Considering 690 need your help

[TheRealDeal]

I find it funny that all these fcat results show amd has a problem and having 2 cards is no better than one. How can hardocp play at higher settings using 2x7970ghz compared to the other setups. They test by playing the games so they should be seeing a slide show compared to sli gtx680 but no they say the cfx setup provided the best gameplay experience at 5760x1200.

I never said they were not real as they clearly are. It does seem they are a little over exaggerated or the 13.5 beta driver has done something to help the situation, as hardocp were one of the first sites to continually beat the drum about cfx not being as smooth.

 

[Gregster]

I find it funny that all these fcat results show amd has a problem and having 2 cards is no better than one. How can hardocp play at higher settings using 2x7970ghz compared to the other setups. They test by playing the games so they should be seeing a slide show compared to sli gtx680 but no they say the cfx setup provided the best gameplay experience at 5760x1200.

I never said they were not real as they clearly are. It does seem they are a little over exaggerated or the 13.5 beta driver has done something to help the situation, as hardocp were one of the first sites to continually beat the drum about cfx not being as smooth.

But you are using [H] who are biased. You even admit to them being biased and then quote them

For anything to be taken serious, they have to be neutral and I have been told time and time again that they are biased.

 

[TheRealDeal]

But you are using [H] who are biased. You even admit to them being biased and then quote them

For anything to be taken serious, they have to be neutral and I have been told time and time again that they are biased.

They are Nvidia biased so anything good they say about an amd setup has to be taken serious because of it. It was clear the article showed the 7970cfx setup to be superior but the end right up is mainly banging on about titan lol. Tell me this ain't an advert for titan.

" What really is remarkable is how much better the GeForce GTX TITAN did at this resolution than we initially thought it would. In two games Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs the GeForce GTX TITAN matched the same gameplay experience as the AMD Radeon HD 7990. In one game, Hitman: Absolution GeForce GTX TITAN exceeded the gameplay experience provided by GeForce GTX 680 SLI.

In only two out of five games did we have to lower the in-game settings with GeForce GTX TITAN one notch below the AMD Radeon HD 7990. It was only one notch to boot, not low settings, never did we have to set low settings, GTX TITAN was at least at medium settings or higher at 5760x1200.

We were also surprised by the relatively low percentage differences between GTX TITAN and HD 7990 or GTX 680 SLI. We saw as low as 20-30% differences. The reason why we say this is low is because some of these differences could be made up by simply overclocking the GeForce GTX TITAN. In our recent overclocking GeForce GTX TITAN evaluation, we found that performances from overclocking yielded 15-20% better performance in games. Therefore, overclocking TITAN would bring those performance differences way down between AMD Radeon HD 7990 and GTX 680 SLI. That is mighty impressive for a single-GPU video card.

In all cases, Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire from two separate video cards was still the fastest, and best gameplay experience, for a lesser price.

The Bottom Line

We were impressed that one single video card, the GeForce GTX TITAN could provide us an above average gameplay experience in NV Surround across three displays at 5760x1200. The $999 GeForce GTX TITAN was even able to match the $999 AMD Radeon HD 7990 in gameplay experience in a few games. However, the more demanding games leaned toward the dual-GPU video cards for the best performance and experience at this resolution. As we look forward to other more demanding games in the future, like Metro: Last Light, dual-GPU may still be the faster solution.

In terms of price and nothing else, the $999 AMD Radeon HD 7990 video card is a better purchase than one single GeForce GTX TITAN. We know two TITAN's in 2-way SLI will blow HD 7990 out of the water, but it is also $1000 more expensive. However, the real show stopper is still two separate Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition video cards with CrossFire enabled. Those can be purchased at $100-200 less expensive than GeForce GTX TITAN or AMD Radeon HD 7990, and provide a lot more performance. 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire will win every time, and by a larger margin than Radeon HD 7990."

 

[MOOGLEYS]

However, AMD are releasing a new driver that fixes the alledged microstutter

I think every AMD driver in the last 2 years has said this.

 

[Gregster]

They are Nvidia biased so anything good they say about an amd setup has to be taken serious because of it. It was clear the article showed the 7970cfx setup to be superior but the end right up is mainly banging on about titan lol. Tell me this ain't an advert for titan.

First off, if you knew someone who lied all the time, would you believe anything they say? and secondly, that link you supplied is a 7990 Vs a Titan, so that is probably why they are 'banging' on about a Titan.

