Bit-tech got their 7950 to 1GHz but it needed voltage bumping to 1150mV to achieve it, anything higher created artifacts.
200Mhz increase over stock is pretty good and beats a stock 7970, but I would get a 7970 over a 7950 tbh.
Bit-tech got their 7950 to 1GHz but it needed voltage bumping to 1150mV to achieve it, anything higher created artifacts.
200Mhz increase over stock is pretty good and beats a stock 7970, but I would get a 7970 over a 7950 tbh.
What's the problem here? It's priced very competitively with the gtx 580. It's faster, cheaper, has 3gb of video memory (irrelevant in most cases, but the extra 1.5 gb costs money), it's way cooler and eats a lot less power. If you want to compare it with something , compare it with the 3 gb gtx 580, which is like $600. What more do you want?
The 1.5 gb version will probably cost $400 or less, making it competitive in price/performance with the hd 6970 and gtx 570. That's all it needs to do; It's a high end card, no need to compete with the small fries.
The only reason why the previous gen cards form AMD have been cheaper at launch was because the NEEDED to be, for various reasons (i.e. the hd4870 was 15% slower than the gtx280 and ATI had lost a lot of brand recognition by then, so they needed market share, the HD 5870 had to compete with a much cheaper gtx 285 and the HD 6970 was once again outclassed by the gtx 580).
Now they don't.
The 1.5 gb version will probably cost $400 or less, making it competitive in price/performance with the hd 6970 and gtx 570. That's all it needs to do; It's a high end card, no need to compete with the small fries.
The only reason why the previous gen cards form AMD have been cheaper at launch was because the NEEDED to be, for various reasons (i.e. the hd4870 was 15% slower than the gtx280 and ATI had lost a lot of brand recognition by then, so they needed market share, the HD 5870 had to compete with a much cheaper gtx 285 and the HD 6970 was once again outclassed by the gtx 580).
Now they don't.
know of fence
Senior member
- May 28, 2009
- 555
- 2
- 71
As someone who read the review now, I am amazed just how silent the Sapphire card is, I'd like to buy it because cards with better (performance / power ratio) 78X0 aren't due out for 2 more months. But what are the chances that I get a card binned at 0.993V from retail? The whole send out select samples for early review, gets in the way of an objective evaluation once again. Though props to Ryan Smith for pointing that out.
Maybe the Gigabyte card with 3 fans is less loud still...
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-radeon-hd-7000-series-roadmap-revealed/14693.html
Maybe the Gigabyte card with 3 fans is less loud still...
http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-radeon-hd-7000-series-roadmap-revealed/14693.html
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,361
- 136
If HD7870 will be priced at $299 we will have almost the same performance at $299 for the last ~3 years, since HD58xx was released
HD5850 = Performance 100% at $259 Launched Sept 2009
HD5870 = Performance 115% at $379
HD6950 = Performance 110% at $299 Launched Dec 2010
HD6970 = Performance ~125% at $369
HD7870 = Performance ~110-115 ??? at $299 Launch March 2011
Really, what the hell ??
HD5850 = Performance 100% at $259 Launched Sept 2009
HD5870 = Performance 115% at $379
HD6950 = Performance 110% at $299 Launched Dec 2010
HD6970 = Performance ~125% at $369
HD7870 = Performance ~110-115 ??? at $299 Launch March 2011
Really, what the hell ??
allow me.
hd5850 =100
hd5870 =115
hd6950 =125
hd6970 =140
hd7870 =~130
But you have a point though, performance per dollar hasn't changed that much in the last 3 years at that price point.
hd5850 =100
hd5870 =115
hd6950 =125
hd6970 =140
hd7870 =~130
But you have a point though, performance per dollar hasn't changed that much in the last 3 years at that price point.
GaiaHunter
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2008
- 3,650
- 218
- 106
Other than the manufacturing process the specs have pretty much been the same as well so it isn't surprising.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,361
- 136
I never had a problem with the small performance increase at the same price point from HD58xx to HD69xx because of the same manufacturing process of 40nm.
