HD 7970 Price Cuts? Don’t Count on it.

[Final8ty]

Single display users: "Stop talking about VRAM usage already, all you need is 1GB!!"

Multi-display users: "Not enough rage...err...VRAM!" (Any of you WoW Warriors--current or ex--know what this is all about.)

Don't even think about telling me 1GB is enough for 2560x1600 which i have been using since 2006 and im not interested in turning anything down to keep within it.

[Final8ty]

I can show you anther vid using 570sli with full fps vram usage from a user on another very popular forum(don't know if I can link this forum or not) that states he has spikes and if he turns it down from full ultra it's totally fine:

OP from the thread in Question:

'Hello,
When i'm playing BF3 with 1920x1080 ULTRA and 4xAA i'm experiencing framedrops.. especially in the big maps

when i play with 2xAA its allright..

I'm using the latest forceware 296.10 driver.

HT on my i7 860 is turned off. does anyone knows whats causing this?'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBExV...layer_embedded

A. 'not enough vram.'

A. (2) 'That is exactly it. Do not even waste any time trying to "fix it" haha. The only thing you can do is deal with it and keep your AA at 2x. You won't notice any difference from 4x to 2x anyways.'

A. (3) 'yeah bf3 maxed out uses pushes 1.5gb of vram usage, but the 570's only have 1.2gb.

honestly msaa isn't worth the performance hit. play with it disabled and use fxaa instead. game looks very similar and will run a lot better'

A. (4) 'FXAA on 'High' looks really good actually, definitely try that as ***** recommended.

OP reply:

'I'll just stick to 2xAA then

thanks for info guys '

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...&postcount=284

[[XC] gomeler]

You guys done arguing about vram? This thread is no longer about HD 7970 price cuts..

[iboomalot]

"Skewing"? Seriously? The Kepler architecture is able to run more consistently at higher reference clocks than Tahiti and somehow that skews the result? On average a reference clocked GTX 680 is faster than a reference clocked HD 7970. Period. There should be no ifs ands or buts about that.

So if ATI has a referenced card that goes from 925mhz to 1200mhz and beats the "reference" clocked 680 then its the winner no ifs ands or butts about it??

Tahiti came out 4 months ago NV just upped its clocks to win since it had a "refference" to draw from.


680 is a nice card too bad you can't buy one. Sure hope the 7970 drops in price

[tajoh111]

So if ATI has a referenced card that goes from 925mhz to 1200mhz and beats the "reference" clocked 680 then its the winner no ifs ands or butts about it??

Tahiti came out 4 months ago NV just upped its clocks to win since it had a "refference" to draw from.

No way 1200 could be stock clocks, especially on stock volts. That's wishful thinking. 1050 would very very aggressive already and would interfere with the binning process. Remember what AMD consider stable is not what the consumer consider stable.

With a couple lightnings topping out around 1200mhz with added volts,(the hardocp and tweaktown), the cards being much better than stock, no way AMD can make 1200 with a normal reference design.

[SKYMTL]

So if ATI has a referenced card that goes from 925mhz to 1200mhz and beats the "reference" clocked 680 then its the winner no ifs ands or butts about it??

Tahiti came out 4 months ago NV just upped its clocks to win since it had a "refference" to draw from.

Sure. If AMD ever releases a HD 7970 "Ultra" or whatever as a separate SKU within their database. Until that time, there's only manufacturer overclocked versions to go by and while AMD's board partners have hit the ~1100MHz mark, NVIDIA's will be well past the 1200MHz Boost Clock mark which likely means 1300MHz+ in games.

Actually, NVIDIA didn't "up" its reference clocks. Their architecture is more efficient which allowed them to run their core at higher speeds to begin with.

[iboomalot]

Actually, NVIDIA didn't "up" its reference clocks. Their architecture is more efficient which allowed them to run their core at higher speeds to begin with.

You nor I know if thats the case.

