http://hardocp.com/article/2012/11/1...ison_roundup/1With the recent release of new beta drivers from both AMD and NVIDIA, and the upping of clocks by AMD, significant performance gains have been claimed by both parties for current generation video cards. We will investigate with a 6-way roundup comparison to see if we can crown a champion.
Nvidia damage control crew in 1..2..3...
the difference between them before was not by that much. the nvidia offering stayed the same, the amd offering went up in clocks, and drivers for amd really made some big jumps. so its expected they are close but with amd pulling ahead. also nothing is stopping nvidia from releasing 1100-1200mhz options using slightly higher voltages.Originally Posted by Piledriver
no matter how you look at it, prices are set to give you the exact idea on performance. although the price/perf ratio of the 670 and lower gpus are incredible compared to the 7970 and 680, i couldnt recommend them unless their needs were exactly that of a single gpu only for 2560 resolution gaming.
2500k @ 4900mhz - Asus Maxiums IV Gene Z - Swiftech Apogee LP
GTX 680 @ +170 (1267mhz) / +300 (3305mhz) - EK 680 FC EN/Acteal
Swiftech MCR320 Drive @ 1300rpms - 3x GT 1850s @ 1150rpms
XS Build Log for: My Latest Custom Case
nVidia already has 1100-1200mhz options, at least my GTX670's ran 1280-1322 stock...
Would be nice if H told us what cards they used exactly and what they did to make them run at set clock speeds too.
edit - look at the BF3 MP settings. Either that 670 is clocking well past 1ghz or they are playing with some settings that are not listed on their results..
Last edited by STEvil; 11-12-2012 at 03:21 PM.
All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
Hardocp is famous for doing a bad job of stuff like this, so you better corroborate the results with another source before taking it too seriously.
We know from launch day benchmarks that two sites like an and and hardocp can have opposing results from the same alleged test. We know that behind the scenes there are tons of things for them to screw up. One of them is facing a wall in single player with iTunes updater running in the background, and the other is running through the same area as before with all the data pre cached.
Point being there is a lot to go wrong in tests like these and hardocp has possibly the worst record of them all.
IMO, one can't come to a clear conclusion when only 4 titles are used....but that's just me.
That's indeed true and the only valid point I've seen so far. I wish they would have tested more games.IMO, one can't come to a clear conclusion when only 4 titles are used....but that's just me.
gtx670 and 7970 are both ~$400 and 7950 is ~$300
660ti is ~$310 while 7870 is ~$230
this is going by prices in au but it looks like newegg is within $20 of this
Last edited by dasa; 11-12-2012 at 05:00 PM.
TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2088\9500MHz -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
Damn can't imagine how much they lost cause of not havin this drivers in time... Seriously Amd should have started layy offs from driver team lol
it is a new gpu very different from the last these things take time
its the same for nvidia they got big performance increases out of gtx480 over one-two years
then they didnt have to start from scratch with gtx580\680 as they are much the same which leaves them mostly with per game based optimizations to do
TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2088\9500MHz -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM
I have to bring this up as well. NVIDIA released a new 310.54 driver yesterday claiming an additional 16% performance increase in many games:
There's nothing like releasing an article, only to have it become outdated 24 hours later.
It ia 16% over the latest final released drivers. I don't think they claim 16% over 310.33 beta.
From their post on GeForce.com it looks like the perf improvement is in addition to 310.33:
In last month’s GeForce 310.33 beta driver we improved performance by up to 15% in nine games, and this month we’re improving performance by up to 26% in twenty games.
Seems like they are just focusing on different games this time around...
Hopefully i dont see too much release of new GPU's... will start to be a real headache for reviewers if each week AMD and Nvidia release new performance drivers.
CPU: - I7 4930K (EK Supremacy )
GPU: - 2x AMD HD7970 flashed GHZ bios ( EK Acetal Nickel Waterblock H2o)
Motherboard: Asus x79 Deluxe
RAM: G-skill Ares C9 2133mhz 16GB
Main Storage: Samsung 840EVO 500GB / 2x Crucial RealSSD C300 Raid0
Well I sure hope some one (hint hint... ) test these. Keep in mind I'm not a native speaker but from my understanding they mean that last month they incresed performance by up to 15% and now they are improving it by up to 26%, both these percentages in my understanding relate back to the base line "official drivers" are.
I also admit your reading is perfectly valid.
exactly...
much better not to have performance improvements and be stuck with low framerates, instead of having to perform the dreadful task of running more benchmarks.
-.-'
its probably a performance increase from delaying the downclock command when the GPU's hit their power limit.
All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
man I hate that site's benchmark graphs. They look so messy and hard to read. whatever happened to bars!?
Core i7 7700K| ASUS Z270F | 16Gb DDR4 | GTX1080Ti | Watercooled CPU+GPU | 512GB 950Pro
So why is it customary to post specs in sigs anyway?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks