Official 7950 Benchmarks Thread

dave_beast · 31 Jan 2012 at 18:51

Locky said:
err no.

Lets say my 480sli system isn't far off a 570 sli system, I bet you if I ran a 7950OC in my system and compared it to my 480 sli, the sli would be much quicker, end of.

My 7970 when overclocked to 1300/1800 is as/more powerful as 580sli, can't wait to see someone bench a 7950 and obliterate 570sli

TheRealDeal · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:03

xsistor said:
To top it off he posted a benchmark where SLI on the 590 is not even working. The 590 = 580 performance there and is 5 fps faster than the 580. I can't see how that helps his argument at all.

The fact that the gtx590 is faster than the gtx580 means that sli is working just not very good. I think we all agree that the 7950 is on par with a gtx580.

Atm amd dont really seem to be worried about what nvidia have now or in the near future. They can just about price the 7970 where they want as nvidia's cards cant compete. Nvidia are paying guys to spread rumours on forums which stinks of pure desperation and to me says there cards are coming in later than expected or there performance is not as good as people expect it to be.

As we can all see from the people who have 7970's, amd have plenty of performance left in the 7970/50 to counter what nvidia bring to the table.

oweneades · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:04

dave_beast said:
My 7970 when overclocked to 1300/1800 is as/more powerful as 580sli, can't wait to see someone bench a 7950 and obliterate 570sli

Now I own a HD7970 and it clocks like a lady dog on heat but even still it will be someway short of GTX580SLI in raw FPS terms (I am not talking about pointless Heaven results here but actual games).

In gameplay terms I can see the benefits of a single high end GPU over multi GPU setups, but let's not get carried away.

And · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:06

tommybhoy said:
'Temporarily surpassed' is more like it.

Agreed, that's pretty much what either manufacturer does with each new release, any bragging rights are fairly short-lived.

dave_beast · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:09

oweneades said:
Now I own a HD7970 and it clocks like a lady dog on heat but even still it will be someway short of GTX580SLI in raw FPS terms (I am not talking about pointless Heaven results here but actual games).

In gameplay terms I can see the benefits of a single high end GPU over multi GPU setups, but let's not get carried away.

But that's what sells cards, benches, and Heaven always used to be in bed with Nvidia, oh how times have-a-changed

Wait till folks here start pushing their 7950's, the HD79** cards are beastly.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:11

Locky said:
what complete crap you posted, I may just buy a 7950 and see what it can do in my system, and run every single bench mark out, if it consistently beats my 480 sli you can have it for free,if it doesn't you pay me for the card. Lets see whos right.

wow you posted a dx9 benchmark, have a team point.

Try reading what I said again without the green tinted shutter 3d glasses on.

So SLI wasn't working? was working but not very well? fine.

But under no circumstances should a £350 card EVER be able to beat a £600+ card.

Not in anything at any time.

TheRealDeal · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:13

oweneades said:
Now I own a HD7970 and it clocks like a lady dog on heat but even still it will be someway short of GTX580SLI in raw FPS terms (I am not talking about pointless Heaven results here but actual games).

In gameplay terms I can see the benefits of a single high end GPU over multi GPU setups, but let's not get carried away.

It will all depend on the game used. On average looking through the review sites a 7970 is between 10-30% faster than a gtx580. Dave has an overclock of around 40% which from what i have seen does actually give around that in performance. So if we take the value of the review sites and add the 40% we have 50-70% faster than a gtx580. So depending on sli scaling there wont be much in it.

stellasuppa · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:18

hi are all the 7950,s the same size? i found that the vtx3d one is the same as a reference 6970 so it would fit in my little snug case

Locky · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:21

ALXAndy said:
Try reading what I said again without the green tinted shutter 3d glasses on.

So SLI wasn't working? was working but not very well? fine.

But under no circumstances should a £350 card EVER be able to beat a £600+ card.

Not in anything at any time.

I have and it's you that is talking out of your behind.

It does when the card only has 1 core working & a cheery picked benchmark to suite your argument.

dave_beast said:
But that's what sells cards, benches, and Heaven always used to be in bed with Nvidia, oh how times have-a-changed Wait till folks here start pushing their 7950's, the HD79** cards are beastly.