" What really is remarkable is how much better the GeForce GTX TITAN did at this resolution than we initially thought it would. In two games Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs the GeForce GTX TITAN matched the same gameplay experience as the AMD Radeon HD 7990. In one game, Hitman: Absolution GeForce GTX TITAN exceeded the gameplay experience provided by GeForce GTX 680 SLI.

In only two out of five games did we have to lower the in-game settings with GeForce GTX TITAN one notch below the AMD Radeon HD 7990. It was only one notch to boot, not low settings, never did we have to set low settings, GTX TITAN was at least at medium settings or higher at 5760x1200.

We were also surprised by the relatively low percentage differences between GTX TITAN and HD 7990 or GTX 680 SLI. We saw as low as 20-30% differences. The reason why we say this is low is because some of these differences could be made up by simply overclocking the GeForce GTX TITAN. In our recent overclocking GeForce GTX TITAN evaluation, we found that performances from overclocking yielded 15-20% better performance in games. Therefore, overclocking TITAN would bring those performance differences way down between AMD Radeon HD 7990 and GTX 680 SLI. That is mighty impressive for a single-GPU video card.

In all cases, Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire from two separate video cards was still the fastest, and best gameplay experience, for a lesser price.

The Bottom Line

We were impressed that one single video card, the GeForce GTX TITAN could provide us an above average gameplay experience in NV Surround across three displays at 5760x1200. The $999 GeForce GTX TITAN was even able to match the $999 AMD Radeon HD 7990 in gameplay experience in a few games. However, the more demanding games leaned toward the dual-GPU video cards for the best performance and experience at this resolution. As we look forward to other more demanding games in the future, like Metro: Last Light, dual-GPU may still be the faster solution.

In terms of price and nothing else, the $999 AMD Radeon HD 7990 video card is a better purchase than one single GeForce GTX TITAN. We know two TITAN's in 2-way SLI will blow HD 7990 out of the water, but it is also $1000 more expensive. However, the real show stopper is still two separate Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition video cards with CrossFire enabled. Those can be purchased at $100-200 less expensive than GeForce GTX TITAN or AMD Radeon HD 7990, and provide a lot more performance. 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire will win every time, and by a larger margin than Radeon HD 7990."

I have to be honest and admit I have not really bothered reading, as again I say "Would you believe anything a liar had to say"? I have been told time and time again from pro AMD guys that [H] are biased and their results don't match up with what I have found and they are in Galaxy's pocket blah blah blah, never to be trusted blah blah blah. I bet I could go through your posting history and find you saying that [H] can't be trusted. So when you say they are biased, it doesn't matter. I have been told they are liars and they are not to be believed because they skew the results but because you quite like the look of the article, you feel it can be used as an honest review

I know you say "But they are pro Nvidia, so this makes AMD look even better" but it doesn't work like that. If a company is shown to be a liar one way, what is to stop them taking a bigger envelope from the other way? I for one would prefer to trust user reviews and I am not getting into the realms of discussing what is broken in Crossfire or not broken in crossfire in a thread where the OP asked our opinions on a 690.

 

[TheRealDeal]

If they were AMD biased they would have been talking about how much a waste of money titan was end of compared to a 7970 crossfire setup. Yea it has the benefit of being a single gpu chip but it was mullered to say the least by a much cheaper setup. Tomb raider the titan was 70% slower, crysis 3 = 56%, farcry 3 = 55%, Hitman absolution = 28% and sleeping dogs 92% slower.

You say it was 7990 v titan but they kept mentioning gtx680 sli and 7990 a lot. Is this because they are slower overall than the cheaper 7970cfx solution. If i was writing the article i would not be surprised at all how well the titan done as it got a pasting from 2 cards that cost way less. It was not even close as my numbers above show. Anyhow there closing statement shows there bias towards nvidia and in no way would they want to admit that 7970cfx is a way faster solution at triple screen resolution.

The op mentions a move to triple screen resolution and that's why i mentioned the gtx690 suffering more as the resolution goes up compared to Titan and the top amd cards. Gtx680 sli still does a decent job though but i thought the op should know there's cheaper and faster solutions and if amd bring out a driver that fixes the problems highlighted by fcat then less money for a better experience makes more sense.

I will also add the 7990 seems like a big waste of money as well as it seems to be 15-25% slower than the dual card setup. Makes no sense at all as theoretically it should only be around 5-10% slower going by clock speeds. This is shown in all reviews. Must be something in the design.

