How to unlock Gigabyte HD 7970 OC voltage? - Page 3

Originally Posted by twisted1 

There's not even a reference to what driver they were using with the 7970, if they re-tested or just borrowed the stats from the initial test. And they're using diffrent settings, 2xMSAA, no MSAA on the other cards. And their performance graphs is just a mess, diffrent settings, clocks. A mess. This is how you make a graph, all tests done with the same driver( Catalyst 8.921.2.0), 10-15runs per test to get accurate numbers and a good mix of tests so no particular card gets any extra advantage.. So here you have the performance index, all stock clocks, game tests only, no benchmarks.
( excuse the non-english language in the graph )

And again, the test rigg does not measure up.
The serious tests I've read, done by serious sites. On a decent test rigg( Intel Core i7 3960X @ +4,0 GHz ), with the same drivers for all cards simply land around 10% performance diffrence. That's all I'm saying, If the 7950's where in fact faster, trust me I would have a couple of those instead.
The biggest physical diffrence between Tahiti PRO/XT is the suffix(ie they're exactly the same). Only 4 compute units disabled sounds great, in practice however that means 1792 shaders vs 2048 shaders, about 15% less for the 7950. Under the same circumstances a card with 15% less raw sader compute perf. can not be faster, it defy's all logic and probably some physics too.
I have had a few cards through the years, atm. I only have two 7970's atm. tho, one xfx and the gigabyte. By tomorrow I'll hopefully have a third tho, (matrix :DD

Originally Posted by Bruennis 

A 7950 'can' be faster than its bigger brother. Look around the forum, do some research, educate yourself my friend. At the same clock frequencies, 14% less shaders realistically equate to a 3-5% performance difference between the two The same can be said of the 670 and 680. There is a 3% real world performance difference between the two per clock. "The gap is much smaller now: 3-4% on average at both resolutions. When clocked at the same frequencies as the HD 7970, the Radeon HD 7950 delivers almost the same performance..."

Originally Posted by Bruennis 

They were using Catalyst 12.2. Your graph has no relevancy and you seriously think you need an i7-3960X to eliminate bottleneck?
A 7950 'can' be faster than its bigger brother. Look around the forum, do some research, educate yourself my friend. At the same clock frequencies, 14% less shaders realistically equate to a 3-5% performance difference between the two
The same can be said of the 670 and 680. There is a 3% real world performance difference between the two per clock.
Sorry to disappoint you further but here is a third review using an i7-3960X : (I would suggest you reading the entire thing )
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/sapphire-radeon-hd-7950-oc_9.html#sect0
Xbitlabs: "The gap is much smaller now: 3-4% on average at both resolutions. When clocked at the same frequencies as the HD 7970, the Radeon HD 7950 delivers almost the same performance..."