Wow a few weeks old card beats a over 1 year old card in a benchmark, cool

to be fair no one really cares about benchmarks, gaming is where it should be compared. And the story is much closer.

oweneades · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:23

TheRealDeal said:
It will all depend on the game used. On average looking through the review sites a 7970 is between 10-30% faster than a gtx580. Dave has an overclock of around 40% which from what i have seen does actually give around that in performance. So if we take the value of the review sites and add the 40% we have 50-70% faster than a gtx580. So depending on sli scaling there wont be much in it.

I agree in cases it might get near at a high enough OC (mine pushes 1200 for example) but in general it will still be behind assuming decent scaling on the GTX580SLI setup.

Now if we were to say GTX590 or HD6990 then we have a different story.

TheRealDeal · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:27

Locky said:
I have and it's you that is talking out of your behind.

It does when the card only has 1 core working & a cheery picked benchmark to suite your argument.

Wow a few weeks old card beats a over 1 year old card in a benchmark, cool

to be fair no one really cares about benchmarks, gaming is where it should be compared. And the story is much closer.

Thats funny as amd owners have been saying all along that game benchmarks were what it was all about. Nvidia owners for years have been bragging on about heaven and the super powerful tesselation that nvidia have. Now its nvidia owners going on about in game benchmarks as there cards are getting spanked.

Secret_Window · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:29

Locky said:
to be fair no one really cares about benchmarks, gaming is where it should be compared. And the story is much closer.

I for one can't stand benchmarks like 3d mark for measuring new cards performance - who buys cards just for that? I know some people do, but what an awful waste and way to use/test graphics cards other than to increase e-peen. I've seen it on some forums, people buying/adding new cards just to get better heaven benchmark scores and don't really do anything else with them. Shocking really. To each their own and all that I guess.

Locky · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:36

to be fair, there was a buzz about the place for getting the best benchmark scores on the forums, I think it's moved on from that now, and thankfully more focused on gaming ability.

xsistor · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:39

TheRealDeal said:
The fact that the gtx590 is faster than the gtx580 means that sli is working just not very good. I think we all agree that the 7950 is on par with a gtx580.

Atm amd dont really seem to be worried about what nvidia have now or in the near future. They can just about price the 7970 where they want as nvidia's cards cant compete. Nvidia are paying guys to spread rumours on forums which stinks of pure desperation and to me says there cards are coming in later than expected or there performance is not as good as people expect it to be.

As we can all see from the people who have 7970's, amd have plenty of performance left in the 7970/50 to counter what nvidia bring to the table.

No it doesn't. It shows identical average FPS with 2 FPS more in min FPS -- And you can't regard that as anything other than experimental error when the difference is that small. It clearly shows SLI is not working -- working/working well these are just semantics. Bottomline is that the benchmark is a poor example because it is not indicative of 590 performance.

edit: yes we can agree they're on par and priced accordingly... But given that it's a 28nm and the new higher end, coming out an year later, it is disappointing. I sure hope Kepler isn't as disappointing or I will see no reason to upgrade. And I would really like to upgrade. Not so much because I need it but because I like upgrading.

xsistor · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:40

Secret_Window said:
I for one can't stand benchmarks like 3d mark for measuring new cards performance - who buys cards just for that? I know some people do, but what an awful waste and way to use/test graphics cards other than to increase e-peen. I've seen it on some forums, people buying/adding new cards just to get better heaven benchmark scores and don't really do anything else with them. Shocking really. To each their own and all that I guess.

Synthetic benchmarks are very useful when they are representative of expected average performance in games -- a standard they strive to attain. But they are of very little use when there is a big gulf between performance in synthetics and actual games. Which is often the case with 7900 series.

ALXAndy · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:41

Locky said:
It does when the card only has 1 core working & a cheery picked benchmark to suite your argument.

And if you were capable of reading the thread you would have noticed that it was done in jest in response to some Nvidia fanboys posting one benchmark and then claiming that the 7950 was no better than the 580.

However, you didn't, did you?

But go on then, I'll humour you. Why, given that it has two cores that are individually slower than the 580 was the 590 faster?

I'd put those green tinted specs back on if I were you.

xsistor said:
Bottomline is that the benchmark is a poor example because it is not indicative of 590 performance.

It's the perfect example. It's the perfect example of what happens when you make a card that is purely, 100% going to be judged on drivers for its overall performance.

As I said earlier. Under no circumstances at all, at any time, should a £350 single GPU card be able to beat it. But "response to stupid cherry picking" aside it has pointed that out.