But going to 28nm and having the same performance again for the same price is not what I was expecting.
GaiaHunter
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2008
- 3,650
- 218
- 106
Probably GPGPU die space tax, otherwise we would probably have seen beefier specs.
NVDIA die sizes and specs will help understand it better
Last edited:
Man,
these reviews make the 7950 seem like a bit of a disappointment -- they go over like a lead balloon.
They lumped 14% off the shaders and Texture units (2048/1792 and 128/112). OK, I can live with that because they kept the 32 ROPS's. But dropping the clocks 15% (925 to 800) in addition to that 14% handicap is simply too much. The 7950 turns out ~ 20% slower than the 7970 which is simply too much a drop in performance for the price it slots in $449.
With the 6970/6950 and 580/570 the lower models see ~ 10-12% drop in performance compared to the top end models. So now AMD sees fit to up this to 20% difference between the top 2 models ???? What the heck are they thinking? I could see a 1.5GB model being slowed down this much because it can slot in at a lower price range $399. But with a more expensive 0.28 fab process, and 3GB of ram, the 7950 is more expensive to produce than the previous generation 6970 that came in at a little under $400.
Sure, it overclocks well, and informed users can just opt for a faster clocked 900Mhz model. But why have all the review sites benchmark the card at speeds (most bench a default clocked card) where it's marginally faster than a 580 so that it now looks like little more value than a 580? (Particularly if the 580 drops in price.) With a 20% performance drop over the 7970 the 7950 just doesn't seem like good value for the $449 price range. If they had clocked it at 900Mhz it could have dominated the 580 and be seen as much better value and the reviews would have been much more glowing. Missed opportunity AMD. Whoever came up with this at AMD should be tarred and feathered. AMD took a great new GCN chip and simply gimped the reference spec too much.
This is their top tier line of cards with 3GB ram -- I see no reason to slow the 7950 down as much as they did. They could have even allowed slower cards outside a reference spec later on, but I think the reference spec should have been clocked 900Mhz, and that would have better reflected in the reviews.
They lumped 14% off the shaders and Texture units (2048/1792 and 128/112). OK, I can live with that because they kept the 32 ROPS's. But dropping the clocks 15% (925 to 800) in addition to that 14% handicap is simply too much. The 7950 turns out ~ 20% slower than the 7970 which is simply too much a drop in performance for the price it slots in $449.
With the 6970/6950 and 580/570 the lower models see ~ 10-12% drop in performance compared to the top end models. So now AMD sees fit to up this to 20% difference between the top 2 models ???? What the heck are they thinking? I could see a 1.5GB model being slowed down this much because it can slot in at a lower price range $399. But with a more expensive 0.28 fab process, and 3GB of ram, the 7950 is more expensive to produce than the previous generation 6970 that came in at a little under $400.
Sure, it overclocks well, and informed users can just opt for a faster clocked 900Mhz model. But why have all the review sites benchmark the card at speeds (most bench a default clocked card) where it's marginally faster than a 580 so that it now looks like little more value than a 580? (Particularly if the 580 drops in price.) With a 20% performance drop over the 7970 the 7950 just doesn't seem like good value for the $449 price range. If they had clocked it at 900Mhz it could have dominated the 580 and be seen as much better value and the reviews would have been much more glowing. Missed opportunity AMD. Whoever came up with this at AMD should be tarred and feathered. AMD took a great new GCN chip and simply gimped the reference spec too much.
This is their top tier line of cards with 3GB ram -- I see no reason to slow the 7950 down as much as they did. They could have even allowed slower cards outside a reference spec later on, but I think the reference spec should have been clocked 900Mhz, and that would have better reflected in the reviews.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,361
- 136
Probably GPGPU die space tax, otherwise we would probably have seen beefier specs.
NVDIA die sizes and specs will help understand it better
HD78xx will be bellow 300mm2, way smaller than Evergreen and Cayman and yet it will cost the same and have almost the same performance.
