[H]Fall 2012 GPU and Driver Comparison Roundup

Rusty0611 · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:02

TheRealDeal said:
Its a stock card which answers all your question and overclocking does not come into. Thermal throttling and again its a stock card with stock fan profiles. This is stock v stock end off no fiddling just plug and play performance. None of the cards tested here were stock models and hence they probably boosted much further due to better cooling and no heat throttling on the gtx680. No review is ever without issue and these guys have been with nvidia all year handing out reward after reward.

This is difficult. I'll try again.

The cards are roughly even at 1080p at a normal max OC. The 7970 is slightly faster at a 'Lightning' overclock level.

This review puts the stock 7970 at 15% faster. (HardOCP)

They're even at a normal max OC level. (Benchmark thread)

For the cards to be even at a normal max OC this implicitly implies that the 680 overclocks 15% better than the 7970 which is of course rubbish.

This on its own shows the figures are... questionable. The stock 680 results look low to me but I don't have my data to compare still. That would be my guess.

I'm out of ways to try to explain it now so please get it

TheRealDeal · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:09

Rusty0611 said:
This is difficult. I'll try again.

The cards are roughly even at 1080p at a normal max OC. The 7970 is slightly faster at a 'Lightning' overclock level.

This review puts the stock 7970 at 15% faster. (HardOCP)

They're even at a normal max OC level. (Benchmark thread)

For the cards to be even at a normal max OC this implicitly implies that the 680 overclocks 15% better than the 7970 which is of course rubbish.

This on its own shows the figures are... questionable.

Heres my question? Gregs gtx680 was at 1324 core, is this core or boost. If its not boost and boost is a good bit higher then its not really clock for clock. If the review has a stock gtx680 and its boost is only at the stated box value of 1054 or whatever it is then its going clock for clock with the amd card or even below at points. We can see already in the ocuk graph that the 7970 is around 7% faster even with the extra boost the gtx680 is getting. All this is assuming gregs gtx680 is getting a boost also.

The numbers look ok if what i think above is correct.

Lets be honest this boost feature that nvidia have makes reviews much harder to read if they don't state the boost clock even though we know it will always be above 1054 on the gtx680. I mean the gtx670 is said to be boosting to around 1200mhz on some models when the its meant to be no where near that.

Rusty0611 · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:12

TheRealDeal said:
Heres my question? Gregs gtx680 was at 1324 core, is this core or boost. If its not boost and boost is a good bit higher then its not really clock for clock. If the review has a stock gtx680 and its boost is only at the stated box value of 1054 or whatever it is then its going clock for clock with the amd card or even below at points. We can see already in the ocuk graph that the 7970 is around 7% faster even with the extra boost the gtx680 is getting. All this is assuming gregs gtx680 is getting a boost also.

The numbers look ok if what i think above is correct.

His figure is the boosted clock. 99% sure.

No-one would say anything if they reported a 5-7% difference. As I said a few little bits and bobs here and there and you're suddenly looking at 15%

.

psychodil · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:13

You can't really compare clock for clock. They both scale differently and are different architectures.

For the purposes of the discussion we are assuming its a GHz edition at 1050mhz and a 680 running at around 1090mhz.

psychodil · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:16

@ Rusty.

You keep referring to this 15% which you are disputing. What are you referring to? The BF3 benchmark at 1080p between the 680 and the GHz edition?

Rusty0611 · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:19

psychodil said:
You can't really compare clock for clock. They both scale differently and are different architectures.

For the purposes of the discussion we are assuming its a GHz edition at 1050mhz and a 680 running at around 1090mhz.

True. Worst case scenario at 1090 as well IMO. Anyway I've made my point here not going to repeat myself over and over

.

psychodil said:
@ Rusty.

You keep referring to this 15% which you are disputing. What are you referring to? The BF3 benchmark at 1080p between the 680 and the GHz edition?

Yah.

14.3% actually. I read it as 14.98% when I calculated first time hence the rounding. Probably tapped the wrong numbers into my calculator haha.

So 14%. Point stands though.

Will add some 7950 benches tomorrow pgi.

psychodil · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:22

Anyone notice the 16% increase in bf3 they found from the 303 drivers to the latest ones on the 680? Can't believe its taken nvidia 6 months to get their drivers up to an acceptable level

Rusty0611 · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:25

psychodil said:
Anyone notice the 16% increase in bf3 they found from the 303 drivers to the latest ones on the 680? Can't believe its taken nvidia 6 months to get their drivers up to an acceptable level

I noticed a bump in SLI in one driver but that was about as good as it got for BF3 bumps.

psychodil · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:27

Yeah it could easily be a different map or scenario they benched to be honest. Was just teasing really

Rusty0611 · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:30

I know you were jesting.

That or dodgy reviewing

.

