Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizonian 
You said the 7970 'destroys' the 680 at 5760 x 1200 yet the HardOCP benchmarks show actually 680 beating 7970. Albeit at stock vs stock. Ref vs Ref. I'm going to assume you meant IF one is using mods?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1253670/any-benchmarks-for-single-7970-680s-running-at-5760x1080/10#post_17578487
The Skyrim bench was done at 8xAA + FXAA + 16 xAF @ 5760x1200 with 680 getting 45.9 FPS vs 7970 getting 38.5 FPS. Both old drivers AMD with 3 month old drivers and Nvidia on luanch date, which only improved numbers for both with updated revisions.
Seems the 680 can run such resolution and at higher settings. You wording suggests that it's impractical when in fact HardOCP shown otherwise.
Wonder what the discrepancy is? (Other than mods with Skyrim). I'm going to assume since you made that comparison you've tried both, What is the FPS difference between the 7970 vs your 680? Without Mods and / or With?
As for BF3 running highest FXAA - 16 xAF @ 5760 x 1200 where the 680 gets 38.3 FPS and the 7970 gets 36.4 FPS. Your able to maintain 60 FPS on your 7970 with settings turned down. Again since your making that claim 'destroys' I'm assuming you tried it with both your 7970 & 680 and what was your FPS on those? Is the 680 not able to maintain 60 FPS with same settings turned down?
Just trying to figure out why HardOCP shows otherwise. Thier drivers were older for both Nvidia and AMD, that I did notice. Both have come out with newer drivers that improved FPS since yet the difference is closely proportional even if AMD is slightly ahead with improvements. Nvidia latest driver is still Beta also with improvements coming.
Destroys means by a lot. What was the FPS difference?
You said the 7970 'destroys' the 680 at 5760 x 1200 yet the HardOCP benchmarks show actually 680 beating 7970. Albeit at stock vs stock. Ref vs Ref. I'm going to assume you meant IF one is using mods?
http://www.overclock.net/t/1253670/any-benchmarks-for-single-7970-680s-running-at-5760x1080/10#post_17578487
The Skyrim bench was done at 8xAA + FXAA + 16 xAF @ 5760x1200 with 680 getting 45.9 FPS vs 7970 getting 38.5 FPS. Both old drivers AMD with 3 month old drivers and Nvidia on luanch date, which only improved numbers for both with updated revisions.
Seems the 680 can run such resolution and at higher settings. You wording suggests that it's impractical when in fact HardOCP shown otherwise.
Wonder what the discrepancy is? (Other than mods with Skyrim). I'm going to assume since you made that comparison you've tried both, What is the FPS difference between the 7970 vs your 680? Without Mods and / or With?
As for BF3 running highest FXAA - 16 xAF @ 5760 x 1200 where the 680 gets 38.3 FPS and the 7970 gets 36.4 FPS. Your able to maintain 60 FPS on your 7970 with settings turned down. Again since your making that claim 'destroys' I'm assuming you tried it with both your 7970 & 680 and what was your FPS on those? Is the 680 not able to maintain 60 FPS with same settings turned down?
Just trying to figure out why HardOCP shows otherwise. Thier drivers were older for both Nvidia and AMD, that I did notice. Both have come out with newer drivers that improved FPS since yet the difference is closely proportional even if AMD is slightly ahead with improvements. Nvidia latest driver is still Beta also with improvements coming.
Destroys means by a lot. What was the FPS difference?
Those benchs are with the old drivers lol they are obsolete benchs lol
the 7970 is a no brainer for 3 screens now look at all owners talking about it. so dumb that haters of amd cry when their fav manufacture loses. same with those amd lovers
I DONT CARE WHICH COMPANY HAS THE BEST. I just want to own the best and I do
ps skyrim crashes with hd tex and ultra settings with ugrids 11 on the 680 but the 7970 smooth as silk. The 7970 uses 29.4 gigs and up to run this constantly but idon't know if that is the reason
Edited by onthemour - 7/14/12 at 10:30am
My System
(13 items) |
|
My System
(13 items) |
