Ghz edition 7970 coming very soon! (Softpedia)

[Meghan54]

I will gladly trade my 680 for the right 7970 :whiste:

Well, you're not getting mine back! It's just too darned sweet!




Thanks, btw.

 

[3DVagabond]

AMD fanboy in denial... Here's a quote from the review...

The PowerColor HD 7970 when overclocked and overvolted draws 102W more than overclocked on the stock fan profile and with the stock voltage. It also uses over 100W more than the GTX 680 in the same situation and in the same system!

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=3

Here's a "max overclocking" gtx 680 BF 3 drawing 355w total system power consumptions... Even when o/c the gtx 680 uses less power than a stock 7970....

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/6

Here's a total system power drawn for the hd 7970 drawing 117w more when overclocked... Stock @ 490w vs 607w when overclocked..

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/25/asus_radeon_hd_7970_video_card_review/8

Even with facts and number and you're in still denial...

Just so you know that is considered a personal attack. You're new here though. I just thought I would tell you before you got called out by a mod for it. I personally have thicker skin, but some here would push the button and report you for it. The real fanbois here get personal satisfaction from baiting.

That said, you are not showing measurements when the 7970 is O/C'd to match 680 performance. This is where my disagreement is. I'm not saying that the 680 is not more efficient. I'm not saying that you can't set up a 7970 to use ~100W more than a 680. It's just not going to do it merely by setting the clocks on the 7970 to match the performance of a 680.

To repeat myself, TechPowerUp reviewed the 7970 Lightning. There overall performance graph shows it dead even with a 680 (Slower below 1080, even at 1080, and faster at 1600 but even overall). There power usage graph shows the Lighting using ~35W more power while gaming than the 680. I'm not trying to diminish that difference. It's sizable. It's ~20% more power used to do the same work. It's no where near 100W more though. That is pure FUD. Any sites that perpetuate that myth are hopelessly biased.

Can you O/V and O/C a 7970 and get it to draw an additional 100W. Yes! That's not the same thing as what was claimed though that I am disputing.

Edit: Just saw where others have pointed out the personal attack to you already. You seem to have taken it on OK. No hard feelings. :thumbsup:

 

[SirPauly]

Additionally, if nVidia had launched on time and with their true top range chip we might have only paid $400 for Tahiti, if you want to talk what caused Tahiti to be so expensive.

nVidia didn't launch on time with a much later Fermi derivative and yet AMD launched the HD 5870 and HD 5850 at 379 and 299.

 

[HurleyBird]

nVidia didn't launch on time with a much later Fermi derivative and yet AMD launched the HD 5870 and HD 5850 at 379 and 299.

And at that time AMD's brand was still tarnished from the 2900XT. They wanted to gain marketshare. They also couldn't have known exactly how long Fermi was to be delayed.

It's possible that AMD expected Nvidia to be equally late this round, and that's why they priced things higher this time. Or it could just be the high cost for 28nm everyone is moaning about.

 

[SirPauly]

Well, they lost share with the 6XXX series and competing with a mature Fermi line -- so why not raise prices by 50 percent?

 

[Mad_dawg]

Just so you know that is considered a personal attack. You're new here though. I just thought I would tell you before you got called out by a mod for it. I personally have thicker skin, but some here would push the button and report you for it. The real fanbois here get personal satisfaction from baiting.

That said, you are not showing measurements when the 7970 is O/C'd to match 680 performance. This is where my disagreement is. I'm not saying that the 680 is not more efficient. I'm not saying that you can't set up a 7970 to use ~100W more than a 680. It's just not going to do it merely by setting the clocks on the 7970 to match the performance of a 680.

To repeat myself, TechPowerUp reviewed the 7970 Lightning. There overall performance graph shows it dead even with a 680 (Slower below 1080, even at 1080, and faster at 1600 but even overall). There power usage graph shows the Lighting using ~35W more power while gaming than the 680. I'm not trying to diminish that difference. It's sizable. It's ~20% more power used to do the same work. It's no where near 100W more though. That is pure FUD. Any sites that perpetuate that myth are hopelessly biased.

Can you O/V and O/C a 7970 and get it to draw an additional 100W. Yes! That's not the same thing as what was claimed though that I am disputing.

Edit: Just saw where others have pointed out the personal attack to you already. You seem to have taken it on OK. No hard feelings. :thumbsup:

You don't seem get it i.e to get maximum overclock you need max voltage and this is where the 7970 falls to pieces regarding power consumptions... The general consensus here is that when both o/c to their max than they're pretty much the same performances.. The gtx 680 makes Tahiti feels like Fermi but Fermi have the performances to back it up....

 

[SirPauly]

That's a key point there -- ya here about how an OC HD 7970 may match and may overtake an OC GTX 680 but what are the power requirements of these OC's from a power efficiency stand-point?

 

[Elfear]

That's a key point there -- ya here about how an OC HD 7970 may match and may overtake an OC GTX 680 but what are the power requirements of these OC's from a power efficiency stand-point?

I think it depends on the card. Using the stock cooler mine would do 1225Mhz at stock volts (1.175V). I highly doubt it consumed 100W more power than a 680 clocked to 1225Mhz.

 

[3DVagabond]

nVidia didn't launch on time with a much later Fermi derivative and yet AMD launched the HD 5870 and HD 5850 at 379 and 299.

Except nVidia was supposed to launch, what was the equivalent of the gtx 580, far sooner than they eventually launched the gtx 480. Different person running the company back then, as well.

The only competition for the 7970 when it was launched was the 580, and the 3Gig version was ~$600, IIRC. nVidia's price for a competitive product was what set the price for the 7970.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Except nVidia was supposed to launch, what was the equivalent of the gtx 580, far sooner than they eventually launched the gtx 480. Different person running the company back then, as well.

The only competition for the 7970 when it was launched was the 580, and the 3Gig version was ~$600, IIRC. nVidia's price for a competitive product was what set the price for the 7970.

-AMD might have also been taken by surprise how quickly Nvidia turned around and released a competing product. They might have been expecting the same comfortable 6 month lead only to get a bad case of whiplash when NV came out of no where with their "mid-range 680".

 

[3DVagabond]

-AMD might have also been taken by surprise how quickly Nvidia turned around and released a competing product. They might have been expecting the same comfortable 6 month lead only to get a bad case of whiplash when NV came out of no where with their "mid-range 680".

It's pretty certain they were caught off guard. nVidia was surprised at how well the gk104 performed. I doubt AMD would have had any idea.