One thing is true NV had 4 months to release its product to beat ATI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232948/7...lock-per-clock

7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING? UPDATE: 7970 ~8% better clock per clock

source: Xbit Labs

QUOTE:


And finally we can compare the performance boost each card gets from overclocking. It’s clear the AMD Radeon HD 7970 benefits more from overclocking in nearly every test both in 1920x1080 and in 2560x1600.


source


Also seen here, we can see overclocked performance is pretty much a tie! Note the GTX 680 is at 1300+ Mhz, while the 7970 is only at 1125 mhz




This is from techpowerUP








As seen here, we can see across all resolutions the 7970 @ 925 / 1375 Mhz vs GTX 680 @ 1058 / 1502 Mhz we only see a +6% difference. Note to get to the clocks of the 680, the 7970 will have to be overclocked +14.4%/+9.2% for clock/memory.


source


Now compare these TWO reviews from OCC. they are using identical hardware, and most tests are identical. Watch the 7970 @ 1235/1730 Mhz wipe the floor with the GTX 680 @ 1305/1563 Mhz IN EVERY SINGLE TEST. (Well almost heh)


source 1 - gtx 680 OC


source 2 - 7970 OC

So who really is the Clear winner? Clock per clock the battle gets really close, and maximum overclocks are very close as well.. I dont see why so many review sites jumped the gun to say its the clear victor, when the stock clocks are so high when compared to the 7970. If for instance, Sapphire does release their 1335 Mhz 7970 (here), this would be the victor just based off its clocks alone. With this in mind, there isnt a clear winner.

EDIT: Clock per clock comparison from Pro Nvidia OBR



source

HE ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE 7970 IS ~8.0% BETTER ON AVERAGE CLOCK PER CLOCK, NOT 1.8%, I DID THE MATH AVERAGING MY SELF! DO IT TO CONFIRM!

WINNER: AMD

[SKYMTL]

Clock for clock means nothing if the competing architecture doesn't reach said clocks in its reference form.

And if you think their architecture ISN'T more efficient, you're delusional.

[Dami3n]

Clock for clock means nothing if the competing architecture doesn't reach said clocks in its reference form.

And if you think their architecture ISN'T more efficient, you're delusional.

I love my new green toy, but you must watch the entire picture before say anything like that, because Pitcairn (GCN) is more efficient than GK104.

[tbone8ty]

damn it i still cant find or get a GTX 680 out of stock everywhere

well looks like ill just get a 7970, there price is trickling down finally, Sapphire and HIS are $529 at the egg.

[tajoh111]

You nor I know if thats the case.

One thing is true NV had 4 months to release its product to beat ATI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232948/7...lock-per-clock

That guy is the equivalent of OBR but AMD. Super Pro AMD and anti NV. From what he has posted, it seems like the 7970 1335mhz atomic addition is already out. He also skews words and conclusions so AMD comes out on top. Also when did 2.5 months become 4 months. That should show how distorted this guys writing is.

The persons website blog name doesn't help either.

http://amdfx.blogspot.ca/

Also techpowerup tend to reduce differences in performance across generations. I.e the 7970 is only 10% faster than a gtx 580 according to their performance spread.

[SKYMTL]

I love my new green toy, but you must watch the entire picture before say anything like that, because Pitcairn (GCN) is more efficient than GK104.

I was referring to Tahiti and you know it.

[STaRGaZeR]

I was referring to Tahiti and you know it.

Clock for clock means nothing if the competing architecture doesn't reach said clocks in its reference form.

And if you think their architecture ISN'T more efficient, you're delusional.

Tahiti is not an "architecture"

Point is: GCN, the architecture, is more efficient than Kepler. It just happens that nvidia did a 100% gaming oriented GPU at ~300 mm^2, and ATI did a bloated compute oriented GPU at 365 mm^2. Tahiti may be good at compute, but it has no chance against a gaming oriented GPU in games.

[iboomalot]

Also when did 2.5 months become 4 months. That should show how distorted this guys writing is.

Sorry for rounding up since the 7970 was released before Christmas 2011 and its Now APRIL 2012 So its been 3 months and 10 days not 4 months.

Happy now?? Oh wait you can't even buy a 680 since this was a paper launch **rolls eyes**


Iam also not a NV or ATI fanboy like SKYMTL & you seem to be either.

