[PCGH.de] Titan sli Vs 7970 Toxic cf - Page 19 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:02 AM
3.5ghz
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumo841 View Post

Why are people so admittedly defending the Titan...it got beat.

they are "insulted", thats all thumb.gif
HAVO is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:04 AM
Overclocker
 
Domino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canoodle
Posts: 10,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 247
Send a message via Skype™ to Domino
Quote:
Originally Posted by HAVO View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumo841 View Post

Why are people so admittedly defending the Titan...it got beat.

they are "insulted", thats all thumb.gif

They are. It's like Fermi and the user "300" all over again.
Domino is offline  
post #183 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:07 AM
slow TSMC = more telescopes
 
Alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 16,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Send a message via Skype™ to Alatar
Quote:
I can do that too (Click to show)






http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/02/21/nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-6gb-review/3

Quote:
Originally Posted by HAVO View Post

they are "insulted", thats all thumb.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

They are. It's like Fermi and the user "300" all over again.

Or maybe people are pointing out obvious flaws in the review while people who do not know what they're talking about when it comes to the titan are saying that people with better knowledge on the subject are just being defensive and mad.

Just saying, would you guys compare a say 1230MHz 680 lightning to a 925MHz 7970. I wouldn't and I doubt you would either.
Alatar is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #184 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:11 AM
Programmer
 
bencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

I can do that too

You can do what? confused.gif

I presented you a review with stock vs stock since you are complaining about an overclocked card that cost $600-$400 less.

I am not trying to have a fanboy war.

I am just trying to be reasonable and trying to understand why you defend titan so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Just saying, would you guys compare a say 1230MHz 680 lightning to a 925MHz 7970. I wouldn't and I doubt you would either.

Why not?

They are within the same price margin.

There is no way a $400 - $600 card should be able to compete with a $1000 card.
bencher is offline  
post #185 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:14 AM
 
Raptorpowa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
When TR did a review on amd framerates a lot of amd resisted even saying that the review is bogus....it turned out that TR is right on and amd even admitted they are wrong and went ahead and gradually fixed the latency issue....now this review is being resisted by titan users trying to justify the damage it did on their pocket for mediocre sli performance....It's too early to tell but I'm hoping nvidia will sort out the sli scaling issue...it could be that the review is bogus as well.....
Raptorpowa is offline  
post #186 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:14 AM
Graphics Card Aficionado
 
tsm106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Goin back to Cali
Posts: 21,555
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1381
^^You have that wrong. TR was putting forth a conspiracy that AMD had been trading latency for fps, but that is just not so. It was a problem with one specific set of beta drivers. If you had followed their site you'd see that previous to that review there was nothing that stood out that merited their stance in that review. So you have to wonder why suddenly now its a personal issue and not a technical issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

Or maybe people are pointing out obvious flaws in the review while people who do not know what they're talking about when it comes to the titan are saying that people with better knowledge on the subject are just being defensive and mad.

Just saying, would you guys compare a say 1230MHz 680 lightning to a 925MHz 7970. I wouldn't and I doubt you would either.


Oh like you guys weren't all over the TR review with the Amp 660ti? Oh it's what the cards came stock... repeat rinse.

tsm106 is offline  
post #187 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:15 AM
Case Modder
 
Ashuiegi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 1,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 40
look at his build spec and you will understand

Ashuiegi is offline  
post #188 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:16 AM
slow TSMC = more telescopes
 
Alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 16,905
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Send a message via Skype™ to Alatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bencher View Post

You can do what? confused.gif

I can present a review that paints the card in a light that I might want. The graphs on the bsn review don't really convey much difference at all while the opposite is true of the bit-tech review.
Quote:
I am just trying to be reasonable and trying to understand why you defend titan so much.

I'm trying to get people to understand why a review is flawed and why the info they have is wrong if they actually think this review is representative. I defend any piece of hardware that gets reviewed unfairly. I bashed the teksyndicate 8350 vs. 3570K reviews because they were full of errors, I discredit this one because it doesn't show a realistic representation of titan and it does that for no reason etc.

Flawed reviews are flawed, there is no NV favoritism in saying that Titans do not run at 867MHz.
Alatar is offline  
post #189 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:17 AM
Mouse Aficionado
 
Arizonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arizona - United States
Posts: 10,562
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 313
This thread should be about the comparison of the cards in this review itself which results were obtained by restricting one card and over clocking the other. rolleyes.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post

I'm trying to get Karlitos to make a 5760x1080 version of his Valley benchmark thread, or I'll just make my own. Everyone brings their max clocks, then we see how things pan out instead of these silly reviews. wink.gif

This would be interesting and a good idea. thumb.gif Only let's not drag anyone else as OP into it.....unless it's yourself. tongue.gif



Words, debates are fun but if your a bencher......The real battlefield gentlemen.

*OFFICIAL* Top 30 Heaven Benchmark 4.0 Scores
Top 30 3DMark11 score list single/dual/tri/quad
[OFFICIAL]--- Top 30 --- Unigine 'Valley' Benchmark 1.0


If your a gamer, In the end.....who cares? If your happy with your set up regardless of price when either choice has maxed FPS beyond monitor benefits. smile.gif
Arizonian is online now  
post #190 of 666 Old 03-10-2013, 11:20 AM
Programmer
 
bencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

I can present a review that paints the card in a light that I might want. The graphs on the bsn review don't really convey much difference at all while the opposite is true of the bit-tech review.
I'm trying to get people to understand why a review is flawed and why the info they have is wrong if they actually think this review is representative. I defend any piece of hardware that gets reviewed unfairly. I bashed the teksyndicate 8350 vs. 3570K reviews because they were full of errors, I discredit this one because it doesn't show a realistic representation of titan and it does that for no reason etc.

Flawed reviews are flawed, there is no NV favoritism in saying that Titans do not run at 867MHz.

The review doesn't paints the card in a good light. it is common knowledge that titan isn't much faster than a 7970GE.


No need to pain it in a light as I do not own either. i buy value for money which is why i have a 7870.

You can discredit this review while I lolz.

They should have never compared a $2000 gpu setup to a $800-$1200 gpu setup.

That's the only error I see.

That's all i have for today on this review.
bencher is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off