Official 7950 Benchmarks Thread

Purgatory · 31 Jan 2012 at 13:58

easyrider said:
The 580's have been out for over a year AMD have offered similar performance for the same price. Its hardly exciting.

Agree, looking at these benchmarks and reviews I would still get a GTX 580 over the 7950.. Come on Kepler.... Tired of seeing the red team with new cards all the time and no Green team to speak off... Anyway not in any rush to update my GPU at this time and my desktops are not touching an AMD card until they show me their drivers work as designed with all new and old titles and apps. Only reason I went green team was because of AMD's drivers and driver team that don't admit to faults with their drivers but magically fix them later but of course was not a fault when reported but later show up on their updated release info for their drivers as a fixed item (thought you said it was not a fault and was my system?

)

.

AMD 7950 and 7970 nice cards but lets see how they manage with drivers

.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 13:59

inSilica said:
7950 Crossfire

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...ssfire-graphics-card-review-introduction.html

Is it me or the review at Annand shows OC of 7950 consumes more power than OC of 7970?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5476/amd-radeon-7950-review/17

More cherry picking. I would return fire but I can't be bothered. If power consumption* and Battlefield 3 is all there is then it's kind of a weak debate.

* Obviously with the 7950 being a lower end part it will have a lower end power delivery. Meaning it won't use more expensive low leakage transistors and so on. Just like the 480 to 580 fix. That was how Nvidia managed to make the 580 use less power and remain cooler (well, that was a cooler revision).

And look at the prices of the 5 series. Obviously I wasn't around here then, but were the 5 series met with the same kind of cynicism?

Funny, because I seem to remember them being lapped up, even though they were a slap in the face to every last poor sod who had paid out the backside for a 470/480 !

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:00

555BUK said:
There is one very obvious measure to how well a new graphics is priced and performs, and that is:- Is stock flying off the shelves or not? Since launch, in-stock 7900's have been easy to find, much moreso than any past top-end new process card I can think of.

Not at the right price they haven't !

555BUK · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:04

ALXAndy said:
Had Intel released Sandy as a locked down chip with no way to overclock it it would have failed.

That is a very bold statement considering that only a tiny proportion of Sandy Bridge processers sold are overclockable K's. The truth is that people who ovrrclock represent a tiny proportion of CPU and GPU buyers. Most Intel CPU's reside within pre-built desktops/laptops that will never run at anything other than stock settings.

Sandy Bridge was a success because it was damn fast out of the box. It also ran cool, sipped electricity and had Intel stamped on it, but the main selling points have been price and performance at stock.

edited to add that OEM's such as Dell, HP, Siemens, Sony, Apple etc are the main purchasers for Intel (and to a lesser extent AMD) processors. They do not care for allowing overclocks because it increases the risk of failure. Also, more CPU go into laptops nowadays than desktops, and I have never owned a laptop that allows overclocking via BIOS.

Performance at STOCK is what sells. Overclocking is just a bonus.

MichaelM · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:07

We get it, overclocking is so last year and out of fashion now the 7900's exist. Perhaps it will be "in" later in the year though...

inSilica · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:07

ALXAndy said:
More cherry picking. I would return fire but I can't be bothered. If power consumption* and Battlefield 3 is all there is then it's kind of a weak debate.

* Obviously with the 7950 being a lower end part it will have a lower end power delivery. Meaning it won't use more expensive low leakage transistors and so on. Just like the 480 to 580 fix. That was how Nvidia managed to make the 580 use less power and remain cooler (well, that was a cooler revision).

And look at the prices of the 5 series. Obviously I wasn't around here then, but were the 5 series met with the same kind of cynicism?

Funny, because I seem to remember them being lapped up, even though they were a slap in the face to every last poor sod who had paid out the backside for a 470/480 !

Not at all. I care about the Electricity Bill which is going up at an extortionate rate! in Crossfire the 7950 is approx 100W less than Crossfire 7970 - I can light up 5 rooms with 20W power saving bulbs for an hours gameplay!

...Sorry can't help being a cheapass

Secret_Window · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:09

555BUK said:
That is a very bold statement considering that only a tiny proportion of Sandy Bridge processers sold are overclockable K's. The truth is that people who ovrrclock represent a tiny proportion of CPU and GPU buyers. Most Intel CPU's reside within pre-built desktops/laptops that will never run at anything other than stock settings.

