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 29  

post #281 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

660ti is slower clock for clock obviously!
And this matters, how? Your comment would make sense if you had said that it is slower clock for clock, and doesn't have high enough clock speed to overcome that deficit.

Why would I make crap up for? Trying to start an argument? The fact is it is slower. Whatever you may think about the review, this is the take away point.
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 #282 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by specopsFI View Post

This thread really is funny. And sad at the same time.
There seems to be only a handful of people here who actually read the article. Of that handful, only a couple understood what they were reading.
Frame time analysis is so rare that there is practically no data which could be used to prove Tech Report being wrong on this test. The only suggested baseline data is that of Tech Report themselves, their earlier reviews. There is a problem there: Tech Report has changed just about everything in their testing procedure since those earlier 660Ti/7950 tests: different games, different test runs, different OS and of course different drivers.

This is the wrong kind of thinking. Until they reveal their methods, in a way that others can repeat it to confirm the accuracy of the method, no one should give them the benefit of the doubt.
New and Shiny
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Rynze 7 1700 ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire HD7950 G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C14D 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston HyperX 3K Crucial MX300 Western Digital Black Western Digital Green 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Red Noctua NH-U14S Windows 10 Pro Dell U2414H 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell P2414H Ducky One Corsair RM650x NZXT H440 White 
MouseAudio
Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Xonar DX 
  hide details  
New and Shiny
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Rynze 7 1700 ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire HD7950 G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C14D 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston HyperX 3K Crucial MX300 Western Digital Black Western Digital Green 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Red Noctua NH-U14S Windows 10 Pro Dell U2414H 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell P2414H Ducky One Corsair RM650x NZXT H440 White 
MouseAudio
Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Xonar DX 
  hide details  
post #283 of 745
I don't get such reviews. I mean when cpus matter we test them clock for clock. But when gpus matter we suddenly use completely different clocks.

Why don't they have a decent look at those clocks and max clocks?

You can say all you want about this website. But their testing method is just an exercise. They do the same thing over and over and over and over. There is more to reviewing than that. If both cards could get to about 1.2 ghz max overclock on air usually then match them 1 ghz vs 1 ghz. Think about things before making conclusions such as this. Tbh reading it you can read between the lines Nvidia made them do this test. Making them conclude the 3rd most powerfull single gpu nvidia card would beat the 2nd most powerfull amd card.
 
OrB!T*
(18 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 3770k Gigabyte Z77X-UP7 Kfa2 gtx670 EVGA GTX670 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 16gb low voltage ram Samsung 830 64gb ssd x2 Custom XSPC water loop Windows 7 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g19 Cooler master silent pro hybrid 1050 Silverstone TJ07 Logitech X9 
AudioOther
Logitech G35 Full Coldzero plexi panels 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4770k Intel DZ87KLT75K Integrated Cosair Vengeance 2*4 1.5v CL8 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Plextor 256GB SSD WD Caviar black 1TB Samsung Spinpoint 1TB LG bluray rewriter 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel AIO 120mm watercooler Windows 7 64bit LG 2360V Thermaltake Forged Blue TT switch 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Cooler Master Silent Pro M600 Thermaltake Chaser MK I Roccat Kova+ Roccat Taito 
AudioAudio
Astrogaming A40 wireless Logitech Z-2300 
  hide details  
 
OrB!T*
(18 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 3770k Gigabyte Z77X-UP7 Kfa2 gtx670 EVGA GTX670 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 16gb low voltage ram Samsung 830 64gb ssd x2 Custom XSPC water loop Windows 7 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g19 Cooler master silent pro hybrid 1050 Silverstone TJ07 Logitech X9 
AudioOther
Logitech G35 Full Coldzero plexi panels 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4770k Intel DZ87KLT75K Integrated Cosair Vengeance 2*4 1.5v CL8 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Plextor 256GB SSD WD Caviar black 1TB Samsung Spinpoint 1TB LG bluray rewriter 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel AIO 120mm watercooler Windows 7 64bit LG 2360V Thermaltake Forged Blue TT switch 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Cooler Master Silent Pro M600 Thermaltake Chaser MK I Roccat Kova+ Roccat Taito 
AudioAudio
Astrogaming A40 wireless Logitech Z-2300 
  hide details  
post #284 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoxile View Post

This is the wrong kind of thinking. Until they reveal their methods, in a way that others can repeat it to confirm the accuracy of the method, no one should give them the benefit of the doubt.

They have told us everything they possibly could: here, here and here. Feel free to download Fraps and go on recording your own frame times. Or maybe do what was already suggested by BababooeyHTJ, one of the very few who seem to understand the issue at hand.

