Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7970?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 28, 2012 6:56:15 PM

hi,
just upgraded to a dual 7970 in cfx. Has anyone seen benchmarks for this hardware in crossfire?

I was told that a dual 7970 setup is just as powerful as a 690..

More about : 7970

July 28, 2012 8:01:40 PM

so these cards are just a good (give or take ..depending on the game) just as good as the 690?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 185 U Graphics card
July 28, 2012 8:54:09 PM

No not true dual 7970 in cfx would half to be overclocked to even be close to the 690 level but don't get me wrong the 7970 is a amazing beast of a card and should violently murder anything you throw at it lol also IMO the 690 is way over priced the GTX 670 and R7950 are best bang for buck right now the 690 & 680 and 7970 are overpriced IMO
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
July 28, 2012 9:43:20 PM

Kamen_BG said:
According to this article GTX 670 SLI = GTX 690 in terms of speed.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/39605-nvidia-gef...

And according to this article GTX 670 = HD 7970 in terms of speed.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-...

So if crossfire scales as well as SLI (It actually scales better in most games) then the HD 7970's will perform as well as a GTX 690
that makes sense to me to be honest i have not kept up on the latest i will look into more ;) 
m
0
l
August 4, 2012 2:39:53 AM

a friend of mine who is up to speed on everything said that having 2 7970's is just a good as having the 690.esp in eyefinity gaming which is what I will be doing. He said both together will perform as good if not better than 690. He also said that AMD's cfx is more refined than Nvidias and that wide screen gaming was done by AMD way before Nvidia. I dont know, thats what he was telling me. I was going to get the 690 but he said I would be doing just as good if not better with 2 7970's overclocked.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 3:36:43 PM

You might be i don't know honestly because i have not try either card yet so i am not sure if that fanboy talk or true but i do think your friend might be right.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 4:12:43 PM

Well i did some digging and turns out HardOCP has had some harsh criticism of Crossfire driver support over the past few months:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfire...

They've also written some interesting things about "smoothness" of gaming.
Quote:
SLI smoothness vs. CrossFireX smoothness
We don't know what other descriptive word to use, other than "smoothness" to describe the difference we feel between SLI and CrossFireX when we play games. We've expressed this difference in gameplay feeling between SLI and CrossFireX in the past, in other evaluations, and we have to bring it up again because it was very apparent during our testing of 680 SLI versus 7970 CFX.

We can't communicate to you "smoothness" in raw framerates and graphs. Smoothness, frame transition, and game responsiveness is the experience that is provided to you as you play. Perhaps it has more to do with "frametime" than it does with "framerate." To us it seems like SLI is "more playable" at lower framerates than CrossFireX is. For example, where we might find a game playable at 40 FPS average with SLI, when we test CrossFireX we find that 40 FPS doesn't feel as smooth and we have to target a higher average framerate, maybe 50 FPS, maybe 60 FPS for CrossFireX to feel like NVIDIA's SLI framerate of 40 FPS. Only real-world hands on gameplay can show you this, although we can communicate it in words to you. Even though this is a very subjective realm of reviewing GPUs, it is one we surely need to discuss with you.

The result of SLI feeling smoother than CrossFireX is that in real-world gameplay, we can get away with a bit lower FPS with SLI, whereas with CFX we have to aim a little higher for it to feel smooth. We do know that SLI performs some kind of driver algorithm to help smooth SLI framerates, and this could be why it feels so much better. Whatever the reason, to us, SLI feels smoother than CrossFireX.

Personally speaking here, when I was playing between GeForce GTX 680 SLI and Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX, I felt GTX 680 SLI delivered the better experience in every single game. I will make a bold and personal statement; I'd prefer to play games on GTX 680 SLI than I would with Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX after using both. For me, GTX 680 SLI simply provides a smoother gameplay experience. If I were building a new machine with multi-card in mind, SLI would go in my machine instead of CrossFireX. In fact, I'd probably be looking for those special Galaxy 4GB 680 cards coming down the pike. After gaming on both platforms, GTX 680 SLI was giving me smoother performance at 5760x1200 compared to 7970 CFX. This doesn't apply to single-GPU video cards, only between SLI and CrossFireX.
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_gef...
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 4:14:12 PM

As usual, making blanket statements about absolute performance figures is not really accurate, when performance depends on the game being played and other factors. The 7970 CF and GTX 690 are approximately equal.
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 4:20:20 PM

bigcyco1 said:
Well i did some digging and turns out HardOCP has had some harsh criticism of Crossfire driver support over the past few months:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfire...

They've also written some interesting things about "smoothness" of gaming.
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_gef...

Toms Hardware also noted this sensation of "smoothness" in their article about microstuttering. They were comparing 6870's vs 560's, but they noted:
"In this particular title, SLI doesn't scale as well as CrossFire, resulting in a lower average frame rate than two Radeon HD 6870s in CrossFire. The Radeons, however, suffer from visible micro-stuttering, while the slower GeForces subjectively seem to be faster due to the reduction of the phenomenon."
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...

