Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › Which of these cards is better and why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which of these cards is better and why? - Page 3

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

where did you pull those numbers from ? you are talking of 20% increase in performance for factory OC'd cards out of the box. firstly that is impossible. the GTX 670 at max voltage OC's of 1.3 Ghz gains roughly 20 - 25% over a stock GTX 670.
rubbish. HD 7950 is 5 - 7% slower than HD 7970 at same clocks. HD 7950(1125 mhz) = HD 7970 Ghz = GTX 770 . it requires a GTX 670 at 1250 mhz to be on par with a HD 7950(1150 mhz).

^this. and if it is a 2GB 670, that will dip to the single digits.
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 29
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/380754-33-radeon-7950

My bad guys, was just pulling info from here. I haven't benched a 7950 before.

Regarding my numbers, they didn't dip below 45 during gameplay on stock gigabyte oc clocks. Overclocked at 1.3ghz, it avg about 65 (56-ish low). This is using perfoverlay, so I don't know how accurate it is.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderscoreHero View Post

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/380754-33-radeon-7950

My bad guys, was just pulling info from here. I haven't benched a 7950 before.

Regarding my numbers, they didn't dip below 45 during gameplay on stock gigabyte oc clocks. Overclocked at 1.3ghz, it avg about 65 (56-ish low). This is using perfoverlay, so I don't know how accurate it is.

you said max settings. you are certainly not maxing it out.
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 29
Settings at Custom
1080p
All Ultra (or max setting)
4xaa i think
HBAO
Motion Blur off
post #25 of 29
36 fps after the match before the scoreboard (black screens), 119 fps in the menus and scoreboard.
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderscoreHero View Post

Settings at Custom
1080p
All Ultra (or max setting)
4xaa i think
HBAO
Motion Blur off

well, the average might be right but with those settings (if 4MSAA) and a 2GB card - your minimum will hit single digits. you do have a 2GB 670, right?
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

well, the average might be right but with those settings (if 4MSAA) and a 2GB card - your minimum will hit single digits. you do have a 2GB 670, right?

Yah, 2gb.
post #28 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderscoreHero View Post

Yah, 2gb.

post # 738

http://www.overclock.net/t/1430568/ggpu-battlefield-4-beta-benchmarked/790

i was hitting 1900MB at 1080 Ultra and 0MSAA. this was MP64, though.
Edited by rdr09 - 10/11/13 at 11:31am
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 8 / 1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 7 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

post # 738

http://www.overclock.net/t/1430568/ggpu-battlefield-4-beta-benchmarked/790

i was hitting 1900MB at 1080 Ultra and 0MSAA. this was MP64, though.

It might have dipped, but it might have been too quick to notice it. I'll try record it on my hdcam during gameplay so I can check later.

Or it might be that I'm running 16GB of ram?

(i5-3570K @ 4.3ghz, 16gb Dom Plat @ 1600mhz)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD/ATI
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › Which of these cards is better and why?