Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

7850x2 Destroying GTX 680 in 3dmark11?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 3:49:47 AM

I just ran my first benchmark with my new build on 3dmark11 and I was really interested in my graphics score of 10147 (http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5527504) and wanted to compared it to some other cards so I went to the search function and chose my CPU and a different card I just chose the GTX 680 randomly and I saw that my cards destroy its score of 9596 and why I say destroy is because my cards have very large OC Headroom which I can use to get as much as 30% increase in FPS now my question is why does a 2 mid end cards like my own beat a very high end card in benchmarks and according to benchmarks in games aswell and I know some people that crossfire is crap and unreliable and that what I thought before I actually tried crossfire and I can run all of my 80+ games on steam fine at highest settings with no driver issues.

Anyways back to the point why are these mid end cards beating high end cards?
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:05:27 AM

goldsauce said:
I just ran my first benchmark with my new build on 3dmark11 and I was really interested in my graphics score of 10147 (http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5527504) and wanted to compared it to some other cards so I went to the search function and chose my CPU and a different card I just chose the GTX 680 randomly and I saw that my cards destroy its score of 9596 and why I say destroy is because my cards have very large OC Headroom which I can use to get as much as 30% increase in FPS now my question is why does a 2 mid end cards like my own beat a very high end card in benchmarks and according to benchmarks in games aswell and I know some people that crossfire is crap and unreliable and that what I thought before I actually tried crossfire and I can run all of my 80+ games on steam fine at highest settings with no driver issues.

Anyways back to the point why are these mid end cards beating high end cards?


Because the 680 is a joke? Seriously idk why you are surprised. 7850 CF is slightly stronger than a stock 7970 GHz and the 7970 Ghz is a tier above the 680.

FYI in Ugine Heaven my 7970 scores 40% higher than a stock 670. I don't make the prices people buy these things at, but I will laugh at their decisions!
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:09:31 AM

Two mid-end cards often best a single GPU high-end card. For example, two Radeon 6850s generally beat the Radeon 6970, two Radeon 5830s generally beat a Radeon 5870, and the list goes on. The same is true for Nvidia: tow GTX 660s generally beat a GTX 680, two GTX 560s generally beat a GTX 580, two GTX 460s generally beat a GTX 480, etc. It's quite normal.
Score
0
Related resources
January 11, 2013 4:11:46 AM

Nvidia has always had top notch driver support. But I do like the 7970 at the price. Nvidia definitely has some advantages over AMD and vice versa. And who wouldn't expect two 7850's to out perform a 680 lol! I have a 680, love it! I can overclock the crap out of it!
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:14:48 AM

MANOFKRYPTONAK said:
Nvidia has always had top notch driver support. But I do like the 7970 at the price. Nvidia definitely has some advantages over AMD and vice versa. And who wouldn't expect two 7850's to out perform a 680 lol! I have a 680, love it! I can overclock the crap out of it!


At stock, two 7850s generally best the 680 somewhat. With overclocking, the gap increases. The 680 has a lot of overclocking headroom, but not as much as two 7850s.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:19:58 AM

I spent around $350 in total on both of these 7850s because I bought them when they were on sale and they are performing better than a $600~ GTX 680! It look's like I suddenly like AMD more now.
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:24:31 AM

goldsauce said:
I spent around $350 in total on both of these 7850s because I bought them when they were on sale and they are performing better than a $600~ GTX 680! It look's like I suddenly like AMD more now.


GTX 680 is suppose to cost around $450 right now. Still, I feel the same way about the Radeon 7850. It was my first card used out of the Radeon 7000/GTX 600 generation and my favorite for overclocking (7850 beats just about everything other than the Radeon 7950 when it comes to overclocking headroom).
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:33:32 AM

goldsauce said:
I spent around $350 in total on both of these 7850s because I bought them when they were on sale and they are performing better than a $600~ GTX 680! It look's like I suddenly like AMD more now.

Consider this: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
And this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...

I'd rather have a single 680, and where are you from that has 680's at $600?
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:35:27 AM

bystander said:
Consider this: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
And this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...

I'd rather have a single 680, and where are you from that has 680's at $600?