 

[spoffle]

But you are using [H] who are biased. You even admit to them being biased and then quote them

For anything to be taken serious, they have to be neutral and I have been told time and time again that they are biased.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's like you can't get your head around that some people think they are biased but refer to their reviews or benchmarks.

The thought is, since [H] are biased towards nVidia, it would take something very impressive for them to show AMD winning, so when they DO show AMD winning it's something to take note of.

How is that you can't grasp that?

 

[Gregster]

Why is this so hard for you to understand? It's like you can't get your head around that some people think they are biased but refer to their reviews or benchmarks.

The thought is, since [H] are biased towards nVidia, it would take something very impressive for them to show AMD winning, so when they DO show AMD winning it's something to take note of.

How is that you can't grasp that?

Don't act dumb because you know exactly what I am saying and this stands true.

 

[spoffle]

If you didn't bother picking and choosing what I quoted, you wouldn't need to ask. Don't act dumb because you know exactly what I am saying and this stands true.

That didn't happen though did it? Which is rich coming from you considering you've stated that you didn't even read TheRealDeal's posts, yet still want to talk smack.

If being biased equates to lying, then by that logic you're the biggest liar in this section.

 

[Gregster]

If they were AMD biased they would have been talking about how much a waste of money titan was end of compared to a 7970 crossfire setup. Yea it has the benefit of being a single gpu chip but it was mullered to say the least by a much cheaper setup. Tomb raider the titan was 70% slower, crysis 3 = 56%, farcry 3 = 55%, Hitman absolution = 28% and sleeping dogs 92% slower.

You say it was 7990 v titan but they kept mentioning gtx680 sli and 7990 a lot. Is this because they are slower overall than the cheaper 7970cfx solution. If i was writing the article i would not be surprised at all how well the titan done as it got a pasting from 2 cards that cost way less. It was not even close as my numbers above show. Anyhow there closing statement shows there bias towards nvidia and in no way would they want to admit that 7970cfx is a way faster solution at triple screen resolution.

The op mentions a move to triple screen resolution and that's why i mentioned the gtx690 suffering more as the resolution goes up compared to Titan and the top amd cards. Gtx680 sli still does a decent job though but i thought the op should know there's cheaper and faster solutions and if amd bring out a driver that fixes the problems highlighted by fcat then less money for a better experience makes more sense.

I will also add the 7990 seems like a big waste of money as well as it seems to be 15-25% slower than the dual card setup. Makes no sense at all as theoretically it should only be around 5-10% slower going by clock speeds. This is shown in all reviews. Must be something in the design.

So we go from the OP's question which is "will my CPU bottleneck a 690?" to 7970CF is so much faster and [H] are once again to be trusted because this review suits us AMD owners. Good work

 

[spoffle]

So we go from the OP's question which is "will my CPU bottleneck a 690?" to 7970CF is so much faster and [H] are once again to be trusted because this review suits us AMD owners. Good work

No. When [H] show AMD in a good light, you take note because they usually put them down at every chance.

What's wrong with letting the OP know that they'd get better performance for less money by going for an AMD card over a 690?

They mention upgrading to multi screen gaming in the future too, you know full well that Kepler chips just haven't got what it takes for that especially considering the asking price.

 

[Gregster]

That didn't happen though did it? Which is rich coming from you considering you've stated that you didn't even read TheRealDeal's posts, yet still want to talk smack.

If being biased equates to lying, then by that logic you're the biggest liar in this section.

What didn't happen? You pick and choose what to quote to suit your own spin. If I repeatedly lied, who would believe me but in the AMD user section here, [H] are paid off from Nvidia and they lie about this that and the other but hold on a min...This article we like, so this is fine to use.

That is no better than me grabbing a benchmark for a game that has a 670 faster than a 7970 and saying that a 670 owns a 7970 and is so much faster /end

You have to take the whole picture and I thought you would be the first to agree with this.

 

[TheRealDeal]

So we go from the OP's question which is "will my CPU bottleneck a 690?" to 7970CF is so much faster and [H] are once again to be trusted because this review suits us AMD owners. Good work

No personal attacks The op has not bought a gtx690 yet and was talking of a move to triple screen. We are here to offer our opinion's and i was only trying to show him that a gtx690 might not be the best way to go if thinking about triple screen.

 

[Rusty0611]

I do agree above with the notion that you can't really say somebody is to be quoted as gospel one day when they're in favour of the GPU brand you prefer and then they can't be trusted the next day and they're biased when they do the opposite.