Anyway I'm off to bed! Gn8

Gregster · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:49

TheRealDeal said:
Its a stock card which answers all your question and overclocking does not come into. Thermal throttling and again its a stock card with stock fan profiles. This is stock v stock end off no fiddling just plug and play performance. None of the cards tested here were stock models and hence they probably boosted much further due to better cooling and no heat throttling on the gtx680. No review is ever without issue and these guys have been with nvidia all year handing out reward after reward.

As you can see above in the graph the 7970 gained 20%.

If you see the graph prior to the 12.11 drivers, clock for clock the 680 was faster (for psychodil).

That 680 is a stock model.

TheRealDeal · 12 Nov 2012 at 22:54

gregster said:
If you see the graph prior to the 12.11 drivers, clock for clock the 680 was faster (for psychodil).

That 680 is a stock model.

Yea i know. Was 1324 your boost speed?

Gregster · 12 Nov 2012 at 23:28

TheRealDeal said:
Yea i know. Was 1324 your boost speed?

No, that is a mild overclock and once you go past your boost clock, you are then overclocking. Intel speed step if you like. 1202Mhz is my boost.

I just find it hard to look at those 680 results in BF3 when I know other results show different. I know that the 7970 is faster than a 680 clock for clock in BF3 but those results leave me scratching my head.

TheRealDeal · 12 Nov 2012 at 23:38

gregster said:
No, that is a mild overclock and once you go past your boost clock, you are then overclocking. Intel speed step if you like. 1202Mhz is my boost.

I just find it hard to look at those 680 results in BF3 when I know other results show different. I know that the 7970 is faster than a 680 clock for clock in BF3 but those results leave me scratching my head.

Could stock memory speed be holding the gtx680 back a little comparing with the 7970 which has the wider memory bus. As rusty pointed out the gtx680 stock fan profile/cooler could be holding the gtx680 back due to throttling.

psychodil · 12 Nov 2012 at 23:53

Stock memory speed is most definately holding the 680 back, it gets good percentage gains from overclocking the memory it seems.

Gregster · 12 Nov 2012 at 23:55

TheRealDeal said:
Could stock memory speed be holding the gtx680 back a little comparing with the 7970 which has the wider memory bus. As rusty pointed out the gtx680 stock fan profile/cooler could be holding the gtx680 back due to throttling.

For sure on bigger than 1080P resolutions but not at this res. Nvidia have seriously wrapped this gen of cards in cotton wool and stock coolers are fairly pants to be honest and you have to set quite an aggressive fan profile to keep the card from reaching 70C. When it does hit 70C they throttle the card. Very annoying tbh.

The lightning doesn't do this and it makes a difference (not sure how much) but enough to skew bench results.

tommybhoy · 12 Nov 2012 at 23:55

psychodil said:
Can't believe its taken nvidia 6 months to get their drivers up to an acceptable level

After the mountains of negativity regarding AMD's performance gains, that was soo funny mate!

That being said, the following quote from the conclusion of the article is possibly the most grudging, evasive, heavily-qualified acknowledgement of the 7970's superiority:

"For those that must have the absolute highest frame rates (even if it makes no difference to the overall game play experience), the Radeon HD 7970 seems to pull ahead of the GTX 680."

^

That is clear indication that [H] are in no way favoring AMD at this moment in time whatsoever.

Reading the comments here that [H] are favouring AMD well ...

Considering this gen, [H]'s reviews have seen 13 Gold awards going to Nvidia with a grand total of 4 Gold awards to AMD, go figure who's pocket [H] is in. :rolleyes:

TheRealDeal · 12 Nov 2012 at 23:59

tommybhoy said:
After the mountains of negativity regarding AMD's performance gains, that was soo funny mate!

^

That is clear indication that [H] are in no way favoring AMD at this moment in time whatsoever.

Reading the comments here that [H] are favouring AMD well ...

Considering this gen, [H]'s reviews have seen 13 Gold awards going to Nvidia with a grand total of 4 Gold awards to AMD, go figure who's pocket [H] is in.

Glad i am not the only one seeing it this way.

Gregster · 13 Nov 2012 at 00:05

I don't buy those BF3 charts and that is that. They don't state what the 680 is boosting at. They use a ghz edition 7970 against a stock 680...Too many flaws for my liking.

Edit:

Ohhh and the other games tested are sponsored by?

TheRealDeal · 13 Nov 2012 at 00:08

gregster said:
I don't buy those BF3 charts and that is that. They don't state what the 680 is boosting at. They use a ghz edition 7970 against a stock 680...Too many flaws for my liking.

The boost i agree would be nice but they do state that they are judging things on price.

"NVIDIA GTX 680 – A reference build is currently available for $459.99 with factory overclocked offerings starting at $469.99"

"AMD HD 7970 GHz Edition – A factory overclocked build is currently available for $449.99, which is priced lower than the reference clocked HD 7970 GHz Edition cards that are currently available."

I believe this is the card they are using in the review. As you can see its a stock cooler on the 7970.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/