 70 died, you won't notice any difference in game.

The way it works, on matched clocks the 70 will utilise anything between 4 to 8% less than the 50 unless you put the clocks on the 50 higher to match gpu usage, there was no noticeable difference in game either way.

By the time the new drivers come out though, it won't be far off the next spin, but CrossFire isn't as broken as generally implied.

 

[Gregster]

I took the top results with the -1.7% showing in Metro. Still all good though and the price difference doesn't warrant the performance gains.

7970 for benching - 7950 for gaming.

 

[wolvers]

That strikes me as a stupid thing to say. Did you buy two Titans just for bennching?

You can use a 7950 in CrossFireX, I used 7970/50 CrossFireX until my 70 died, you won't notice any difference in game.

The way it works, on matched clocks the 70 will utilise anything between 4 to 8% less than the 50 unless you put the clocks on the 50 higher to match gpu usage, there was no noticeable difference in game either way.

By the time the new drivers come out though, it won't be far off the next spin, but CrossFire isn't as broken as generally implied.

I just couldn't do it. It would be like having one knacker bigger than the other!!

 

[Diagro]

Can you try 1200/1800?

As you have said that the 7950 can clock just as much as the 7970.

 

[Gregster]

That strikes me as a stupid thing to say. Did you buy two Titans just for bennching?

I guess you bought a 7970 for gaming then.

 

[Paracelsus]

Very interesting. On shaders/cores alone the 7970 should be circa 15% ahead, but the 7950 having the same number of ROPs and memory bandwidth must close that gap, those games musn't be shader-bottlenecked like they used to mainly be.

any chance of a crysis 3 bench?

 

[tommybhoy]

Please keep it nice guys, people have went to an effort to be helpful and informative.

 

[Gregster]

Please keep it nice guys, people have went to an effort to be helpful and informative.

You do make me laugh

 

[wolvers]

I guess you bought a 7970 for gaming then.

Of course. Benching's just a stability tool for me. I've no interest in waving my digital wanger around the internet. I buy the best I can afford for my own interest, not to prove to some internet doods that I can buy a faster rig than them.

There's nothing wrong with competitive benching though, but that doesn't mean you'd buy a faster card just for higher scores because it's about what you can do with the same hardware as someone else. Not just that you can afford the most expensive kit. That's why 8Pack is still freezing older hardware and trying to break records that have stood for years.

 

[Rusty0611]

Still not much at the end of the day though to notice any difference imho, perhaps the other games could show a bigger difference at high res multi monitor, but that's just a guess on my part.

To be honest I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the Metro benchmark. It's not very good . I could probably run it again and be faster than the 7970 results. It's that bad.

Can you try 1200/1800?

As you have said that the 7950 can clock just as much as the 7970.

Wrong debate for the thread. This is a clock for clock debate and unless you've got some theory for it I don't think there's any reason for there to be a non-linear relationship between performance and clock speed across the two cards.

And we can't anyway. One of Tone's 7970s doesn't do above 1150 . And mine are unstable on beta 3's above 1100 but stable at 1200 on 13.1 drivers.

Very interesting. On shaders/cores alone the 7970 should be circa 15% ahead, but the 7950 having the same number of ROPs and memory bandwidth must close that gap, those games musn't be shader-bottlenecked like they used to mainly be.

any chance of a crysis 3 bench?

Does it have a benchmark tool? No reason why we couldn't if it has. If it doesn't there's too many inconsistencies between two people running a set part of the level in real time.

 

[Gregster]

Of course. Benching's just a stability tool for me. I've no interest in waving my digital wanger around the internet. I buy the best I can afford for my own interest, not to prove to some internet doods that I can buy a faster rig than them.

There's nothing wrong with competitive benching though, but that doesn't mean you'd buy a faster card just for higher scores because it's about what you can do with the same hardware as someone else. Not just that you can afford the most expensive kit. That's why 8Pack is still freezing older hardware and trying to break records that have stood for years.

I also bought the best I could afford and don't feel the need to rip into people who bought 3 or 4 Titans or who own a 3970X chip or own anything as it goes. You called my point stupid but how is it? If you purely game, the 7950 at less than 5% average in speed over a 7970, just makes good value. I know full well that Titans are stupidly priced but it didn't stop me from getting a couple.

You do realise that 8Pack has a pair of Titans as well? Go and rip into him while he is helping you.

 

[tommybhoy]

You do make me laugh

Why?

To be honest I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the Metro benchmark. It's not very good . I could probably run it again and be faster than the 7970 results. It's that bad.

None of the results are 100% conclusive, just a rough indication of what to expect between the 2 cards which I assumed the point of the thread.

There isn't a BM tool for C3 yet, but there is this part:

We're using Fraps to measure frame rates during 90 seconds of gameplay footage from Crysis 3's first level, "Post Human." The test starts as soon as Michael "Psycho" Sykes hands you his backup weapon, we then simply follow the party leader until the time runs out.

 

[Rusty0611]

None of the results are 100% conclusive, just a rough indication of what to expect between the 2 cards which I assumed the point of the thread.

There isn't a BM tool for C3 yet, but there is this part:

The point is Tommy, if nothing else changes other than the resolution, then if a card which is practically the same except for some CUs and shaders goes from '1.9%' slower to '9.4%' faster there's something wrong with the benchmark.

The other games are what you would expect to happen. I think you're looking at a 5% clock for clock difference at best not towards the upper echelons of 10%.

