+1http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/20.html
Techpowerup for AGES have both been Nvidia shills, and ridiculous, their comparisons mean NOTHING, according to that benchmark the 7970 IS faster than the 6990, flat out, are you saying the 6990 is no faster than a 6970.
You're using bogus results, when they quite simply add in a bunch of cpu limited games, and, this is great for techpowerup, disabled xfire in later reviews in the game AMD did best in earlier on when xfire worked fine, because they are guilty of that as well.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/12/22/amd_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/5
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/09/amd_radeon_hd_7970_overclocking_performance_review/3
The 6970, 48fps, the 7970, 71fps WITH HIGHER SETTINGS.
Yeah, its barely any faster.
At stock speed its closer to 30% faster than the 580gtx in deus ex, overclocked its over 50% faster....... yup.
It's really very simple, and try to comprehend, AMD released this card to get within a certain TDP, the 580gtx was not, had you put a 200W TDP limit on the 580gtx, and underclocked it, it would have been an underclocked card, nothing more or less.
You can NOT overclock the 6970 by 35% on the reference cooler, nor the 580gtx, nor the 5870, nor the 285gtx, nor the....... any other top end card ever, you can the 7970...... but its not underclocked is it.
Again MAX 6970 reference overclock vs MAX 7970 reference cooler overclock, the card is anything up pretty much 60-90% faster than the 6970........... but its not faster, because of the stock clock.
Let me ask you this, who cares about the stock clock, my 6950 is overclocked on a 3rd party cooler, compared to the 7970 basic overclocks almost everyone is getting, my card is averaging out 70-80% slower in the same benchmarks....... but its not faster. For the record mine is unlocked to 6970 and overclocked to around 950mhz.
This isn't a new argument, serious what would you have called the 580gtx if it randomly came out at 600Mhz clock speeds, but every single card could do 850Mhz overclocked without an issue.
Comparing rough average "max" overclocks on a giving type of cooling is both, useful because not surprisingly most users can achieve it if you probably can and therefore that is the speed you can get if you buy the card. Stock speed hasn't effected my purchase for 15 years on any computer parts. T-bird 1.4Ghz through to a 5850 which is 20% slower than a 5870 at stock, but overclocked to its max is within 5%.
What I can achieve on the average 6970 vs what you can achieve on an average(and we've still really yet to see driver tweaks, potentially more stable and better overclocking tools with more voltage adjustment, etc) 7970 the performance ends up WELL over 50% apart, and in some games, 100% apart. That is ALL THAT MATTERS HERE, clock speeds mean nothing, clock speeds on the GTX680 won't mean anything.
WHat if the gtx680 comes out with neutered TDP and underclocked by 200Mhz, I will not randomly arbitrarily change my stance, as I haven't here either. What the average person can achieve with default cooling is really the only measure of how good ANY card is, not marketing, tdp, price points that companies "aim" products at for various reasons.
The 590gtx was a cut down joke because Nvidia didn't want it to be a too high power card, so they didn't give it enough power to, well, go as fast as it could. Which is why everyone, myself included said it would have been a great card, if only Nvidia didn't do that.
Had AMD left out the good vrm's and not made the average 7970 capable of hitting 1150-1250Mhz, that is one thing, but all the cards ARE doing that.
I would expect 95% of people buying a 7970 from here to overclock it, I would expect the same percentage of people buying 560ti's, and 5850's, and 6970's and 580gtx's.
Let's not get into the whole Nvidia releasing 560ti to hit a certain TDP then having ridiculously overclocked versions all over the place being compared in reviews to stock 6950's..... but that's ok because its Nvidia.
The only measure of a card and how good it is, is the speed you can get out of it, NOT the speed some bios set's it at for default.
Who buys a 2500k to run at 3.3Ghz, who buys a Phenom quad to run at 3Ghz. Oh I get it, Nvidia users have a problem with how fast the 7970 is, so now overclocking doesn't count...... cry me a river.
-
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.
GTX680 to arrive at the end of February!
- Thread starter CinderzFTW
- Start date
Soldato
A drop in the ocean to correcting DM's credibility deficit.
Soldato
I'm not even bother getting into the AMD/nVidia thing going on in here, however sorry but this is rubbish. You really expect 95% of people to be over clocking. Look at the real world. I agree that it is rare for people to not overclock an i5, however a GPU..... Step outside of the graphics card forum and you'll realise how many people don't actually overclock their GPU.... Regardless of what card they have.
kd
So, at 2560x1600 with extremely high levels of AA & AF the 7970 beats the 1.5GB VRAM limited GTX580. I guess that is something to smile about for the 1% of people who own 2560x1600 monitors and 7970's. I wonder how the 1.5GB 7970 will perform at same settings when it arrives soon?
How much of a difference does the 1.5GB vs 3GB 580's make at those settings?
Uhm, no sign of vram limitation in posted reviews?
Soldato
If you are into overclocking but don't bother with your GPU, well that's just ridiculous.
I don't bother with the graphics cards, I've had more hassle than the worth of that marginal increase over the years. So, for me, the gfx cards stay put at the manufacturers values.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
No no, every time someone posts that little gem of a "fact" half a dozen people will post factual proof its complete rollocks, but because one set with sli running 2x580gtx 1.5gb using 3 30" monitors in a few games shows a vram limit.... all games have a vram limit.
The fact that several reviews have compared an overclocked 7970 to a 580gtx with a 15% overclock...... and being up to 80% faster(between 50-80 with realistically the average around 65%), completely irrelevant, the fact that not a single review showed a single one of the games at any resolutions used to have a vram limit...... irrelevant.