TheRealDeal · 31 Jan 2012 at 19:49

xsistor said:
No it doesn't. It shows identical average FPS with 2 FPS more in min FPS -- And you can't regard that as anything other than experimental error when the difference is that small. It clearly shows SLI is not working -- working/working well these are just semantics. Bottomline is that the benchmark is a poor example because it is not indicative of 590 performance.

edit: yes we can agree they're on par and priced accordingly... But given that it's a 28nm and the new higher end, coming out an year later, it is disappointing. I sure hope Kepler isn't as disappointing or I will see no reason to upgrade. And I would really like to upgrade. Not so much because I need it but because I like upgrading.

I know what you are saying about this not being a great example but you are still wrong on the sli not working point. Sli scaling is around 25% in this benchmark as a single gtx590 core is clocked around 25% lower than a stock gtx580.

Marine-RX179 · 31 Jan 2012 at 20:37

ALXAndy said:
And if you were capable of reading the thread you would have noticed that it was done in jest in response to some Nvidia fanboys posting one benchmark and then claiming that the 7950 was no better than the 580.

Like it or not, the truth is that both 69xx and 79xx DOES suffer huge performance hit when MSAA applied on the Frostbite2 game engine. The issue is real, and has nothing to do with what Nvidia has to offer on the other side of the fence.

Prices for the new cards are too expensive. Getting a 7950 now comparing to the GTX580 which is available since over a year ago would be a bit like...how should I put it...yes... had AMD launched Phenom II X4 955/965 without waving the big "budget build flag" and priced it as high as Q9550/Q9650 which available since a year earlier and becoming EOL by the time Phenom II X4 launch, would people have gone for the Phenom II X4 instead of going for i5 750/i7 920?

Faster than the GTX580 the 7950 might be, but the margin is so small and it still put them as same level/rank cards. What people are not impressed with the 7950 is that it is only offering pretty much similar performance to something that priced the same and was available and sold since over a year ago. Nvidia and AMD card owners alike agree on this, so STOP calling ANYONE that has anything negative in slightest said about the new AMD cards Nvidia fanboys, as you are just making yourself out to be a crazed AMD fanboy.

Secret_Window · 31 Jan 2012 at 21:11

Marine-RX179 said:
Like it or not, the truth is that both 69xx and 79xx DOES suffer huge performance hit when MSAA applied on the Frostbite2 game engine. The issue is real, and has nothing to do with what Nvidia has to offer on the other side of the fence.

Prices for the new cards are too expensive. Getting a 7950 now comparing to the GTX580 which is available since over a year ago would be a bit like...how should I put it...yes... had AMD launched Phenom II X4 955/965 without waving the big "budget build flag" and priced it as high as Q9550/Q9650 which available since a year earlier and becoming EOL by the time Phenom II X4 launch, would people have gone for the Phenom II X4 instead of going for i5 750/i7 920?

Faster than the GTX580 the 7950 might be, but the margin is so small and it still put them as same level/rank cards. The thing that people are not impressed about the 7950 is that it is only offering pretty much similar performance to something that priced the same and was available and sold since over a year ago. Nvidia and AMD card owners alike agree on this, so STOP calling ANYONE that has anything negative in slightest said about the new AMD cards Nvidia fanboys, as you are just making yourself out to be a crazed AMD fanboy.

Agreed. I like both brands and I have bought my even share from both ATI and Nvidia over the years and so have many other people. It's unfair and uncalled for him to label everyone an Nvidia fanboy who doesn't think much to the 79xx series or its pricing. But I do admire his passion and loyalty, bless him.

What I think you've misunderstood ALXAndy is that most people were hoping for this to be a really noticeable improvement over last gen cards, and to also be priced in a more competitive manner against Nvidia's offerings. Instead it only appears to be slightly faster, and they priced the 79xx cards similarly to the Nvidia's 580 cards, keeping it in the same 'silly' price/performance ratio bracket as Nvidia's. Nivida may have fooled some people into their cards at those prices first, but people are not stupid enough to fall for it the second time from AMD.

Gregster · 31 Jan 2012 at 21:17

Secret_Window said:
most people were hoping for this to be a really noticeable improvement over last gen cards, and to also be priced in a more competitive manner against Nvidia's offerings. Instead it only appears to be slightly faster, and they priced the 79xx cards similarly to the Nvidia's 580 cards, keeping it in the same 'silly' price/performance ratio bracket as Nvidia's. Nivida may have fooled some people into their cards at those prices first, but people are not stupid enough to fall for it the second time from AMD.

This I totaly agree with.