Actually, thanks to the new RadeonPro tool, AMD has less stutter in Crossfire with current drivers than Nvidia has with SLI. Tom's did a much more recent article that involved it with the Radeon 7990 versus the GTX 690 where the 7990s came off as the performance winners, but the 690 won overall due to it not having out of control power consumption.

Furthermore, that TechReport aritcle only tested a few games, making it statistically less useful despite having an arguably superior method of measuring performance. It also doesn't include overclocking well, something that AMD has Nvdia beat badly in.


Still, agreed on how the price given by OP for GTX 680 is inaccurate.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:37:39 AM

blazorthon said:
Actually, thanks to the new RadeonPro tool, AMD has less stutter in Crossfire with current drivers than Nvidia has with SLI. Tom's did a much more recent article that involved it with the Radeon 7990 versus the GTX 690 where the 7990s came off as the performance winners, but the 690 won overall due to it not having out of control power consumption.

Furthermore, that TechReport aritcle only tested a few games, making it statistically less useful despite having an arguably superior method of measuring performance. It also doesn't include overclocking well, something that AMD has Nvdia beat badly in.


But as they mentioned, it's a pain in the butt to use and set up for each and every game. To each their own.
Score
0
a c 106 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:39:10 AM

bystander said:
Consider this: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
And this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...

I'd rather have a single 680, and where are you from that has 680's at $600?



to play devils advocate and argue for the other side, AMD is currently attempting to adress the issue, and latency problems can be fixed by tech savy users who know how to set profiles with radeon pro producing graphs similar to this


but, if i had a choice, i would go 680 just to avoid and complications. Xfire/sli is usually there for people who already have the gpu already and wants more power for the cost(like my situation i guess, being a 7850 owner)
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:39:28 AM

bystander said:
Consider this: http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
And this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-stut...

I'd rather have a single 680, and where are you from that has 680's at $600?


Australia you can get good MSI or EVGA 680s for $600 but other brands for $550 also I have tried 95% of my 80 games on steam and they all work perfectly fine with no stutter it seems that crossfire is really getting better since the newest drivers (12.11 Beta 11)
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:41:29 AM

goldsauce said:
Australia you can get good MSI or EVGA 680s for $600 but other brands for $550 also I have tried 95% of my 80 games on steam and they all work perfectly fine with no stutter it seems that crossfire is really getting better since the newest drivers (12.11 Beta 11)


Oh yeah, I forgot how the Tech Report tests are ten driver versions out of date for Catalyst 12.11.

Still, I'll agree on to each his/her own for RadeonPro.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:41:35 AM

goldsauce said:
Australia you can get good MSI or EVGA 680s for $600 but other brands for $550 also I have tried 95% of my 80 games on steam and they all work perfectly fine with no stutter it seems that crossfire is really getting better since the newest drivers (12.11 Beta 11)


The first link (when it fully works), was tested with those drivers. They are still problematic.

Not everyone really notices it, but most wouldn't notice the differences of a score of 9600 and 10500 either.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:42:55 AM

blazorthon said:
Oh yeah, I forgot how the Tech Report tests are ten driver versions out of date for Catalyst 12.11.

Still, I'll agree on to each his/her own for RadeonPro.


It wasn't out of date though:
Quote:
We're also quite confident the problem isn't confined to a single set of drivers. You see, this article has had a long and difficult history; it was initially conceived as an update comparing Catalyst 12.8 and 12.11 beta drivers. However, driver updates from AMD and Nvidia, along with some additional game releases, caused us to start testing over again last week. I can tell you that we've seen the same spiky frame time plots in most of these games from three separate revisions of AMD's drivers—and, yes, Catalyst 12.11 is an improvement over 12.8, all told, even if it doesn't resolve the latency issues.


NOTE: these are tested with single cards, not in crossfire. Radeon pro doesn't help out single card in microstuttering. Though the OP does have crossfire, so he could mess with it if he wishes.
Score
0
a c 106 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:44:35 AM

bystander said:
The first link (when it fully works), was tested with those drivers. They are still problematic.