I owned the both in the past from 9600 pro to 8800GTS to my 5870 I have now. Difference is both card trade blows depending on the game/benchmark used but SKYMTL is under the "delusion" that the 680 is head and shoulders above the 7970 when clock for clock they are equal.

I take two Idential cars and drop the rev limiter on car A to 3000 rpm and car B to 7,000 rpm I bet car A is slower but take off the restrictor both cars are equal again. Same goes for the 7970 and 680 when equal clocks are achieved.

Either way take your fanboi BS and buy what you like since both are good.

good day

[tajoh111]

Sorry for rounding up since the 7970 was released before Christmas 2011 and its Now APRIL 2012 So its been 3 months and 10 days not 4 months.

Happy now?? Oh wait you can't even buy a 680 since this was a paper launch **rolls eyes**


Iam also not a NV or ATI fanboy like SKYMTL & you seem to be either.

I owned the both in the past from 9600 pro to 8800GTS to my 5870 I have now. Difference is both card trade blows depending on the game/benchmark used but SKYMTL is under the "delusion" that the 680 is head and shoulders above the 7970 when clock for clock they are equal.

I take two Idential cars and drop the rev limiter on car A to 3000 rpm and car B to 7,000 rpm I bet car A is slower but take off the restrictor both cars are equal again. Same goes for the 7970 and 680 when equal clocks are achieved.

Either way take your fanboi BS and buy what you like since both are good.

good day

So it appears your the author of that website.

Come on. I don't say anything particularly biased in the post you responded too. I said the 1335 atomic version is not out which it isn't. A 1150mhz/1050mhz 6gb card from sapphire should show that this card is probably not coming out. And rounding 4 months from 2.5 months is pretty weak of. Rounding to 3 months I can see but not 4, that is some pretty misleading rounding. The 7970 couldn't be bought until Jan 9. And you have the gall to say the 7970 was released before Christmas, say the gtx 680 is not available in April. Also the 7970 wasn't completely available at launch either, so should we call it a paper launch.

The demand of the gtx 680 is ridiculous and its is not close to a paper launch. The owner of overclockers.uk said the gtx 680 was one of the best sales wise launches ever and if you look at the hardocp thread below.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1681404&page=40

read from post 795 to post 806.

There was a 100+ stock of the gtx 680 evga superclocked editions. It took 21 minutes to deplete that entire stock. I don't know about you but that is some serious demand that can make any type of hard launch look like a paper launch. Considering the positive reviews(most were glowing) and the initial demand that comes with new products, it not that much of a stretch to imagine that demand is making the gtx 680 look like a paper launch. Especially when 100 units can disappear in 20 minutes.
Come on.

When you have a website called AMDfx.blogspot.ca you obvious have an agenda to push. The original thread on overclock.net had a crazy amount of posts mocking the original post and the information on the site itself for inconsistencies and biased writing. The thread itself was closed because it was just starting flame wars.

Most of the post are loaded with twisted conclusions.

i.e The latest article just has to try to make the 7970 the winner in the comparison by taking the two best games out of the comparison.

E.g

"Sapphire will later announce their 1335 Mhz 7970 flagship with their Atomic Series, which will come in air as well as liquid cooled variants." There is no real indication this is coming out and stock clocks from massively upgraded variants show this.

or

Nvidia has the stock crown, while AMD has the overclock crown because its overclocking performance and clock gap is highest. There is no obvious winner in my opinion, yes the GTX 680 is newer, but is it enough? And is it too late?

Even your own article suggest they trade blows when both are high overclocked to their max. And come on saying it is newer and saying it is possibly too late? I don't see any reviews saying it is too late.

Another indication of bias is the author or you not updating that the performance metric that the author used to demonstrate superiority of the 7970 over the gtx 680 using 3dmark11. The 3dmark performance record has been retaken by the gtx 680. Considering the author updates everyday or whenever a article that can be spinned into a pro AMD article, he shows that the author only want to show his agenda rather than the truth.

http://hwbot.org/submission/2267660_...80_15327_marks

This is the worst of all as it is a complete lie, to rewrite the data which was in the article.