With top end cards, not so much, I don't care about going completely over the top with cpu or gpu overclocking, what i can get, easily without excess noise(for me thats LOW noise). But I rarely buy a "top" end gpu.
For instance the 5850 was better value, but its no different at all to a 5870, its just heavily underclocked at stock, with voltage control just about every single 5850 overclocked great, but all "non" top bin chips do because everything else is just underclocked anyway.
That is the difference with the 7970, with the 5870 you had 10% clock headroom, with the 5850 you had 30% clock headroom. The 7970 still has the 30% clock headroom as they underclocked the top bin for TDP reasons anyway.
I do get your point in general, for sure but the 7970 is poor value at stock and a simply awesome card "overclocked" or really, DE-underclocked
Associate
+1 on that, the marginal frame rate gains is worthless and just adds more heat to the system for what... and additional +5 to 10 fps extra when really isn't needed as top end games run at decent fps anyway at default gpu clocks.
Just my opinion.
Soldato
It also beats the 3GB GTX580
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/24/xfx_r7970_black_edition_video_card_review/1
I don't see your point.
Soldato
Overclocking your GPU gives you more than a "marginal increase", in fact one could argue it gives you more of an increase than overclocking your CPU these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
I think his point is...while 7970 3GB does 'beat' the GTX580 3GB at high res and high AA level, the ongoing comparision between the 7970 3GB vs GTX580 1.5GB at those ridiculously high res (2560/5780 res) and graphic settings is making the 7970 out faster than GTX580 faster by a greater margin than it really is.
To be honest, I think majority of the people are more interest in results of 7970 1.5GB vs GTX580 1.5GB for 1920 res, rather than 2560 or 3 screens res which minority of people gaming at. No doubt the 7970 1.5GB will beat the GTX580 1.5GB at 1920 res as well, but don't forget people are paying more money for more speed, so cost to performance ratio wise the two cards would be roughly the same, so it's all down to how much budget people got.
The GTX580 1.5GB will remain the next best thing for people that can only afford around £340~£360 for a graphic card...who really can't stretch budget to £430~£460 for a 7970 3GB, at least until 7970 1.5GB or 7950 1.5GB/3GB are out.
Last edited:
Total bull.
I have a 2600k at 4.5GHz but do not TOUCH my GPU. The headroom is non-existent, as with most GPUs. I could erk a frame rate or 2 at best.
The 7970 is underclocked on it's 28nm process and has HUGE headroom to overclock. You HAVE to overclock a 7970 to get it to where it should be.
I am not getting into the debate about whether a 7970 should be compared to the competition at stock or OC speeds but the simple matter is the vast majority will not overclock a GPU and the 7970 is an exception to the norm with regards to OC headroom.
Soldato
Most gpus clock at least around 10-15%. Some people gladly pay an extra 100 quid or more for a performance difference like that. To not clock your GPU is foolish.
It depends what you are after. My current "main system" combines a 2500K and a GTX580 inside a Sugo SFF case. My main criteria for this is silence and performance so I run both the 2500K & 580 at stock clocks with customised fan profiles and reduced voltages. At 1920x1200 I do not need to overclock.
The above rig replaced an HAF-X tower system containing a highly overclocked 2600K and GTX580 (for a short time GTX580 SLI). At the time, the additional noise did not bother me, but I am currently going through a "quiet phase".
The only time I noticed a difference in real world performance between the two systems was when running benchmarks. Both play all of my games fine, and both feel equally as quick for everyday tasks.
Not everyone wants to overclock. Infact many only overclock for the occasional benchmark, because what is the point when GTX580's, 7970's can play almost every game on max settings at stock speeds anyway? I would buy a 7970 tomorrow if the price was what I consider reasonable, purely because I like playing with new toys and like to own the best. Unfortnately the price is not reasonable, so I will wait to see what the green side offers in the coming months. At the moment I expect to buy an NVidia card, but if it is overpriced I will avoid that too.
I do not mind spending £300, £400 or £500 on a graphics card if the performance merits the price. However, I will only do so if I am convinced the gains are worth it (even if I only notice them within benchmarks), and if the cards run quietly.
Whether I run the card at stock or overclocked depends on my mood at the time. In reality, I will most probably overclock for benchmarks only. I could buy a larger monitor to extend the card a bit, but I really do not need a bigger monitor than 24" @ 1920x1200. I can do everything I need at this resolution and IMO games do not look noticeably better at higher resolutions (to me the screen just looks bigger and uglier). I also cannot be bothered with a gimmicky multi-monitor gaming setup because it takes up too much space and would make me look like a sad (or perhaps a sadder) geek. I do use multi-monitirs at work, but they are needed. At home for general use and gaming I can easily do without them.
Anyway, after all of my waffling above, you shouldn't really have to overclock a £400+ GPU to make it fast. It should be fast enough already.
Last edited:
Agreed, I don't feel particularly foolish for leaving my GPU at stock settings. CPU's are far more robust than GPU's when it come to overclocking, and usually also have more headroom, so it makes sense. But for the sake of just a few fps I prefer to leave my GPU's at stock and just spec properly according to the resolution that I'm running.
Associate
I have to admit I'm in the overclock CPU as far as possible but leave GPU where it is camp, possibly because my first attempts at overclocking a GTX 260 were spectacularly unsuccessful. I don't see it as overclocking but I did flick the switch on my 6990 