Not everyone really notices it, but most wouldn't notice the differences of a score of 9600 and 10500 either.



to play devils advocate again, not everyone notices the frame latency problem that tr had gone in realtime gameplay. even when the two gameplay videos* was reviewed side by side, just about everyone could agree, when slowed down, both stuttered none the less.
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:45:37 AM

bystander said:
It wasn't out of date though:
Quote:
We're also quite confident the problem isn't confined to a single set of drivers. You see, this article has had a long and difficult history; it was initially conceived as an update comparing Catalyst 12.8 and 12.11 beta drivers. However, driver updates from AMD and Nvidia, along with some additional game releases, caused us to start testing over again last week. I can tell you that we've seen the same spiky frame time plots in most of these games from three separate revisions of AMD's drivers—and, yes, Catalyst 12.11 is an improvement over 12.8, all told, even if it doesn't resolve the latency issues.


NOTE: these are tested with single cards, not in crossfire. Radeon pro doesn't help out single card in microstuttering. Though the OP does have crossfire, so he could mess with it if he wishes.


It used the original Catalyst 12.11. There have been ten releases of it since then, some of which more impacting than the original compared to Catalyst 12.8. I make no guarantees of that shifting the winner in the few gaming situations tested by Tech Report in that article, but it is enough to question the relevance of that review (and just about all others) with current drivers.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:52:38 AM

blazorthon said:
It used the original Catalyst 12.11. There have been ten releases of it since then, some of which more impacting than the original compared to Catalyst 12.8. I make no guarantees of that shifting the winner in the few gaming situations tested by Tech Report in that article, but it is enough to question the relevance of that review (and just about all others) with current drivers.

So you are saying that they finally fixed it after several years of saying they were going to fix it, with in one of the latest beta versions? You may be stretching here. It is possible, but given the track record, it is highly unlikely.

I'm also not saying that it is a terrible card, just that I'll stick with Nvidia atm and I'd certainly choose a single card over CF for similar performance. I do notice latency issues. I get nauseated from it. I didn't always know that this was the cause, but I learned this in the last couple years. While I do not always notice every microstutter, it does cause me nausea, and so does poor latency in general.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:56:51 AM

Just dumping some photos here as requested by someone that just messaged me 10 minutes ago.

My Rig:

Have not gotten to cable management yet but will do in the near future or when I have time:
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 4:58:19 AM

goldsauce said:
Just dumping some photos here as requested by someone that just messaged me 10 minutes ago.

My Rig: http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/553278_430238937047241_511636533_n.jpg

Have not gotten to cable management yet but will do in the near future or when I have time: http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/537254_430238950380573_1757743233_n.jpg


Looks nice. If you can, run those cables behind the motherboard, assuming your case lets you remove the back panel.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 5:03:33 AM

bystander said:
Looks nice. If you can, run those cables behind the motherboard, assuming your case lets you remove the back panel.


I will probably try but I don't know I have never been good with cable management its my least favorite part of building computers :lol: 
Score
0
a c 106 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 5:08:16 AM

goldsauce said:
I will probably try but I don't know I have never been good with cable management its my least favorite part of building computers :lol: 



i can agree that its one of the legnthier parts and where people need to get better at after playing with different cases. had to wire my old rosewill future gaming, then switched it into a xclio touch 767(then rewire older case for my friend.) and recently wired up a NZXT phantom full tower for my friend. im getting better at it, but still, i need work.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 5:29:32 AM

Another thing, in GPU-Z I can only see the GPU Usage from my 1st card, my 2nd card does not show gpu usage.

Is the 1st cards reported GPU Usage counted as both of them combined?
Score
0
a c 271 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 5:36:30 AM

bystander said:
So you are saying that they finally fixed it after several years of saying they were going to fix it, with in one of the latest beta versions? You may be stretching here. It is possible, but given the track record, it is highly unlikely.

I'm also not saying that it is a terrible card, just that I'll stick with Nvidia atm and I'd certainly choose a single card over CF for similar performance. I do notice latency issues. I get nauseated from it. I didn't always know that this was the cause, but I learned this in the last couple years. While I do not always notice every microstutter, it does cause me nausea, and so does poor latency in general.