The point that "well if they're praising AMD - with their acknowledged NVIDIA bias - then AMD must be good" ignores the fact that they're posting - in that person's opinion - results which are questionable... so why should their results be suddenly more believable just because they swing the other way.... That whole argument is a touch incoherent I'm afraid as it really just looks like you're using their results when it suits even though you think they're questionable.

 

[bru]

This issue defiantly seems to be a case of [H] cant be trusted right up until they show what we want them too.

Either you trust them and their ok to use, or you don't and their not.

you cant have it both ways.

 

[ShakeNBake]

wait for news on 700 series, don't buy a 690 now unless you want it real bad :3

 

[TheRealDeal]

I do agree above with the notion that you can't really say somebody is to be quoted as gospel one day when they're in favour of the GPU brand you prefer and then they can't be trusted the next day and they're biased when they do the opposite.

The point that "well if they're praising AMD - with their acknowledged NVIDIA bias - then AMD must be good" ignores the fact that they're posting - in that person's opinion - results which are questionable... so why should their results be suddenly more believable just because they swing the other way.... That whole argument is a touch incoherent I'm afraid as it really just looks like you're using their results when it suits even though you think they're questionable.

The results have not swung the other way though rusty. They have always showed amd cfx to be faster. It's the simple fact now they are saying the game play experience was the best. Everybody knows that 7970cfx is faster than the gtx680 sli but they always maintained sli was still a better game play experience.

They play the games and don't use canned benchmark's. They always banged on about how superior sli was up until this article that now state's the superior game play experience was on the cfx 7970.

 

[Gregster]

No. When [H] show AMD in a good light, you take note because they usually put them down at every chance.

What's wrong with letting the OP know that they'd get better performance for less money by going for an AMD card over a 690?

They mention upgrading to multi screen gaming in the future too, you know full well that Kepler chips just haven't got what it takes for that especially considering the asking price.

Ok, what does have "what it takes" for that? certainly not a 7990 or 7970 CF purely because of gaming at a lesser resolution of 5760x1080, Crysis 3 has surpassed 3.8GB of VRAM. Of course there is the 7970 6 GB variants but at that detail, CF 7970's will not have the grunt to push the game at that resolution, the same as SLI 680's don't.

You again are playing dumb to suit your argument. Of course a 690 can cope with three 1600P screens. Even a single 660 can cope but there becomes so many variables that need to be considered like settings to be attained and acceptable frame rates. It is no good just chucking VRAM at a GPU because it just doesn't work like this.

I know full well that kepler chips have what it takes and you are talking complete nonsense. There are many happy gamers using much higher resolutions than me and on SLI 480's and probably less. Single 6 series GPU's can cope very well.

 

[Rusty0611]

The results have not swung the other way though rusty. They have always showed amd cfx to be faster. It's the simple fact now they are saying the game play experience was the best. Everybody knows that 7970cfx is faster than the gtx680 sli but they always maintained sli was still a better game play experience.

They play the games and don't use canned benchmark's. They always banged on about how superior sli was up until this article that now state's the superior game play experience was on the cfx 7970.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick - that wasn't really what I was talking about. I was just addressing the notion of dog one day and dogs goolies the next which seems to be prevalent here. Or as put here as well:

This issue defiantly seems to be a case of [H] cant be trusted right up until they show what we want them too.

Either you trust them and their ok to use, or you don't and their not.

you cant have it both ways.

 

[spoffle]

Ok, what does have "what it takes" for that? certainly not a 7990 or 7970 CF purely because of gaming at a lesser resolution of 5760x1080, Crysis 3 has surpassed 3.8GB of VRAM. Of course there is the 7970 6 GB variants but at that detail, CF 7970's will not have the grunt to push the game at that resolution, the same as SLI 680's don't.

You again are playing dumb to suit your argument. Of course a 690 can cope with three 1600P screens. Even a single 660 can cope but there becomes so many variables that need to be considered like settings to be attained and acceptable frame rates. It is no good just chucking VRAM at a GPU because it just doesn't work like this.

I know full well that kepler chips have what it takes and you are talking complete nonsense. There are many happy gamers using much higher resolutions than me and on SLI 480's and probably less. Single 6 series GPU's can cope very well.

I didn't even mention VRAM.

Have you forgotten your previous comments about how your GTX680 SLi weren't cutting it at 5760x1080? And you've got the cheek to say I'm playing dumb?

Do you live in pretend land?