While it may not be as sexy as 3D performance, 2D rendering is still important. While there is a clear trend towards rendering 2D content using Microsoft’s more modern Direct2D API, it’s a safe bet that more than 90 percent of all applications in use today still rely on the drawing functionality provided by the older GDI (Graphics Device Interface) and GDI+. Most user interface elements, such as frames, buttons, and toolbars, are rendered using these components, though. Meanwhile, older programs created for very specific purposes rely completely on this rendering method for all of their 2D objects. That’s why we decided to test 2D performance as well.
Text Output
As in our Radeon HD 7970 coverage, the two Tahiti-based cards are the only ones that stumble with regard to direct (hardware-accelerated) output to the display, and not buffered and unaccelerated output in the form of a DIB (device-independent bitmap). It looks like nothing has changed in this metric since we tested with the launch driver.
Again, it’s unlikely that this score will result in a tangible real-world performance hit. However, it’s interesting that the older Radeons do a lot better. Our guess is that hardware acceleration for direct text rendering is still immature, since that score is even slower than the non-accelerated software solution using a DIB. Obviously, a little driver tweaking is in order, even if we're using the third driver revision seen since the 7970's debut.
The Radeon HD 7950 only achieves half of the text output of a Radeon HD 6970, putting it on par with the integrated GeForce 7025 GPU found in Nvidia's aging nForce 610i chipset.

Image Manipulation
Surprisingly, the Radeon HD 7950 is faster than the 7970 in our stretching test's direct output mode, reaching scores similar to those of the Radeon HD 6970. At the same time, we see that the cards perform better in software mode across the board.
Meanwhile, simple copy operations (blitting) show very little variation between cards, and only the GeForce GTX 580 is faster taking the direct route than using the detour through the buffer (a clear sign that hardware acceleration is being used more efficiently). Once again, AMD’s software implementation of this previously hardware-accelerated feature still needs some work.


Geometry Performance
Both the Radeon HD 7970 and 7950 fall behind by a small margin when drawing lines. The remainder of our benchmarks show all of the contenders performing quite similarly, though.
Both splines and rectangles are apparently accelerated quite well when they are rendered sequentially, since the direct output path is faster than the software version in either case. This performance delta is especially apparent in the triangles test. The exact opposite applies when it comes to drawing polygons, where buffered output is much higher.





AMD has certainly improved its drivers since the first time we took a closer look at 2D performance, though the Radeon HD 7900s continue falling behind previous-generation boards when tasked with hardware-accelerated text output, achieving half the performance of older cards. Stretching and drawing lines could also be faster on the new cards.
Now, in context, it’s unlikely that you’d notice any visible slow-downs in everyday tasks. The lower performance could become apparent when you move longer pieces of floating text in programs like Corel 14. The 2D situation is much-improved compared to what we saw when the Radeon HD 5870 launched, but it still needs some work.
- AMD's Tahiti Pro Goes Heads-Up With Nvidia's GF110
- Tessellation Performance And Audio Output
- Overclocking With XFX’s R7950 Black Edition
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- Benchmark Results: Crysis 2
- Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 3
- Benchmark Results: World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033
- Benchmark Results: Sandra 2012
- Benchmark Results: MediaEspresso 6.5 And LuxMark
- Benchmark Results: vReveal
- 2D Performance Via GDI And GDI+
- CrossFire And SLI: 3DMark 11
- CrossFire And SLI: Battlefield 3 And Crysis 2
- CrossFire And SLI: DiRT 3, Metro 2033, And LuxMark
- Power, Temperatures, And Noise
- CrossFire And SLI: Power Consumption And Noise
- One Year Later: A Great GeForce GTX 580 Alternative
Every rumor and leak I've seen so far on gk104 pricing seems to indicate otherwise...
http://www.guru3d.com/news/nvidia-gk104-kepler-gpu-priced-at-299-230-/
According to Nvidia's AIB partners the initial price set for the first gk104 based graphics card is $300. Of course this can go up or down based on the competition. Unfortunately, I have the feeling it'll be going up.
Congratulations. The 7950 narrowly beats a year old card and costs the exact same. No thanks, I'll wait on Kepler and then decide what to get once AMD puts down the pipe and has to get real on their prices. And I'm a proud owner of a 4870.
It does beat it, i can say it does.. My SC GTX580 was pulling around the same bandwidth as one they have here, i overclocked it and was getting almost 200GB's of bandwidth and was quite surprised i was able to push it and keep it like that with no trouble at all in any game i play and pretty much passed each stress test without any artifacts that i ran for hours. Headroom to OC differentiates from card to card, and nothing is guaranteed. But of course with 7950 im impressed it does very well even though the spec's on it look like it can run a marathon around the 580 with no trouble at all, but it does keep up with it and battle it out. I hope nvidia see's this as a threat and drops there price on the 580 so i can pick up another for around $400 =D Would make me very happy.
7950's power consumption in single and cfx mode are quite impressive.
i'll compare them to kepler when they come out and get tested.. right now, gcn high end looks much better than fermi high end (gpu compute, power efficiency etc).
amd's driver support seems inconsistent as usual... hopefully more mature drivers will bring out even more performance out of the gcn cards.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/his-radeon-hd-7950-review/25
As always good job Chris.
The editors at Guru3D perform their noise tests differently than most other sites. The cards are placed in a closed case and measurements are taken from a few feet back. These editors are also either partially deaf, or they just don't give a damn about excessive system noise. Honestly, I don't think they've ever knocked a card for being too loud, even the HD6990.
You are aware that the 7950 is not supposed to directly compete with the 580, right? The 7970 is supposed to beat the 580 and the 7950 is supposed to beat the 570. Just like how the 6970 is supposed to compete with the 580 and the 6950 is supposed to compete with the 570. The shear fact that the non flagship GPU beats the flagship GPU of your competitor is pretty awesome.
AMD has had plenty of time to play catch-up. It's not "pretty awesome" they leap-frogged Nvidia once again. It's a calculated move on AMD's part, for certain. A good one, but "pretty awesome" is very far from "standard dual-monopoly leap-frogging that's gone on since both companies started". Relax.
That said, I DO celebrate and find it ironic that AMDs 7950 is as flag-shippy whoop-ass as Nvidia's 7950 was in its day! I'm looking at my dead beast here right now. Miss you, 7950GT. I... I loved you. I can say that, now.
It is not pretty awesome that your next gen part that you priced slightly below the competitors flagship last gen part outperforms it in some tests. That is to be excepted. The 7950 is not against a gtx 570, its against a gtx670 which is not out yet, and will probably be replaced around the same price point as a 570 with a large performance increase over it, making buying a $450 7950 retarded; as such the 7950 will then get dropped to where the 6950 is now to be competitive.
Anyone who buys a 7950 before AMD at $450 is a chump. 30%+ price drop as soon as Nvidia releases its next gen.