7990 1ghz edition to debut at computex 2012

[BababooeyHTJ]

I suppose its down to ones personal view of whats considered playable. You may be able to "play" a game at "x" performance level but whether you enjoy it is another question. As such I don't find 30fps playable is the majoirty of games out there but again this is highly subjective. I cringe at the thought of another 7 plus years of consoles games at 30fps, but odds are...

The vast majority of games will never hit 30 fps with either a GTX 680 or 7970 at 2560x1440. You can always turn down a few settings in the games that do dip down there too. You don't need a GTX 690 or 7970 crossfire for 2560x1440 and thats coming from someone used to owning a 120hz display. That said I do have another GTX 670 on the way.

[Rollo]

7970 at 1050mhz according to TPU is 8% faster at 2560x1600 on average. Also in the games where GTX680 is faster like Skyrim or BF3 7970 isn't exactly struggling. Any game where the GTX680 does struggle at higher resolutions like Crysis 2, Metro, Crysis, Stalker, Alan Wake, etc the 7970 is a fair bit faster.

I just tallied the AnandTech review, the 680 beat the GHz Edition 7970 at 6 of 10 games. It also won 3 of 7 at 57 X 10.

So basically all the GHz Edition does is put the 7970 more on par with the 680. Which is fine, but it's power/heat/noise are worse, and it still lacks all the NVIDIA exclusive features. It is better at compute, which I personally don't use outside of PhysX, but AMD doesn't have that anyway so I don't care if their video transcoder is a little faster.

I buy cards like this to game, and that why I bought a 670 and a 680.

In any case, the games AMD is winning seem old, how many people are even playing Crysis/Alan Wake/Metro anymore? (and the Metro I'd say is still better on 680s with PhysX) Also, it's pretty clear the 7970GHz isn't "owning" at 25X16. That TPU overall graph is misleading, the AMD card could be behind by 1% in 10 games ahead by 20% in 1 game and TPU proclaims it 10% faster.

[Roadhog]

In any case, the games AMD is winning seem old, how many people are even playing Crysis/Alan Wake/Metro anymore? (and the Metro I'd say is still better on 680s with PhysX) Also, it's pretty clear the 7970GHz isn't "owning" at 25X16. That TPU overall graph is misleading, the AMD card could be behind by 1% in 10 games ahead by 20% in 1 game and TPU proclaims it 10% faster.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5114183

[SKYMTL]

In any case, the games AMD is winning seem old, how many people are even playing Crysis/Alan Wake/Metro anymore? (and the Metro I'd say is still better on 680s with PhysX) Also, it's pretty clear the 7970GHz isn't "owning" at 25X16. That TPU overall graph is misleading, the AMD card could be behind by 1% in 10 games ahead by 20% in 1 game and TPU proclaims it 10% faster.

Actually, the GHz Edition leads (granted, sometimes not by much) in areas that enthusiasts care about: ultra high resolution and maxed IQ. Take nearly any game, set it to 2560 x 1600 and 8xMSAA and you'll see the AMD card shine.

[BababooeyHTJ]

In any case, the games AMD is winning seem old, how many people are even playing Crysis/Alan Wake/Metro anymore? (and the Metro I'd say is still better on 680s with PhysX) Also, it's pretty clear the 7970GHz isn't "owning" at 25X16. That TPU overall graph is misleading, the AMD card could be behind by 1% in 10 games ahead by 20% in 1 game and TPU proclaims it 10% faster.

The fact of the matter is that GTX 680 struggles in every one of those games at a higher res. Serious Sam 3 is another one and there are a few more. In the games where GTX 680 does perform better than 7970 it isn't exactly struggling. 7970 performs more consistently at a higher resolution, spin that any way that you like it.

On top of that AMD's SGSSAA seems to be compatible with more games and has built in lod correction and you can enable it from the control panel.

[Manicdan]

@many people (not baba specifically even though my most post does sound like a direct reply to him)

with perf this close everyone is grasping every straw they can

fact is both are close, and fact is most of us dont care if people pick based on reviews or color. they are that close and anyone should be happy with either.

[highoctane]

It's about as close overall as it's ever been, both sides and everyone in between should be satisfied with whatever choice they make.

[Dimitriman]

It's about as close overall as it's ever been, both sides and everyone in between should be satisfied with whatever choice they make.

Amen.

Speculations should be on how 7990 will turn out, cause there it will have to be binned really well to catch up with the 690 in power and clock speed.

