Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › Radeon HD 7990 benchmarks: disappointing or expected?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Radeon HD 7990 benchmarks: disappointing or expected?

post #1 of 4
Thread Starter 
I benchmarked my Radeon HD 7990 using several programs and in each case the results were somewhat disappointing. Although I did get much better results on windows 7 opposed to windows 8, the benchmark results still stick below performance of the GeForce GTX 680 most of the time.

The latest (stable) catalyst drivers are installed and Overdrive is enabled, meaning the card should run at 1GHz.
2D and 3D passmark results (Click to show)


My question is; is something wrong, or is this normal meaning I can increase the card's performance that much by overclocking or other measures?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930k ASRock X79 Extreme4-M Club 3D Radeon HD 7990 Corsair 16GB DDR-3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD Re4TB ADATA SSD S511 120GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 7 Samsung SyncMaster MD230x3 Corsair K95 RGB 
PowerCaseMouseOther
be quiet! Pure Power BQT L7 730W ATX23 Sharkoon T28 red edition ATX Speedlink kudos rs gaming mouse NZXT Sentry LXE 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930k ASRock X79 Extreme4-M Club 3D Radeon HD 7990 Corsair 16GB DDR-3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD Re4TB ADATA SSD S511 120GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 7 Samsung SyncMaster MD230x3 Corsair K95 RGB 
PowerCaseMouseOther
be quiet! Pure Power BQT L7 730W ATX23 Sharkoon T28 red edition ATX Speedlink kudos rs gaming mouse NZXT Sentry LXE 
  hide details  
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtielemans View Post

I benchmarked my Radeon HD 7990 using several programs and in each case the results were somewhat disappointing. Although I did get much better results on windows 7 opposed to windows 8, the benchmark results still stick below performance of the GeForce GTX 680 most of the time.

The latest (stable) catalyst drivers are installed and Overdrive is enabled, meaning the card should run at 1GHz.
2D and 3D passmark results (Click to show)


My question is; is something wrong, or is this normal meaning I can increase the card's performance that much by overclocking or other measures?

...I run 2x 7990 (as well as owning 4x 670ies). I certainly can't complain : Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

...I am far from finished setting these cards up (only had them for a couple of weeks), but :

- even at 'stock', they'll boost to 1100 / 1575 and Powertune = 20 with the Catalyst Control Center (I use 13.6B2 and had no stability issues)
- using MSI AB and choosing 'the right' options in settings will allow you to take the GPU and VRAM much further
- what I find most amazing with at least 2x 7990s is how uniform the usage patterns look, with all running at 98 to 99%, mind you you need a very fast CPU to feed them all w/o bottle-necking

...the 4x 670ies were heavily breathed on and beat many a quad-sli 680 setup, yet the 2x 7990s have no problem beating them in almost every bench. You might want to also uninstall all the NVidia drivers from your 680 (I noticed some interference), try the 13.6B2 and MSI AB
post #3 of 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtielemans View Post

I benchmarked my Radeon HD 7990 using several programs and in each case the results were somewhat disappointing. Although I did get much better results on windows 7 opposed to windows 8, the benchmark results still stick below performance of the GeForce GTX 680 most of the time.

The latest (stable) catalyst drivers are installed and Overdrive is enabled, meaning the card should run at 1GHz.
2D and 3D passmark results (Click to show)


My question is; is something wrong, or is this normal meaning I can increase the card's performance that much by overclocking or other measures?


That screenshot is really hard to read, but whatever benchmark you are using looks like absolute rubbish. In the first section an Intel HD 4000 is competing with discrete GPU's and in the second it looks like a 560ti beats a 680. Find a new benchmark.
Fractal Fury
(9 items)
 
TJ08-e Reborn!
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5930k ASRock X99m Killer AMD Radeon Fury X G-Skill Ripjaws 4 32Gb 
Hard DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
Kingston Hyper-X Predator M.2 Corsair H100i GTX Ducky Shine III (MX Blue) EVGA Supernova 750 G2 
Case
Fractal Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
Fractal Fury
(9 items)
 
TJ08-e Reborn!
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-5930k ASRock X99m Killer AMD Radeon Fury X G-Skill Ripjaws 4 32Gb 
Hard DriveCoolingKeyboardPower
Kingston Hyper-X Predator M.2 Corsair H100i GTX Ducky Shine III (MX Blue) EVGA Supernova 750 G2 
Case
Fractal Node 804 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 4
Thread Starter 
I've seen Passmark's benchmarking software used by others, so although I did notice the same about the intel HD 4000 (I had one), it made me doubt myself rather than the software tongue.gif.