I can't say that I've seen any fixes advertised in the last seven days or so.
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14814/

I guess it's still a work in progress.
Score
0
January 11, 2013 5:43:15 AM

Oh and with my reference 680 I score around 10700 on 3dmark11 performance. Just ran it! I love it with my 2600, I have my cpu running at 4.7 GHZ and my 680 OC, they are well matched. So yeah a 7850 CF doesnt really beat or destroy a 680 now does it?
Score
0
January 11, 2013 5:46:06 AM

For the record I just ran it, about 15 minutes ago.
Score
0
a c 171 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 5:50:59 AM

2x 7850's beat the gtx680 in benchmarks, but they dont beat it in frame latency or frame consistancy, or games that dont like crossfire.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 6:52:48 AM

Frame latency is something that needs to be tested more as it give a much bigger picture.

I would never advocate xfire on these new cards. It never got really smooth despite the framerate making the 120hz screen I was using pointless.

I'll take my one 670 anyday
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 7:44:46 AM

bishopi5 said:
i cant believe he thinks 3dmark score counts.... i had 2x 7870's CF has a score of 14888+ every time... But my 680 absolutely destroys it in games... lolllllllll


Why would you go from 2x 7870s to a GTX 680? It sounds like someone is lying considering 2x 7870s would destroy a single 680.


7870 CF





7850 CF with small overclock still beating the GTX 680





In conclusion both the 7850 and the 7870 will perform better in most cases according to most benchmarks and as far as I can tell from what I have heard the 7870 handles crossfire fine and my 7850 handles crossfire great

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 8:33:32 AM

Just an update, after overclocking these cards from 860mhz on the core to a stable 1000mhz I was able to achieve the graphics score of 11155 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5529226
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:22:41 PM

goldsauce said:
Just an update, after overclocking these cards from 860mhz on the core to a stable 1000mhz I was able to achieve the graphics score of 11155 (http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5529226)


If you'd stop putting parenthesis around your links, we could click them.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:32:55 PM

Mousemonkey said:
I can't say that I've seen any fixes advertised in the last seven days or so.
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14814/

I guess it's still a work in progress.


This would be great if they fix it. The one thing I find odd about it, is they are blaming this on not rewriting the code for the new hardware. This kind of assumes that the old hardware would have worked well with the drivers it had, yet it was even worse.

Anyways, I do hope they fix it. It would be great if they did, though it won't help me, as I am stuck with Nvidia due to 3D Vision.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:33:08 PM

bystander said:
If you'd stop putting parenthesis around your links, we could click them.


Sorry, I fixed it.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:35:22 PM

goldsauce said:
Sorry, I fixed it.


That graphics score is about 10-12% faster than my 680 at it's factory OC level. It's actually about the same as when I OC'ed my 680.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:37:40 PM

bystander said:
That graphics score is about 10-12% faster than my 680 at it's factory OC level. It's actually about the same as when I OC'ed my 680.


Yes, although you have 680 SLI which is godly :D , oh and I am holding off on that OC, I can reach 1150 Stable Core on them.
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:39:39 PM

Whoops, wrong score, that was of some 6950s. lol.

The highest 680 was about 10300.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/3488881

So your cards are OC'ed to about 8% higher than my 680.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:45:48 PM

bystander said:
Whoops, wrong score, that was of some 6950s. lol.

The highest 680 was about 10300.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/3488881

So your cards are OC'ed to about 8% higher than my 680.


Pretty good, I've seen a lot of 680s that get 9500 so 10300 must be very good :D .

Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:49:47 PM

The point of this thread is? :)  we all know to read reviews
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 1:53:30 PM

crisan_tiberiu said:
The point of this thread is? :)  we all know to read reviews


A lot of people feel that hearing it from other customers is more believable than hearing it from a sales representative.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 3:02:02 PM

This is just for all the other people thinking of getting a second 7850 and need some more benchmark differences.

My x2 HD 7850s Unigine Heaven Benchmark 3.0:



1 GTX 680 Unigine Heaven Benchmark 3.0:



As you can see the HD 7850s beat the GTX 680 by 34.2079%

I hope this helps some of you!
Score
0
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 3:16:30 PM

goldsauce said:
This is just for all the other people thinking of getting a second 7850 and need some more benchmark differences.

