• 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.

** Single, Dual & Triple Card 7970 - BATTLEFIELD 3 - HIGH RESOLUTION BENCHMARKS **

rjkoneill said:
Yo!
System was quiet using a single card and fairly quiet using two cards but very loud with three cards.
being used to water-cooled graphics cards, I was shocked at how quiet the stock cooler is. I really like the way that the idle cards turn off when on desktop too.
That, is smart.
Click to expand...

thankyou thankyou sir!!!

Thats it - i'm selling the 580GTX waterblock I've got sat here and buying one of these babies!!! noise is everything to me!!
 
erm at 1080p a 6970 get same or higher than single card in your benchie :confused: using same settings.

i know its low res for these cards but that is lower performance than i thought tbh
 
tri-fire scaling seems quite impressive.

It also seems as if there is some CPU-limitation on the tri-fire benchmark (the max, min and average framerates all bunch up), even at 2560 res!

I don't know what speed you're running the Xeon, but if there is any overclocking headroom then it might be interesting to re-run the tri-fire benchmark :)
 
Duff-Man said:
tri-fire scaling seems quite impressive.

It also seems as if there is some CPU-limitation on the tri-fire benchmark (the max, min and average framerates all bunch up), even at 2560 res!

I don't know what speed you're running the Xeon, but if there is any overclocking headroom then it might be interesting to re-run the tri-fire benchmark :)
Click to expand...

CPU at 3.4GHz, does not support overclocking, but it will do. :)

Yes a 5GHz SB would give better results.
 
The majority of people that would want to move to this kind of config would want 60+ fps in BF3 with all the candy turned on @ 2560 x 1600. What I find interesting is that whilst these specs are reasonable, the relative cost is going to be the major contributing factor. Anyone that's currently running at 2560 x 1600 already (probably) has at least SLi 470/480's or a GTX 580. When you consider that these benches are only a few FPS faster than SLi 580's at this res you've got to wonder who's going to move to CF 7970's when the potential for them is to be *at least* £250-£300 more expensive than the Nvidia option. (I'm talking 2 x 7970's vs 2 x GTX 580's 3GB, and that's even before Nvidia potentially price cuts to compete with AMD after the 9th Jan).

In my case I was hoping for seriously faster performance in which case I would have gone for CF 7970's the day they were released and sold my 1.5G GTX 580 - as it stands I'm looking to leverage my existing card until Kepler comes out. Disappointed.
 
Last edited:
i run a GTX 590 at 2560X 1600

using all the settings as above but with HBAO off and 2X aa and 2X af

this card is about equal to it performance wise, the 590 does pip it slightly though.
 
rjkoneill said:
i run a GTX 590 at 2560X 1600

using all the settings as above but with HBAO off and 2X aa and 2X af

this card is about equal to it performance wise, the 590 does pip it slightly though.
Click to expand...

So a 7970 overclocked (too the limits within Overdrive) is more or less matching a GTX 590 a dual GPU card. I'd say pretty good result. :)
 
ok just done same 1080 settings fps was 36 avg (6950@6970) not overclocked would be about same with a decent oc

same map all on max

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2140, 60000, 30, 52, 36.011

so its basically same as a 580 gtx at 1080p in bf3

someone with a 580 gtx bench it i bet its almost identical to the new card at 1080p

just done again with small oc

900/1400

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
2343, 60000, 29, 89, 39.050
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom