I was just browsing different reviews to try to get a sense of the tiers of Tahiti and Kepler based cards. I came across benches that showed some different info, and I can't really think of a reason why I might see such a large difference in numbers, unless AMD has made drastic driver improvements between May and June. Here is an example:
This is an excerpt from Chris Angelini's review of the GTX 670, and these numbers are pretty much what we would all expect:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-review,3200-7.html
Then 6 weeks later, Chris's review of the Ghz edition 7970:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html
What confuses me is how cards like the reference 680 show pretty much the same performance between reviews, but the reference 7970 has improved SIGNIFICANTLY in that 6 week period. Is that due strictly to driver improvements?! I didn't expect to see SO much difference between Catalyst 12.4 and 12.7, or is there something else that I'm missing?
This is an excerpt from Chris Angelini's review of the GTX 670, and these numbers are pretty much what we would all expect:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-review,3200-7.html
Then 6 weeks later, Chris's review of the Ghz edition 7970:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html
What confuses me is how cards like the reference 680 show pretty much the same performance between reviews, but the reference 7970 has improved SIGNIFICANTLY in that 6 week period. Is that due strictly to driver improvements?! I didn't expect to see SO much difference between Catalyst 12.4 and 12.7, or is there something else that I'm missing?