Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › Graphics Cards - General › 7950 CF vs. 680 single card
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

7950 CF vs. 680 single card - Page 9

post #81 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

so you want to compare a 1.3v voltage overclocked HD 7900 card with a stock GTX 480 to prove they are comparable. thats a miserable fail. what happens when the GTX 480 is overclocked. biggrin.gif
also HD 7970 does not need to clock as high as GTX 680 to beat it clearly.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/23/msi_geforce_gtx_680_lightning_video_card_review/3
a GTX 680 Lightning running at 1293 Mhz gains 11% over a stock GTX 680 running at 1072 Mhz in BF3. thats a 11% gain for a 20% overclocking. guess what with the latest drivers the HD 7970 (1.05 Ghz) is beating the stock GTX 680 by 17% in BF3.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup/3
rolleyes.gif

Quote:
what happens when the GTX 480 is overclocked. biggrin.gif
Good luck overvolting your GTX 480 by 25%. It just wont happen.
Quote:
also HD 7970 does not need to clock as high as GTX 680 to beat it clearly.
True, but I suppose that you already know that kepler often clock higher than Tahiti, right?
Let's forget the fact that they are using older drivers. Now, of course the 7970 GHZ is going to win in some games, while the 680 will win in others. It's nothing new. Now just go look at some games that prefer kepler cards, it will be a different story.
Quote:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/23/msi_geforce_gtx_680_lightning_video_card_review/3
a GTX 680 Lightning running at 1293 Mhz gains 11% over a stock GTX 680 running at 1072 Mhz in BF3. thats a 11% gain for a 20% overclocking. guess what with the latest drivers the HD 7970 (1.05 Ghz) is beating the stock GTX 680 by 17% in BF3.

Notice the date this was posted:
Quote:
Monday , July 23, 2012
Let's not forget that AMD had a whole team working on BF3 optimization for the 12.11 release. And, guess what, nvidia did the same thing with 310.63.



Got anything else?


BTW, OP asked for 7950 in CF vs a GTX 680. Now the 7950 in CF is clearly outperforming the 680. End of story.
post #82 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by splinterize View Post


True, but I suppose that you already know that kepler often clock higher than Tahiti, right?

I suppose you know with 4.3 billion transistors vs Kepler's 3.5 billion, Tahiti is significantly faster clock per clock?

12.11 vs 301.33 done by tsm

The7970 Ghz( 1050/1375) was faster than 680 (1128+ max boost/ 1500) back when Ghz came out and was held back by 12.6, it was significantly faster after 12.8 and now with 12.11.
Edited by sherlock - 11/27/12 at 7:42am
Skylake 1080 FTW
(18 items)
 
XPS 15
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K  ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger EVGA 1080 FTW TridentZ DDR4-3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 128GB Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB Muskin Reactor 1TB Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD Corsair H110i GT Windows 10 Pro  Acer XB321HK 32" 4K G-sync 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Rapid Fire EVGA SuperNova 650 P2 NZXT H440 Black Logitech G900  
Mouse PadOther
Razer Vespula CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD - PFC Sinewave UPS Syst... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-7700HQ 2.8Ghz(3.8Ghz Turbo) Dell XPS 15-9560 Nvidia GTX 1050 8GB DDR4-2400 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB PCIE SSD Windows 10 Pro 15.6" 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
Skylake 1080 FTW
(18 items)
 
XPS 15
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K  ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger EVGA 1080 FTW TridentZ DDR4-3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung SM951 128GB Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB Muskin Reactor 1TB Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Seagate Baracuda 2TB ST2000DM001 HDD Corsair H110i GT Windows 10 Pro  Acer XB321HK 32" 4K G-sync 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair K70 Rapid Fire EVGA SuperNova 650 P2 NZXT H440 Black Logitech G900  
Mouse PadOther
Razer Vespula CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD - PFC Sinewave UPS Syst... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-7700HQ 2.8Ghz(3.8Ghz Turbo) Dell XPS 15-9560 Nvidia GTX 1050 8GB DDR4-2400 
Hard DriveOSMonitor
256GB PCIE SSD Windows 10 Pro 15.6" 1080p 
  hide details  
Reply
post #83 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherlock View Post

I suppose you know with 4.3 billion transistors vs Kepler's 3.5 billion, Tahiti is significantly faster clock per clock?
Quote:
If you really took attention to what i've wrote instead of just seeing ''zomg amd suck suck suck suck nvidia ftw haha'' you would have noticed that
i've already mentioned that tahiti was indeed faster, clock for clock. But it does not really matter since kepler will usually clock higher than their tahiti counterpart.

And that's on stock voltage. It will go even further with a unlocked bios.
Here's a picture of a GTX 670 sitting at 1400 core :


Source : http://www.overclock.net/t/1289489/gtx-680-670-unlocked-voltage-bios/2090#post_18674563

For reference, try to find a tahiti card that can reach those clocks.

But what people fail to understand is that a kepler card benifit more from a large memory overclock and a mild core overclock than a large core overclock.

Thanks sherlock.
Edited by splinterize - 11/27/12 at 7:43am
post #84 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by splinterize View Post

Now, of course the 7970 GHZ is going to win in some games, while the 680 will win in others. It's nothing new. Now just go look at some games that prefer kepler cards, it will be a different story.

what games. hard reset, starcraft ii, shogun 2. tongue.gif AMD is dominating the majority of the games. if you want proof that HD 7970(1.2 Ghz) is faster than GTX 680(1.35 Ghz) you can ask tsm to run benches.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1322119/12-11-vs-310-33

anyway looks like no evidence will change your opinion. thumb.gif
Quote:
Let's not forget that AMD had a whole team working on BF3 optimization for the 12.11 release. And, guess what, nvidia did the same thing with 310.63.