Anyway, I ran 3DMark instead, and the benches come out pretty much the same as results I found in this review.

However, I also found something interesting in my PCIe setup.

I have a micro-ATX board (yes, looking into replacing it) which has 3 PCIe 3.0 x16 slots. It runs 16/8/16.

I went to the NB settings to check on the PCIe speed settings as suggested, and found that all were set to use Link Speed GEN2.

PCIe 1
In my PCIe 1 slot, I have a RevoDrive which operates on PCIe x4 2.0. So I left the link speed on GEN2 (not true, I tried 3, but it wouldn't play nice).

PCIe 2
My PCIe 2 slot contains the graphics card, so I put the speed on GEN3. This also has a link width option, but the max value for that is x8, while the card handles x16. This is, of course, because the MB runs 16/8/16, but I thought it would only do that if the slots 2 16x slots were occupied.
NB settings: 8x max link width (Click to show)

The BIOS manual states it as follows:
Quote:
PCIE1 / PCIE3 (PCIE 3.0 x16 slots) are used for PCI Express x16 lane width graphics cards, or used to install PCI Express graphics cards to support CrossFireX or SLI function.
PCIE2 (PCIE 3.0 x16 slot) is used for PCI Express x8 lane width graphics cards.

So why not switch PCIE 1 and PCIE2's cards around?
Simple answer,it doesn't fit. The graphics card only fits into PCIE 1 and 2, and if I want to use my revodrive too, onle PCIE 2 remains. So basically, I would want PCIE 2 to run at 16x width.

PCIE1 and PCIE2 give the same GPU benchmarks
I tried taking the revo out, and running the graphics card in PCIE 1 (set to using GEN3), and benchmarked it with 3DMark. Oddly, this gave the same result as using it in the PCIE 2 slot.

CPU PCIe support
I noticed before intel states on my i7-3930k that it supports up to PCIe 2.0. I figure that should still mean it should be running 2.0 x16 in PCIE 1, and 2.0 x8 in PCIE 2, meaning I should notice a significant difference in the benchmark, right? (cause I don't).

OC
That's one hell of a sweet setup Joa3d43, gratz there! thumb.gif I tried upping my own hardware that much but it made my AMD driver crash during benchmarking (both stable and beta drivers). I reverted it to the stock boost of 1000/1500 and that runs fine.

Edit: Here's my benchmarks using 3DMark. AMD Radeon HD 7990 3DMark Firestrike (Click to show)

Edited by mtielemans - 6/26/13 at 6:36am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930k ASRock X79 Extreme4-M Club 3D Radeon HD 7990 Corsair 16GB DDR-3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD Re4TB ADATA SSD S511 120GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 7 Samsung SyncMaster MD230x3 Corsair K95 RGB 
PowerCaseMouseOther
be quiet! Pure Power BQT L7 730W ATX23 Sharkoon T28 red edition ATX Speedlink kudos rs gaming mouse NZXT Sentry LXE 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930k ASRock X79 Extreme4-M Club 3D Radeon HD 7990 Corsair 16GB DDR-3 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
WD Re4TB ADATA SSD S511 120GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Noctua NH-D15 Windows 7 Samsung SyncMaster MD230x3 Corsair K95 RGB 
PowerCaseMouseOther
be quiet! Pure Power BQT L7 730W ATX23 Sharkoon T28 red edition ATX Speedlink kudos rs gaming mouse NZXT Sentry LXE 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD/ATI

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › Radeon HD 7990 benchmarks: disappointing or expected?