Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [The Tech Report] Radeon HD 7950 vs. GeForce GTX 660 Ti revisited
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[The Tech Report] Radeon HD 7950 vs. GeForce GTX 660 Ti revisited - Page 21  

post #201 of 745
Why you guys need to bench for? The writings on the wall. The 660ti needs 160mhz core and over 400mhz memory overclock to match a stock 7950 boost card. This is pretty well established thru the whole Kepler line up. Look at the clock for clock maxed overclock tests.


The issue isn't the actual numbers TR presented. It's why they did things the way they did it and why they purported to do an even test while choosing a 660ti with 160/400mhz more clock than the 7950. One can argue semantics all day about this fair or that's not fair, but one thing remains. It's the fact that the 660ti needed that much more clock to stay abreast. There's no need to wonder what would happen if the 7950 ran the same clocks is there?? Really?

It's bizarre. 7950 is 5% down (the shader difference) from a 7970 clock for clock. Anyone who thinks a 660ti is 5% down from a 7970 clock for clock is nuts.
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
post #202 of 745
Stupid review is stupid.
post #203 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Why you guys need to bench for? The writings on the wall. The 660ti needs 160mhz core and over 400mhz memory overclock to match a stock 7950 boost card. This is pretty well established thru the whole Kepler line up. Look at the clock for clock maxed overclock tests.
The issue isn't the actual numbers TR presented. It's why they did things the way they did it and why they purported to do an even test while choosing a 660ti with 160/400mhz more clock than the 7950. One can argue semantics all day about this fair or that's not fair, but one thing remains. It's the fact that the 660ti needed that much more clock to stay abreast. There's no need to wonder what would happen if the 7950 ran the same clocks is there?? Really?
It's bizarre. 7950 is 5% down (the shader difference) from a 7970 clock for clock. Anyone who thinks a 660ti is 5% down from a 7970 clock for clock is nuts.

one of the few sensible posts in this thread..
post #204 of 745
I'd like to add that the 7950 in the review ran like CRAP. TR admitted to their incompetence regarding it and yet, both cards stayed abreast. Think about that for a second. The 7950 ran like crap and still...
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
post #205 of 745

IMHO, this is more of a review showcasing win7 vs win8 using current drivers (all thought not the most current ones 12.11 beta 8 instead of beta 11, etc).  Not a comparison between cards.  As some have already mentioned, their previous review of the 660ti shows contrasting results, using win7, when compared to this review using win8. 


Edited by EastCoast - 12/6/12 at 10:34am
post #206 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Why you guys need to bench for? The writings on the wall. The 660ti needs 160mhz core and over 400mhz memory overclock to match a stock 7950 boost card. This is pretty well established thru the whole Kepler line up. Look at the clock for clock maxed overclock tests.
The issue isn't the actual numbers TR presented. It's why they did things the way they did it and why they purported to do an even test while choosing a 660ti with 160/400mhz more clock than the 7950. One can argue semantics all day about this fair or that's not fair, but one thing remains. It's the fact that the 660ti needed that much more clock to stay abreast. There's no need to wonder what would happen if the 7950 ran the same clocks is there?? Really?
It's bizarre. 7950 is 5% down (the shader difference) from a 7970 clock for clock. Anyone who thinks a 660ti is 5% down from a 7970 clock for clock is nuts.

Why are people obsessed with clock for clock? They are completely different architectures. They took the fastest retail card of both types and compared them. You can complain about their methods if you want, but how can you fault them for getting what is available to anyone on this forum with a credit card? Once you start overclocking cards manually you open up the whole can of "well that was a good/bad overclocker" worms. They picked cards that were about the same price, that were available at Newegg, and that have similar positions in their respective ranges (factory overclocked). It's not their fault that AMD artificially holds down their partners (if that's actually what is happening- you'd think if all these 7950s and 7970s could do 1.1 as easily as everyone says you'd see more for sale that way).

If you want to debate their methods of testing, or the impact of Win 8, that's one thing, but saying they should have compared them clock for clock is dumb.
post #207 of 745
Haha. Typical response from someone running from a clock for clock test. Keep on trucking fella.
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
post #208 of 745

Again, they are now using win8 as part of their test bed.  When before it was win7.  Things will fall back in line when AMD get's their drivers up to par for win8.  That's all that really means.


Edited by EastCoast - 12/6/12 at 11:00am
post #209 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

but saying they should have compared them clock for clock is dumb.

Absolutely. But what we're discussing is not that they should've done a clock for clock.

We're discussing that they took an almost stock HD7950 and put it up against a heavliy overclocked GTX660Ti. And that's what is not fair.


Now if you're talking about plain price per dollar, then it's another story. And in that case, they used a wrong article preface and a wrong title, as they imply they're doing a face-to-face of both cards at manufacturer specs, not at the settings one OEM has decided to use.
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
   
AGP bencher
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen R7 1700 Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming 5 Sapphire HD 6950 2GiB 2x8GB KFA2 HOF DDR4-3600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Crucial MX100 256GB Seagate 600 Series 240GB Seagate 7200.14 2TB Samsung F3 1TB 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
EKWB Supreme HF XSPC Rasa GPU EK XT360 EK 4.0 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
W10 Pro LG IPS235 LG E2250V KUL ES-87 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
SF Leadex II 650W Lian Li PC-A05NB Logitech G9 Xonar DX 
AudioAudio
SMSL SA-S3+Technics CB-250 Sennheiser HD555 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-5700 Gigabyte F2A75M-HD2 G.SKILL Ares 2133 CL9 Hitachi 5K750 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Momentus .7 200GB Noctua NH-L9a Server 2012 R2 Standard AUO B156HW01 
PowerCaseOther
PicoPSU-80-WI-25V AIO Aluminium Handmade TP-Link Archer Something Something Wi-Fi AC 
CPUCPUCPUMotherboard
Core2Duo E6400 Core2Quad Q6600 Pentium Dual Core E5200 AsRock 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 
GraphicsRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
A dumpload of ancient AGP cards Kingston Value DDR2-667 CL4 2T @CL3 1T Seagate 160GB 7200.10 LG IDE DVD-ROM 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Ghettomade CPU waterblock 49cc 2stroke engine copper radiator WinXP SP2 32bit ProView 17" 
PowerCase
Tacens Radix V 550W Ghetto aluminium bench 
  hide details  
post #210 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artikbot View Post

Absolutely. But what we're discussing is not that they should've done a clock for clock.
We're discussing that they took an almost stock HD7950 and put it up against a heavliy overclocked GTX660Ti. And that's what is not fair.
Now if you're talking about plain price per dollar, then it's another story. And in that case, they used a wrong article preface and a wrong title, as they imply they're doing a face-to-face of both cards at manufacturer specs, not at the settings one OEM has decided to use.

The problem is that there are no retail overclocked AMD cards. So they couldn't take a factory overclocked 7950 against the overclocked 660 Ti. So you do the next best thing, which is take the top end of what is available. If I have $300 to spend I'm going to buy the fastest card I can, and that's what they did. I just don't see how you can say it isn't fair that they spent $300 on two readily available cards and tested them. Again, if you want to blame someone, blame AMD for not allowing heavily overclocked retail cards.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [The Tech Report] Radeon HD 7950 vs. GeForce GTX 660 Ti revisited