So, similarly to the HardOCP article they report that you need to attain higher frameraes on a Crossfire setup in order to achieve the same sensation of smoothness in gaming as with SLI.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 5:18:42 PM

17seconds said:
As usual, making blanket statements about absolute performance figures is not really accurate, when performance depends on the game being played and other factors. The 7970 CF and GTX 690 are approximately equal.
I agree i have never try either card so only way i can help is by going by professional reviews :( 
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 5:24:16 PM

BigMack70 said:
Well instead of listening to HardOCP's unquantified "observations", you could always read a review that actually quantifies smoothness and finds 7970 CF (on older drivers mind you) to be about equal overall to the 690 - trading blows depending on the game:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22890/1

I can't stand reviewers that comment about things they didn't quantify, especially when it's not that difficult to do (check one extra box in FRAPS). Also, HardOCP's big article complaining about CF drivers was at launch. Now, there are still some problems with 7970 CF (Witcher 2 comes to my mind) but most of them have been fixed by now.
Yeah. I have been doing my homework on this subject and from what i gather the correct answer is they are both essentially the same in performance overall. Depending on which games you intend to play, one will perform better than the other. ;) 
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 5:38:21 PM

A couple reviews showing the gains with the 12.7 drivers. As usual, it depends on the game. Some games even lose performance. Apparently, the performance benefits only apply to the 7900 series cards. Of course, 5000 series support has been dropped, and 6900's do not gain much or lose performance from the new drivers.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/...
http://benchmark3d.com/amd-catalyst-12-6-whql-12-7-beta...
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 5:46:10 PM

17seconds said:
A couple reviews showing the gains with the 12.7 drivers. As usual, it depends on the game. Some games even lose performance. Apparently, the performance benefits only apply to the 7900 series cards. Of course, 5000 series support has been dropped, and 6900's do not gain much or lose performance from the new drivers.
http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/...
http://benchmark3d.com/amd-catalyst-12-6-whql-12-7-beta...
Interesting i always come across threads about these subjects and i find the info you provide great i have learn quite a few things from you :lol: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 7:24:47 PM

look at my last post ?
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 7:28:24 PM

gamerkila57 said:
look at my last post ?

Yep, it shows them trading off depending on the game.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 7:32:29 PM

yep for less and you can oc to make a big diff ?
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 7:42:52 PM

bigcyco1 said:
Interesting i always come across threads about these subjects and i find the info you provide great i have learn quite a few things from you :lol: 

I think it's important to keep things in perspective. These forums are rife with misinformation. People tend to read about an advantage here and there, and then magnify that difference into something that just isn't true. People tend to always seek the easy answer, but reality is more nuanced than that.

Some examples:
- Crossfire always scales better than SLI
- The 12.7 drivers always result in a win for the AMD card vs. the Nvidia card
- Kepler cards do not overclock
- Tahiti cards always beat the Nvidia card when both are overclocked
- Tahiti/Kepler cards always overclock well past 1300 mhz
- Tahiti cards always have a lot of overclocking headroom
- etc., I'm sure you can come up with some examples yourself
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:20:02 PM

17seconds said:
I think it's important to keep things in perspective. These forums are rife with misinformation. People tend to read about an advantage here and there, and then magnify that difference into something that just isn't true. People tend to always seek the easy answer, but reality is more nuanced than that.

Some examples:
- Crossfire always scales better than SLI
- The 12.7 drivers always result in a win for the AMD card vs. the Nvidia card
- Kepler cards do not overclock
- Tahiti cards always beat the Nvidia card when both are overclocked
- Tahiti/Kepler cards always overclock well past 1300 mhz
- Tahiti cards always have a lot of overclocking headroom
- etc., I'm sure you can come up with some examples yourself
Yeah i know what you mean. :)  And,the fanboys on either side don't help make it any less confusing they drive me nuts with their non sense lol.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:24:44 PM

yay i'm no fanboy ? :p 
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:26:55 PM

gamerkila57 said:
yay i'm no fanboy ? :p 
:lol:  good to know
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:27:49 PM

can't wait to see the the GTX 650, 660, and 660 Ti ?
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:29:02 PM

gamerkila57 said:
yay i'm no fanboy ? :p 

That's a statement I can agree with.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:31:20 PM

I am looking forward to seeing the 660 TI since i want to buy a card for my new rig i been building and can't afford a 670 or 7970 if the 660 TI doesn't out preform the 7950 i may go that route but i am waiting to see if prices might also drop when 660 TI is released.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:32:33 PM

17seconds said:
That's a statement I can agree with.

:pt1cable: 
m
0
l
a c 597 U Graphics card
August 4, 2012 8:54:02 PM

BigMack70 said:
Agree with everything but the OC headroom thing... If you can't say that Tahiti cards have a lot of OC headroom, then you can't say any GPU has a lot of OC headroom.

It's one of the best overclocking cards (or most stupidly underclocked card at stock?) I've seen in a long time, especially in the $400+ range. Outside of a few early reference board reviews, I really haven't heard of any 7970 that won't hit at least 1100 MHz stable. Granted, you can always get a dud that won't OC much, but doesn't that go without saying when you talk about overclocking?

I was mainly referring to the claims of the 7970/7950 consistently hitting 1300 mhz or above... which is crazy talk, yet it seems to pop up on a regular basis. I've seen it come close a few times in reviews, but overall the results tend to lean more towards those shown in this (again, sorry) Techpowerup review of the Gigabyte 7970 SOC. They got that massive overclocker-friendly card up to 1155 at stock voltage, which seems common for the 7970, then 1200 mhz at max 1.4 volts, but also really hot.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/HD_7970_SOC...


If I'm being objective, I see the 670/680 more consistently attaining that 1200 base clock level. I also don't think it's going out on a limb to suggest the Keplers, even ignoring the boost clocks, overclock to higher levels than the Tahitis, even without the voltage adjustments. Keeping consistent with Techpowerup, for example the KFA2 GTX 680 overclocked to 1240 mhz, with a boost of 1306 mhz. The chart on that page summarizes the results for other 680's, which are consistently higher than the similar chart on the 7970 SOC page.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_680_Limited...

Ultimately, I don't even think it's desirable to run your overvolted 7970 at 1250+ mhz, even presuming its capable. The heat and performance gains are not worth it for everyday use. E-peen only.
m
0
l
!