[Chickenfeed]

The vast majority of games will never hit 30 fps with either a GTX 680 or 7970 at 2560x1440. You can always turn down a few settings in the games that do dip down there too. You don't need a GTX 690 or 7970 crossfire for 2560x1440 and thats coming from someone used to owning a 120hz display. That said I do have another GTX 670 on the way.

Most games do over 30 average at WQHD on either of those cards but I still don't consider that anything special... Like is said in my previous post ones subjective performance criteria is just that. Subjective. I don't find any current single gpu conducive to a consistently enjoyable experiance at that resolution. I don't see the point debating these cards in solo configs at high resolutions but to each his own.

I used a 120Hz panel for 2 years and am not sure what you are refering to? FulHD 120 and and WQHD 60 aren't really related?

[BababooeyHTJ]

Most games do over 30 average at WQHD on either of those cards but I still don't consider that anything special... Like is said in my previous post ones subjective performance criteria is just that. Subjective. I don't find any current single gpu conducive to a consistently enjoyable experiance at that resolution. I don't see the point debating these cards in solo configs at high resolutions but to each his own.

Most games don't average close to just 30 either. Most games average close to 60 with GTX 680 even. There are very few games that I would say are unplayable at 2560x1440 on a GTX 680 even. I mean very few. Crysis, Crysis 2 and Metro are the only ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

I used a 120Hz panel for 2 years and am not sure what you are refering to? FulHD 120 and and WQHD 60 aren't really related?

I thought that was self explanatory. I'm used to gaming with a very high refresh rate. Even 40 fps bugs me.

[Rollo]

Actually, the GHz Edition leads (granted, sometimes not by much) in areas that enthusiasts care about: ultra high resolution and maxed IQ. Take nearly any game, set it to 2560 x 1600 and 8xMSAA and you'll see the AMD card shine.

In regard to this I'd say:

1. The difference between 8x MSAA and 4X MSAA is not exactly overwhelming. It's more like "I think this might look better, let's closely examine some screenshots".
2. You could say the same thing about 4GB GTX670s: "4GB GTX670s shine at the settings enthusiasts care about, they can run more games at 25 X 16 16XMSAA"
3. I'd trade all AA over 4X on the control panel for PhysX, 3d Vision, and the game specific features. The returns of higher than 4X are highly diminishing, not worth the framerate hit, and IMO the need for AA is reduced by 25X16 resolution.

When AMD comes out with GPU accelerated physics, starts working with devs on some IQ differentiating features, and has 3d Surround I'll give them more consideration. For now they're just selling me the same stuff I've had forever. I was running 8X MSAA (and yawning) on my 6800GT SLi kit back in 2004.

[Olivon]

The 670/680 4GB version got nothing interest. Problem is more about memory bandwidth and 256-bit bus.

[Rollo]

The 670/680 4GB version got nothing interest. Problem is more about memory bandwidth and 256-bit bus.

Link?

I'd certainly like to see some 25X16 4X/8X/16X MSAA benchmarks compared before I take your word for it that the card is running out of bandwidth and can't benefit from an addition GB of VRAM.

[DilTech]

In regard to this I'd say:

1. The difference between 8x MSAA and 4X MSAA is not exactly overwhelming. It's more like "I think this might look better, let's closely examine some screenshots".
2. You could say the same thing about 4GB GTX670s: "4GB GTX670s shine at the settings enthusiasts care about, they can run more games at 25 X 16 16XMSAA"
3. I'd trade all AA over 4X on the control panel for PhysX, 3d Vision, and the game specific features. The returns of higher than 4X are highly diminishing, not worth the framerate hit, and IMO the need for AA is reduced by 25X16 resolution.

When AMD comes out with GPU accelerated physics, starts working with devs on some IQ differentiating features, and has 3d Surround I'll give them more consideration. For now they're just selling me the same stuff I've had forever. I was running 8X MSAA (and yawning) on my 6800GT SLi kit back in 2004.

AMD can do 3d eyefinity via tri-def, but it doesn't support CF at all which is practically a MUST for 57x10 in 3d.

[SKYMTL]

AMD can do 3d eyefinity via tri-def, but it doesn't support CF at all which is practically a MUST for 57x10 in 3d.

Don't even get me started with AMD's "3D Eyefinity" dog and pony show. Right now, it doesn't work in 3/4 of the games I've tried.