12.11 vs 310.61 is hugely in favour of AMD in BF3. 12% faster at 1080p and 13% faster at 1600p.

http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/page4.html
Fragbox
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2400 DH67BL AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series XFX HD 6950 2GB 
RAMRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
Corsair Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Western Digital Caviar Green SONY DVD-RW AD-7260S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional 32 bit BENQ G2420HD Logitech K200 Seasonic VX550 psu 
CaseMouse
ANTEC 200 V2 Logitech mouse 
  hide details  
Reply
Fragbox
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2400 DH67BL AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series XFX HD 6950 2GB 
RAMRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
Corsair Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Western Digital Caviar Green SONY DVD-RW AD-7260S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional 32 bit BENQ G2420HD Logitech K200 Seasonic VX550 psu 
CaseMouse
ANTEC 200 V2 Logitech mouse 
  hide details  
Reply
post #85 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by specopsFI View Post

Are you saying that there were no reference models of those? Because there were. For the 7970 GE, not so much. rolleyes.gif
Show me then GTX650 or GTX650Ti reference.
post #86 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by splinterize View Post

@Raghu78 and tsm106


If you really took attention to what i've wrote instead of just seeing ''zomg amd suck suck suck suck nvidia ftw haha'' you would have noticed that I said that it was closer that what most people would admit. Now take a few moment to think about it.
Quote:
GeForce GTX 480

System in IDLE = 209 Watts
System with GPU in FULL Stress = 463 Watts
Difference (GPU load) = 254 Watt (TDP = 250W)

Quote:
HD 7970

System in IDLE = 180W
System Wattage with GPU in FULL Stress = 379W
Difference (GPU load) = 199W
Add average IDLE wattage ~10W
Subjective obtained GPU power consumption = ~ 209 Watts

Source : http://www.guru3d.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

GTX480 is a 320w max draw card. The 7950 is 180w at stock. Comparing the two, 180w vs 320w... ugh yea the math speaks for itself right? I'm using TPU numbers which are measured at the pcie plugs, not some random killawatt numbers mind you. 7950s pushed to the +20 on the TDP brings it to around 220w range. Again doing the math, cfx 7950s will still be dropping your power draw by almost a third while doubling the performance.

Looks like the GTX 480 is not using 320 wat at stock, and why on earth would you leave a 7950 at stock voltage? Most people will bump the voltage to 1.2-1.3 ish.

Here is a review of 12.11 vs 310.61

http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/

If you still think that those cards are not in the same league after this, well, i'll have to come to the conclusion that you're either blind or fool. (And before you say ''but the ghz edition beat the 680!'', keep in mind that it is easier to reach 1300 core on a gtx 680 than on a hd 7970, and that you get a significant performance boost by overclocking the memory.)


EDIT : If you buy nvidia's card, as I already stated countless times, you are paying a premium for a quieter, cooler card that have more features that you may or may not care about.


Seriously? I think I'm losing brain cells.

You would ignore measurements taken from the card to killawatt readings taken from the wall? Seriously, get the hell out of here. You know how to find techpowerup right?
Quote:
For this test we measure power consumption of only the graphics card, via PCI-Express power connector(s) and PCI-Express bus slot. A Keithley Integra 2700 with 6.5 digits is used for all measurements. Again, the values here reflect card only power consumption measured at DC VGA card inputs, not the whole system.





The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #87 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post


12.11 vs 310.61 is hugely in favour of AMD in BF3. 12% faster at 1080p and 13% faster at 1600p.
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/page4.html




?
post #88 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregoryH View Post

Show me then GTX650 or GTX650Ti reference.

And where have I made unfair comparisons on one of those and a reference AMD card? rolleyes.gif

You're seriously not getting my point.
The Air Tunnel
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4820K (4500MHz@1.28V) P9X79 Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X New Edition Team Group Vulcan 4x4GB 2133MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
2x240GB SSD @RAID 0 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Windows 10 Pro Corsair AX750 
CaseAudio
Rosewill Armor EVO hiFace+AudioGD+DT770Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
The Air Tunnel
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4820K (4500MHz@1.28V) P9X79 Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X New Edition Team Group Vulcan 4x4GB 2133MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
2x240GB SSD @RAID 0 Noctua NH-D14 SE2011 Windows 10 Pro Corsair AX750 
CaseAudio
Rosewill Armor EVO hiFace+AudioGD+DT770Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #89 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by splinterize View Post


?

7970,gtx 680 and 1680x1080 res dont go together. Is just dumb. Even for 1080p a 7970 is overkill.
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
Reply
Workstation
(4 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsMonitor
Xeon E5-2690 Supermicro 2011 Nvidia GP100/ Vega FE Dell ultrasharp 4k 
  hide details  
Reply
post #90 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

what games. hard reset, starcraft ii, shogun 2. tongue.gif AMD is dominating the majority of the games. if you want proof that HD 7970(1.2 Ghz) is faster than GTX 680(1.35 Ghz) you can ask tsm to run benches.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1322119/12-11-vs-310-33
anyway looks like no evidence will change your opinion. thumb.gif
12.11 vs 310.61 is hugely in favour of AMD in BF3. 12% faster at 1080p and 13% faster at 1600p.
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/page4.html

Your so called evidences are nothing more than sophism. I'm out.

BTW, Tahiti cards alway had a edge over Kepler card at higher resolution. In this case it's mostly due to the factory overclock of the GHZ edition, though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Graphics Cards - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › Graphics Cards - General › 7950 CF vs. 680 single card