Sandy Bridge was a success because it was damn fast out of the box. It also ran cool, sipped electricity and had Intel stamped on it, but the main selling points have been price and performance at stock.

Agreed. For example, I bought the K version because it was good value for money at the time - not that I would necessarily overclock it, but more that the opportunity was there if I needed to. And as you said, it was fast straight out of the box.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:12

555BUK said:
That is a very bold statement considering that only a tiny proportion of Sandy Bridge processers sold are overclockable K's.

You're absolutely right.

Now let's consider that high end monstrous power guzzling number crunching GPUs are sold in the same numbers.

What do they call it? the "enthusiast" market?

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:12

inSilica said:
Not at all. I care about the Electricity Bill which is going up at an extortionate rate! in Crossfire the 7950 is approx 100W less than Crossfire 7970 - I can light up 5 rooms with 20W power saving bulbs for an hours gameplay!

...Sorry can't help being a cheapass

I worked out how much power you saved using a 7970 over a 6970.

£4.54. A year.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:13

MichaelM said:
We get it, overclocking is so last year and out of fashion now the 7900's exist. Perhaps it will be "in" later in the year though...

Congratulations. I shall print that one out and put it on my wall

kitch9 · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:27

rubin1961 said:
That chart showing bf3 gtx580@ them settings is different to what i get.
I get more

They insist on applying MSAA for reviews where it hammers performance so much whilst missing a lot of edges on all cards it should really be classed as broken and ignored.

FXAA all they way for me, and I would suggest a different picture would be painted.

elmarko · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:28

Argggh - I've got the upgrade bug, as soon as I can get a 7970 (without reference cooler) for less than £400 I'll get one.

Most of my friends seem to be in the same boat, just waiting for the price to drop a little bit more to make the drop.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:29

kitch9 said:
They insist on applying MSAA for reviews where it hammers performance so much whilst missing a lot of edges on all cards it should really be classed as broken and ignored.

FXAA all they way for me, and I would suggest a different picture would be painted.

Hardly surprising given that Nvidia created FXAA.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:31

elmarko1234 said:
Argggh - I've got the upgrade bug, as soon as I can get a 7970 (without reference cooler) for less than £400 I'll get one.

Most of my friends seem to be in the same boat, just waiting for the price to drop a little bit more to make the drop.

Are you really that adverse to sliding a slider on your desktop?

inSilica · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:37

ALXAndy said:
I worked out how much power you saved using a 7970 over a 6970.

£4.54. A year.

And thats what per hour? per day? the whole year gameplay?

dave_beast · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:41

HD 7970, standard beats 580 3gb by a country mile
HD 7970, overclocked, destroys 580 and beats 590
HD 7950, standard competes with 580 but uses less power
HD 7950, overclocked destroys 580

Nvidia fanboiiis derping in this thread like Easyrider & co = blatantly butthurt, Kepler is just a rumour, and could even fail, even if they put prices in the stratosphere.

The argument about not overclocking is above said fanboiis last attempt to clutch at straws. LOL

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:41

inSilica said:
And thats what per hour? per day? the whole year gameplay?

That's comparing them if you played games for three hours a day, every day for a year.

Now of course some will game more than that, but some will game less. So I figured it was a fair amount of time to do the comparison. Not too much and not too little.

elmarko · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:41

ALXAndy said:
Are you really that adverse to sliding a slider on your desktop?

Well, that's one thing I'm unsure of.

I've seen that an over-clocked 7950 will beat a 7970 @ stock - but how does it fare VS an over-clocked 7970?.

As I'm running a 6970 OC'd - I'd like a noticable difference on the upgrade.

rubin1961 · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:46

@ dave beast,what fps do you get on bf3 @ the same settings as in the chart posted

inSilica · 31 Jan 2012 at 14:46

ALXAndy said:
That's comparing them if you played games for three hours a day, every day for a year.

Now of course some will game more than that, but some will game less. So I figured it was a fair amount of time to do the comparison. Not too much and not too little.

Thanks for the info

. Seems hardly worth the headache when you think about it.