The Tech Report method is easily reproducible. The problem is, no one is doing it rather than hanging on to the Official Frame Rate Truth.
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  
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  
post #285 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoxile View Post


This is the wrong kind of thinking. Until they reveal their methods, in a way that others can repeat it to confirm the accuracy of the method, no one should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Good point.  The use of win8 for starters would be nice since it's not something they use in all of their reviews. 

post #286 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by specopsFI View Post

They have told us everything they possibly could: here, here and here. Feel free to download Fraps and go on recording your own frame times. Or maybe do what was already suggested by BababooeyHTJ, one of the very few who seem to understand the issue at hand.
The Tech Report method is easily reproducible. The problem is, no one is doing it rather than hanging on to the Official Frame Rate Truth.

Here's what they had to say about their method.
Quote:
So, what to do if you're us, and you have a multi-GPU video card to review? The best we can say for our Fraps data is that we believe it's accurate for what it measures, the point when the game engine presents a frame to Direct3D, and that we believe the frames times it captures are at least loosely correlated to the actual display times at the other end of the pipeline.

A lot of believing, not a lot of hard science. They don't detail how or why their method is accurate or even that it's representative of what users see. They do mention that FRAPS captures data at the video card, so it's not directly representative of what users actually see in any case.
Edited by geoxile - 12/7/12 at 10:37am
New and Shiny
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Rynze 7 1700 ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire HD7950 G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C14D 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston HyperX 3K Crucial MX300 Western Digital Black Western Digital Green 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Red Noctua NH-U14S Windows 10 Pro Dell U2414H 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell P2414H Ducky One Corsair RM650x NZXT H440 White 
MouseAudio
Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Xonar DX 
  hide details  
New and Shiny
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Rynze 7 1700 ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire HD7950 G.SKILL TridentZ F4-3200C14D 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston HyperX 3K Crucial MX300 Western Digital Black Western Digital Green 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Western Digital Red Noctua NH-U14S Windows 10 Pro Dell U2414H 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell P2414H Ducky One Corsair RM650x NZXT H440 White 
MouseAudio
Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum Xonar DX 
  hide details  
post #287 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoxile View Post

This is the wrong kind of thinking. Until they reveal their methods, in a way that others can repeat it to confirm the accuracy of the method, no one should give them the benefit of the doubt.

They did an entire article explaining their switch to frame time based reviews, so I think they adequately revelaed their methods, and all you need to duplicate them is Fraps.
http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoxile View Post

Here's what they had to say about their method.
A lot of believing, not a lot of hard science. They don't detail how or why their method is accurate or even that it's representative of what users see. They do mention that FRAPS captures data at the video card, so it's not directly representative of what users actually see in any case.

It's reading the same data point that the FPS counter measures, so it is at least as accurate as that. Until someone builds a dongle that connects to the monitor, software monitoring is the best anyone can do.
Edited by Forceman - 12/7/12 at 10:44am
post #288 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsm106 View Post

Why would I make crap up for? Trying to start an argument? The fact is it is slower. Whatever you may think about the review, this is the take away point.
Per-clock performance is simply irrelevant without taking clock speed into consideration.

The actual take away point of the review is that the 7950 suffers from awful framerate jitter. Such frame rate variances are what TTR focuses on. A second take away point is that, given the games tested in the review, the $299 Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP! is a better buy than the Sapphire HD 7950 Vapor-X at stock settings. The second point is less meaningful however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hukkel View Post

I don't get such reviews. I mean when cpus matter we test them clock for clock. But when gpus matter we suddenly use completely different clocks.
They're simply using the stock clocks of these two models. FYI, pretty much every CPU review ever also does this. However, a very small minority compare per-clock performance, and I'd argue that it's not very relevant unless you're pointing out differing architectural approaches.
Quote:
Why don't they have a decent look at those clocks and max clocks?
Because that isn't the intention of the review. Who are you to say what is of importance to everyone other than yourself? Go write your own reviews. Just because you find that particular subject of interest does not mean that this review is less useful to the rest of us because it excludes your favored topic.
Quote:
You can say all you want about this website. But their testing method is just an exercise. They do the same thing over and over and over and over. There is more to reviewing than that. If both cards could get to about 1.2 ghz max overclock on air usually then match them 1 ghz vs 1 ghz. Think about things before making conclusions such as this. Tbh reading it you can read between the lines Nvidia made them do this test. Making them conclude the 3rd most powerfull single gpu nvidia card would beat the 2nd most powerfull amd card.
Goodness, what conspiracy theory garbage. A 13 year-old website, The Tech Report, is suddenly going to throw their credibility down the drain? There hasn't even been a change in management to substantiate this.