[Rollo]

Don't even get me started with AMD's "3D Eyefinity" dog and pony show. Right now, it doesn't work in 3/4 of the games I've tried.

I've never seen a review of it, and it's supposedly been available all year.

[Rollo]

AMD can do 3d eyefinity via tri-def, but it doesn't support CF at all which is practically a MUST for 57x10 in 3d.

For this gen and newer games that is pretty true. I'm thinking the 7970 is approximately equal to the 2GB GTX560Ti SLi I used to have, and that couldn't run games like Just Cause 2 or Mafia 2 in 3d, but could run older games like Far Cry 2.

[dasa]

physx is all but useless at the moment the only half decent effect i have seen it do that hasnt been done by the cpu in other game is fog that flows
3d? dont care dont like it but obviously some do
7970 doing better in old games? does it matter since new games graphics havent improved and 5 year old games like crysis are still superior in many ways which really pisses me off when dx11\modern hardware have so much untapped potential

[Lanek]

Old games is funny.. first there's not so much new games out and if thoses games as Metro2033 are used, it is just cause they are seen as reference on gpu works.

The only recent games where the 680 is still faster is BF3 .... and they are equal in Batman AC ... All other games are for AMD ... . And again as proven in many review, BF3 really depend what part you use as benchmark.

I dont even know why we speak about who is faster in what games : in 99% of the case, where the 7970-680-7970ghz win a game or loose another one, this is for 1-2-3fps ... haa yes we can make a nice chart with %.. when we speak about 1-2fps difference in a game or another. From memory, the last time they was so close was on the X1900XTX time vs 7800Ultra... ( before AMD pull the X1950XTX )

(Ofc outside computing, where the numbers are purely alarming for the 680 and the K10 Tesla... the 7970ghz deal 4.1Tflops SP for 1.08 DP Tflops.. where Nvidia with 2x680 pull 4.5Tflops SP and 0.2 Tflops in DP ).. If AMD release a dual Firepro, the card will pull basically 7 to 7.8 tflops SP and a bit less of 2Tflops DP ( at only 1/4 rate for the DP, imagine what happend with 1/2 DP rate.. GCN was aimed at computing, it just a beast in pure raw power, i dont even try to imagine what Nvidia will try pull with the K20.. aimed at only 1Tflops DP... )

And when we speak about so little difference in performance, look what can happen with drivers . (and this right for both brand ) Dirt3 is a good example on how a driver can make pass a card in front of the other ... ( i dont speak about the last Dirt3 showdown, where it seems for now the 600series have real problem with Global illumination and cant even pull 30fps )

This is the evolution on performance with drivers till the 7970 is out. I dont have a chart with Nvidia drivers or i will put it too for balance . (outside the Anandtech ones )

[Olivon]

Since HD 4800 series, ATI/AMD talks about computing and Teraflops. What we've got from 'em right now ? Nothing ...

nVidia won the pot and will enter in competition with almighty Intel really soon.

So when I heard AMD and computing, I can't stop laughing ...

[SKYMTL]

Old games is funny.. first there's not so much new games out and if thoses games as Metro2033 are used, it is just cause they are seen as reference on gpu works.

The only recent games where the 680 is still faster is BF3 .... and they are equal in Batman AC ... All other games are for AMD ... . And again as proven in many review, BF3 really depend what part you use as benchmark.

You seem to forget that the GTX 680 wins in:

Wargame: EU Conflict
Shogun 2

Other than that, the difference is typically split between the two.

[solofly]

For this gen and newer games that is pretty true. I'm thinking the 7970 is approximately equal to the 2GB GTX560Ti SLi I used to have, and that couldn't run games like Just Cause 2 or Mafia 2 in 3d, but could run older games like Far Cry 2.

Just Cause 2 and Mafia 2 look awesome in 3D! Too bad I didn't have a 3D setup when I was playng Just Cause 2 back then...

[solofly]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5114183

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5114230

[Rollo]

You seem to forget that the GTX 680 wins in:

Wargame: EU Conflict
Shogun 2

Other than that, the difference is typically split between the two.

Not to mention Skyrim, which came out last November, and was the hottest selling game last holiday season.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Not to mention Skyrim, which came out last November, and was the hottest selling game last holiday season.

Its not like 7970 or 7950 is exactly struggling in Skyrim unlike what GTX 680 does in Metro, serious sam 3, and Crysis 2.