Now compare these TWO reviews from OCC. they are using identical hardware, and most tests are identical. Watch the 7970 @ 1235/1730 Mhz wipe the floor with the GTX 680 @ 1305/1563 Mhz IN EVERY SINGLE TEST. (Well almost heh)


source 1 - gtx 680 OC
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...a_gtx680/3.htm

source 2 - 7970 OC
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...a_gtx680/3.htm

Here are the overclocked results at 1080P overclocked from both sources.
gtx 680 vs power color lcs 7970 hd respectively.
Testing: Metro 2033 96fps 93 fps
Testing: Batman Arkham City 112fps 111 fps
Testing: Battlefield 3 104fps 103fps
Testing: Unigine Heaven Benchmark 2.5 53fps 52fps(note a xfx black card) The gtx 680 was not tested in normal tesselation like the lcs 7970 only extreme.
Testing: DiRT 3 130fps 91fps(the lcs model was not used in the comparison, but in this test the xfx has the same performance, note 8x aa)
Testing: Mafia II 104fps 106fps
Testing: 3DMark 11 11147p 3796x 10245p 2991x

Considering this is data from the links you posted, I simply don't see how you can say the overclocked 7970 wipes the floor with an overclocked gtx 680. The oCed gtx 680 wins almost everywhere if by only a slight amount. Not to mention the power color lcs 7970 is a water cooled card that is 700 dollar vs the $499 gtx 680 is aircooled.

How can you be so dishonest or misleading?

[eric66]

http://m.hardocp.com/article/2012/04...cking_review/7 when oced to max they are same end of story

[tajoh111]

http://m.hardocp.com/article/2012/04...cking_review/7 when oced to max they are same end of story

That I can agree on. They are very even when overclocked to the max. I also agree with kyle or brent that power appears to be a limiting factor here. The power consumption only increases from 4 watts to 27 watts. The throttling is a bit too aggressive.

AMD has given the 7970 more freedom here as the 7970 is allowed to consume allow more than stock when overclocked.

71 watts for the lightning review(1190 mhz vs 1070mhz)
106 watts for the Gigabyte OC review(1305mhz vs 1000mhz)
117 watts in the Asus review (1125mhz vs stock 925mhz)
25 watts for the xfx black edition review(1150mhz vs stock 1000mhz).

In the case of the xfx, a more limited overclock was achieved(1150mhz) but it seemed the most efficient of the bunch. Allowing to modify volts as in AMDs case, appears to allow for greater overclocks(percentage wise) compared to increasing maximum tdp increases. Nvidia way is restrictive but it seems more efficient power wise.

[boxleitnerb]

Shame they didn't measure power on the OCed Radeon, though.

[tajoh111]

Shame they didn't measure power on the OCed Radeon, though.

I suspect the power consumption or card used to get the overclock was the card used in this review below.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/...mance_review/6

It was probably the card AMD sent them. Same clocks as the above review(1260mhz/6.9ghz)

Also I think they used battlefield 3 as the metric to obtain power results from(so 368 watts vs 369 watts) so I think they are the same card.

So as a results result I am pretty sure the power consumption is as follows for the overclocked card in battlefield 3. 1260mhz/6.9ghz card used 93 more watts than the stock clock/set up or in this case for the system 369 watts vs 462 watts.

[boxleitnerb]

I suspect the power consumption or card used to get the overclock was the card used in this review below.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/...mance_review/6

It was probably the card AMD sent them. Same clocks as the above review(1260mhz/6.9ghz)

Also I think they used battlefield 3 as the metric to obtain power results from(so 368 watts vs 369 watts) so I think they are the same card.

So as a results result I am pretty sure the power consumption is as follows for the overclocked card in battlefield 3. 1260mhz/6.9ghz card used 93 more watts than the stock clock/set up or in this case for the system 369 watts vs 462 watts.

Thanks! I looked in that review but I kinda overlooked the power numbers. In the current review they list the 7970 in BF3 with 368 watts, so thats close enough. It is difficult to compare these results though as ASIC quality varies or they dropped of a cliff regarding efficiency at a certain point. Might use 50W less at only 1240mhz for example. Still it seems that Kepler is way more energy-efficient at higher clocks.