In benchmark terms, 5% is considerable but in gaming terms you have to look at what kind of FPS 5% is translating to. I'm keeping out of the "worth it?" debate principally because it's entirely subjective and I'm not about to force upon people what they should/shouldn't do .

(not aimed at you)

 

[Tonester0011]

I think choosing Metro to bench was a bad idea, you could run it 10 times and get 10 completely different results
Having PhysX on might be the reason behind that, scaling drops to mid 40s halfway through that bench.

All the other games stay within a margin of error though, sticking within the 5% clock for clock.

 

[Tonester0011]

Criticism isn't ripping into people and the sooner you learn and accept this the better.

I wouldn't mind helping with some benchmark runs as my 7950s go above 1200.

I'm sure there's some one with 2x 7970s that do 1200+ as well?

I've got a 3rd 7970 coming Monday, i'm sure that can do 1200+.
Should have X79 up and running by Friday as well

Because you spent two grand on Titans and then said that a £330 one is only worth buying for higher bench scores. That's about as stupid a forum comment as I've ever seen, unless you only bought Titans to impress peeps on the forum with your mega massive bench scores. In which I'm in awe of your digital magesty.

8Pack benches competitively with all ranges of hardware, and some people buy the best hardware because they want to actually use it for something useful or entertaining. Try not to confuse that with willy waving.

Nothing currently gets near the Titan. Greg requires at least two Titans to push his massive resolution trinkets and all, benching with them is a bonus.

Buying a 7970 for gaming doesn't make sense when for £70 less you can have a 7950 that performs 5% slower (something you wont notice, and wont help when playing at unplayable settings anyway) so yes...7970 for benching, 7950 for gaming.

Price only comes into it when there is something just as fast for much less, 40-45% slower in Gregs terms isn't acceptable.

 

[Rilot]

Keep it nice and keep it on topic please.

 

[wolvers]

Nothing currently gets near the Titan. Greg requires at least two Titans to push his massive resolution trinkets and all, benching with them is a bonus.

Buying a 7970 for gaming doesn't make sense when for £70 less you can have a 7950 that performs 5% slower (something you wont notice, and wont help when playing at unplayable settings anyway) so yes...7970 for benching, 7950 for gaming.

Price only comes into it when there is something just as fast for much less, 40-45% slower in Gregs terms isn't acceptable.

7970 is 28% more expensive than a 7950 which is (according to this handful of benches) 5% slower. That's £22 per percentile point increase in performance.

Titan is 65% more expensive than a 7970 which is 24% slower (according to TPU's performance summary at 1600p). That's £27.50 per percentile point increase in performance.

So what's the card that's only worth buying for higher bench scores? The answer is none of them and all of them. Buy what you're willing to spend your money on and enjoy it. That's what all the people who defend Titan's price say isn't it? And they're right. It's plain stupid for anyone, particularly with multiple Titans (how ironic?), to suggest that any other card is only worth buying for higher benchmark scores.

 

[Gregster]

I took the top results with the -1.7% showing in Metro. Still all good though and the price difference doesn't warrant the performance gains.

7970 for benching - 7950 for gaming.

7970 is 28% more expensive than a 7950 which is (according to this handful of benches) 5% slower. That's £22 per percentile point increase in performance.

Titan is 65% more expensive than a 7970 which is 24% slower (according to TPU's performance summary at 1600p). That's £27.50 per percentile point increase in performance.

So what's the card that's only worth buying for higher bench scores? The answer is none of them and all of them. Buy what you're willing to spend your money on and enjoy it. That's what all the people who defend Titan's price say isn't it? And they're right. It's plain stupid for anyone, particularly with multiple Titans (how ironic?), to suggest that any other card is only worth buying for higher benchmark scores.

Going from what I originally said, the 7950 is good for games and the 7970 is good for benching...I see nothing wrong with my statement and see nothing to warrant bringing Titans into this 7970CF Vs 7950CF thread. You can save a bundle of cash by getting a 7950 if you only want to game. The performance increase doesn't justify the gains. If a 7950 can't play it, that ~5% increase in performance of a 7970 will not play it either.

Now to clarify my position (not that I need to). I game at 5760x1080 in 3D. I use 3 Asus VG278H monitors and they have the 3D emitters built in. I had SLI 680's that struggled in most games pushing a decent frame rate at my res and in 3D with any decent settings. I went for two Titans to push the needed frames and they do (in fact, I could probably do with a third Titan). I thoroughly enjoy benching and pushing the cards as fast as possible without jeopardising my first enjoyment, which is gaming. There is nothing cheaper from AMD or Nvidia that will do what I want. As far as benching goes, that is secondary and threads like this are great for others to see what they want and need. I stand by my original statement of 7950 for gaming and 7970 for benching.

YOUR BASKET
1 x Gigabyte ATI Radeon HD 7970 Windforce 3X 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card with Crysis 3 & Bioshock PC Games £349.99
1 x Gigabyte ATi Radeon HD 7950 Windforce 3X 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card with Crysis 3 & Bioshock PC Games £259.99
Total : £621.38 (includes shipping : £9.50).




£90 saving if you just want to play games and that is an amount not to be sniffed at and the 7950 is the perfect choice for gamers. Am I so wrong on that?

 

[LtMatt]

Good work lads. I will be getting some results up myself in due course, been held back due to equipment failures though.