My x2 HD 7850s Unigine Heaven Benchmark 3.0:

http://i.imgur.com/cxsYC.png

1 GTX 680 Unigine Heaven Benchmark 3.0:

http://i.imgur.com/GST1K.png

As you can see the HD 7850s beat the GTX 680 by 34.2079%

I hope this helps some of you!


You didn't use the same settings. He had 8x AA on, you did not.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 3:20:52 PM

Agreed. Thats the same as my 670 gets with 8xAA.

No way that is legitimate
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 3:51:35 PM

do you have the 2gb or 1gb 7850's? i wonder what the ppf is now that the prices has come down?
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 3:55:54 PM

The benches say Radeon 7800 series 1024Mb (they should say 1024MiB or at least say 1024MB, not 1024Mb, but w/e).
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 5:10:27 PM

dudewitbow said:
to play devils advocate again, not everyone notices the frame latency problem that tr had gone in realtime gameplay. even when the two gameplay videos* was reviewed side by side, just about everyone could agree, when slowed down, both stuttered none the less.


When I had two 6950's in crossfire I noticed a little micro-stuttering when the FPS was below 40. However it never felt as bad as half the framerate and my movements were still smooth (Unlike 20 FPS where you have jerky movements).
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 6:21:33 PM

bystander said:
You didn't use the same settings. He had 8x AA on, you did not.


I just ran the benchmarks with my 7970 and I got 78 FPS without AA and 62 FPS with x8. So I beat his 7850's by ~12% and the 680 by ~25%! Either way I win! :p 
Score
0
a c 171 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 7:28:34 PM

goldsauce said:
This is just for all the other people thinking of getting a second 7850 and need some more benchmark differences.

My x2 HD 7850s Unigine Heaven Benchmark 3.0:

http://i.imgur.com/cxsYC.png

1 GTX 680 Unigine Heaven Benchmark 3.0:

http://i.imgur.com/GST1K.png

As you can see the HD 7850s beat the GTX 680 by 34.2079%

I hope this helps some of you!


this is what happens in crossfire, huge frame variations. So just because its running at whatever FPS, the different render times of each frame are very inconsistant, making actual perceivable smoothness seem worse than a single card, regardless of what benchmarks tell you. I used to run crossfire 6850's which are technically faster in benchmarks than a single gtx660, but i can tell you the single gtx660 is very noticeably smoother in games. I wouldnt waste my time with crossfire again. I hope this helps some of you!
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 7:49:34 PM

^this. Not only frame rates but frame times
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
January 11, 2013 9:34:02 PM

That is not a problem with Crossfire. That is a problem with Radeon 6870 and 6850 and more accurately, with Crossfire on VLIW5 cards as a whole. VLIW4 cards such as the Radeon 6930, 6950, and 6970 fare much better and GCN based cards are even better. It might have something to do with how VLIW5 was a pretty old arch compared to Fermi, so it was less advanced. Anyone running Crossfire with 6850s or 6870s should consider an upgrade because those cards did not work well with it (the same was true for all of the other lower end Radeon 6000 and Radeon 5000 cards, I think think that Radeon 4000 was also poor about it).

If you want to complain about Crossfire in that way, then at least use a modern architecture in your example such as VLIW4 or even better, GCN. Heck, Tom's has reviews of that with VLIW4 cards, so IDK why you bothered to use that older review.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2013 1:08:45 AM

iam2thecrowe said:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/W/I/300546/original/HD6870_GTX560.png
this is what happens in crossfire, huge frame variations. So just because its running at whatever FPS, the different render times of each frame are very inconsistant, making actual perceivable smoothness seem worse than a single card, regardless of what benchmarks tell you. I used to run crossfire 6850's which are technically faster in benchmarks than a single gtx660, but i can tell you the single gtx660 is very noticeably smoother in games. I wouldnt waste my time with crossfire again. I hope this helps some of you!


That is actually a problem only with the 6850 and 6870 and another thing I know for a fact that my 7850s in crossfire would annihilate a GTX 660 in FPS and General performance.
Score
0
!