[Rollo]

You guys done arguing about vram? This thread is no longer about HD 7970 price cuts..

Would be interesting to see how many of the people accross the internet "swearing on a stack of Bibles" that you "absolutely need 3GB of VRAM" spent last year saying "2GB is what you need to have".

The framebuffer situation has apparently changed radically in the last four months.

Speaking as a person who went from gaming daily at 57X10 on 2GB 560Ti SLi to 3GB GTX580 SLi to 2GB GTX680 SLi the only difference I've noticed is each rig being a good deal faster than it's predecessor.

"Moar VRAM!" is this year's "Moar cores!".

Personally I think it would have been a much smarter move to drop prices immediately to $450 if selling 7970s is the concern, but they're obviously sacrificing 7970 sales to maintain pricing of the rest of the line until Kepler based competition launches.

When the 670 and 660 launch and end sales of 7950s and 7870s is when we'll see AMD cuts across the board, Sales at the $500 level are a low enough percent of total that they can be sacrificed for more profitable sales on the 2nd and 3rd tier.

[Rollo]

Sorry for rounding up since the 7970 was released before Christmas 2011 and its Now APRIL 2012 So its been 3 months and 10 days not 4 months.

Happy now?? Oh wait you can't even buy a 680 since this was a paper launch **rolls eyes**

You are wrong about a couple things here:

1. AMD didn't "release the 7970 before Christmas", they paper launched the 7970 before Christmas. They didn't go on sale till January 9th, 2012.

2. The GTX680 launched on March 22, and they've been selling every one they can build instantly since then while 7970s gather dust. 1/9 - 3/22 is 73 days. One week is 7 days, so we're talking 10 weeks and 3 days between sale dates. Months are 30- 31 days. There is no way the time between sale dates can be defined as anything but 2.5 months.

[iboomalot]

You are wrong about a couple things here:

1. AMD didn't "release the 7970 before Christmas", they paper launched the 7970 before Christmas. They didn't go on sale till January 9th, 2012.

2. The GTX680 launched on March 22, and they've been selling every one they can build instantly since then while 7970s gather dust. 1/9 - 3/22 is 73 days. One week is 7 days, so we're talking 10 weeks and 3 days between sale dates. Months are 30- 31 days. There is no way the time between sale dates can be defined as anything but 2.5 months.

I was going to get rude and say I am wrong but you are acting like a jerk , so which is worse?? But I will stick to facts.

Dec 22nd launched paper or not , March 22nd = 3 months exactly to the day. Being sold out and no supply is a paper launch too on NV 680 and its been 14 days and counting and still no stock.

Both of us are WRONG its 3 months from paper launch to paper launch

So NV had 3 months not 4 to tweek its card and take a que from intel with its own GPU turbo,, which I think is a good idea.

I guess if the 7970s are collecting all this dust prices should creator to $400 which is good for the consumer.

I will now leave the fanboys to talk amust themselves.

[iboomalot]

So it appears your the author of that website.

How can you be so dishonest or misleading?

Why did you quote me and make all these comments that has nothing to do with my posts???

I one don't author any website except my Aetna dental saving plan which isn't part of this discussion and I simply posted a link showing both cards are equal clock for clock,, I never said the 7970 wipes the floor or visa versa.

So it seems you either quoted the wrong person and how is giving my opinion and backing it up with a link dishonest or misleading ???

Please show me where I said "I simply don't see how you can say the overclocked 7970 wipes the floor with an overclocked gtx 680"

Its amazing how being a fanboy clouds your mind and you make wild accusations not based on facts.

I WAS NOT BEING DISHONEST OR MISLEADING AND IAM NOT AN AUTHOR OR MEMBER OF THAT WEBSITE

Is that clear enough for everyone.

[WeaponX]

With all this VRAM talk going on, can someone tell me whether or not more VRAM makes a difference when you're gaming at 120mhz refresh? I suspect thats where the random stutters I get in MW3 come into play (that and random network lag). But I've always wondered, can someone confirm?


p.s. trying to make a more productive post