Had you actually read the article through neutral-colored lenses, you'd see that the entire point of their reviews is to capture frame latency variations, while downplaying average frame rates. The fact that the 660 Ti is portrayed as having a higher average frame rate in this review is largely irrelevant. The fact of importance is that the 7950 fails the smoothness test so miserably.
Edited by Homeles - 12/7/12 at 11:08am
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
post #289 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceman View Post

They did an entire article explaining their switch to frame time based reviews, so I think they adequately revelaed their methods, and all you need to duplicate them is Fraps.
http://techreport.com/review/21516/inside-the-second-a-new-look-at-game-benchmarking
It's reading the same data point that the FPS counter measures, so it is at least as accurate as that. Until someone builds a dongle that connects to the monitor, software monitoring is the best anyone can do.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
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  
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  
post #290 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post

Per-clock performance is simply irrelevant without taking clock speed into consideration.
The actual take away point of the review is that the 7950 suffers from awful framerate jitter. Such frame rate variances are what TTR focuses on. A second take away point is that, given the games tested in the review, the $299 Zotac GTX 660 Ti AMP! is a better buy than the Sapphire HD 7950 Vapor-X at stock settings. The second point is less meaningful however.
They're simply using the stock clocks of these two models. FYI, pretty much every CPU review ever also does this. However, a very small minority compare per-clock performance, and I'd argue that it's not very relevant unless you're pointing out differing architectural approaches.
Because that isn't the intention of the review. Who are you to say what is of importance to everyone other than yourself? Go write your own reviews. Just because you find that particular subject of interest does not mean that this review is less useful to the rest of us because it excludes your favored topic.
Goodness, what conspiracy theory garbage. A 13 year-old website, The Tech Report, is suddenly going to throw their credibility down the drain? There hasn't even been a change in management to substantiate this.
Had you actually read the article through neutral-colored lenses, you'd see that the entire point of their reviews is to capture frame latency variations, while downplaying average frame rates. The fact that the 660 Ti is portrayed as having a higher average frame rate in this review is largely irrelevant. The fact of importance is that the 7950 fails the smoothness test so miserably.

Get a cup of tea and relax man. Are we being moody today?

See I can see things how I like them to see. Just because you call it conspiracy garbage doesn't make that the truth. Good luck with your opinion.

Fact of the matter is they compare two cards. And both of them have a performance layout. If one has loads of extra performance left in it it should be considered im my opinion.
 
OrB!T*
(18 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 3770k Gigabyte Z77X-UP7 Kfa2 gtx670 EVGA GTX670 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 16gb low voltage ram Samsung 830 64gb ssd x2 Custom XSPC water loop Windows 7 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g19 Cooler master silent pro hybrid 1050 Silverstone TJ07 Logitech X9 
AudioOther
Logitech G35 Full Coldzero plexi panels 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4770k Intel DZ87KLT75K Integrated Cosair Vengeance 2*4 1.5v CL8 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Plextor 256GB SSD WD Caviar black 1TB Samsung Spinpoint 1TB LG bluray rewriter 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel AIO 120mm watercooler Windows 7 64bit LG 2360V Thermaltake Forged Blue TT switch 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Cooler Master Silent Pro M600 Thermaltake Chaser MK I Roccat Kova+ Roccat Taito 
AudioAudio
Astrogaming A40 wireless Logitech Z-2300 
  hide details  
 
OrB!T*
(18 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 3770k Gigabyte Z77X-UP7 Kfa2 gtx670 EVGA GTX670 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 16gb low voltage ram Samsung 830 64gb ssd x2 Custom XSPC water loop Windows 7 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g19 Cooler master silent pro hybrid 1050 Silverstone TJ07 Logitech X9 
AudioOther
Logitech G35 Full Coldzero plexi panels 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-4770k Intel DZ87KLT75K Integrated Cosair Vengeance 2*4 1.5v CL8 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Plextor 256GB SSD WD Caviar black 1TB Samsung Spinpoint 1TB LG bluray rewriter 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel AIO 120mm watercooler Windows 7 64bit LG 2360V Thermaltake Forged Blue TT switch 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Cooler Master Silent Pro M600 Thermaltake Chaser MK I Roccat Kova+ Roccat Taito 
AudioAudio
Astrogaming A40 wireless Logitech Z-2300 
  hide details  
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