If nvidia would like it could have a GTX580 performance card at almost 300mm2 shrank at 28nm.
Chips bellow the 300mm2 mark are Middle End and usually that cards priced at $250 or bellow.
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
Can't remember ever being this disappointed at a next gen launch. Okay maybe Bulldozer. lol
Same company. Coincidence? I dunno.
Can't wait for the 7870 launch when you get 6970 performance at the same price. Oh wait power consumption will be better. Man imagine those pennies you'll save over the life of the card.
Same company. Coincidence? I dunno.
Can't wait for the 7870 launch when you get 6970 performance at the same price. Oh wait power consumption will be better. Man imagine those pennies you'll save over the life of the card.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic here, but I'm hoping that the 2GB 7870 will actually be available at or below its $300 MSRP, and will beat the 6970 by a measurable margin while costing the same or less, using much less power and being quieter. If Kepler is still nowhere to be found when Pitcairn launches that might not happen, but if nvidia gets their act together and releases their parts I would expect the newer 28nm parts to come in at better values than the parts they're replacing.
LOL_Wut_Axel
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2011
- 4,310
- 8
- 81
Oh, stop complaining. Clock-for-clock the 7950 is only 5-10% slower than the 7970. It also overclocks very well and very good cards with third-party heatsinks and coolers like the Sapphire OE are priced at prices where the GTX 580 starts: $480. At stock clocks it's also slightly faster than the GTX 580 while consuming significantly less power. Relative to the competition, its price is just fine.
That's not to say it's not very expensive. Hopefully the HD 7890 is at around $320 or less, because the 7950 1.5GB will most definitely not be at $370 or less.
That's not to say it's not very expensive. Hopefully the HD 7890 is at around $320 or less, because the 7950 1.5GB will most definitely not be at $370 or less.
Bulldozer was truly a disappointment. It was slower in some cases than their previous gen, while consuming more power and not costing a whole lot less than the competition.
7970/7950 spanks anything nV has, spanks AMD's previous gen, AND consumes less power while doing so. I can understand you being disappointed at the price but if that's it then say THAT. How can you be disappointed at the characteristics other than price? What were you expecting? 7970 performance for $300 WHILE NV HAS NO COMPETITION? That's unrealistic IMO...AMD exists to make money and they will squeeze what they can get.
If you don't like the price don't buy it now and just wait until nV has something competitive, then prices will go down naturally. Video cards are not necessities so you should be able to wait.
7950 beats fermi to a pulp?
@1920x1200... 1% over 580, lol
@2560x1600... 5% (3gb mem effect).
Ah.. you mean it beats the 560 to a pulp.
@1920x1200... 1% over 580, lol
@2560x1600... 5% (3gb mem effect).
Ah.. you mean it beats the 560 to a pulp.
AtenRa
Lifer
- Feb 2, 2009
- 14,003
- 3,361
- 136
HD7970 with ~33% more ALUs(2048) than HD6970 SPs (1536) perform on average 30-40% faster.
You expecting HD7870 with ~10% less ALUs (1408) than HD6970 SPs (1536) to perform faster by a measurable margin??
I don't thing so.
The 7970 is sometimes a lot faster than a GTX580, sometimes just a bit faster. But they generally overclock like a beast, once you overclock it there is no comparrison. I'm not sure why AMD didn't bump the clocks a bit, maybe they're saving that for a 8970, a 4890 type of card... just a guess.
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
The card you are describing is the 7950. It's available for $470-$500. You can thank AMD.
That TPU review is also averaging in strange results, like the 6970 beating the 7950 @ 1200 in the 5 year old CoD4, at 132FPS.
exactly, this is what people who are reading benchmarks don't understand. The card is in a different league as the 580. As well it should be. At equal settings in Metro 2033, My 7970 was just shy of 30fps faster than my own GTX 580. I went from 44 fps to 72 fps. How is this not massive?
wand3r3r
Diamond Member
- May 16, 2008
- 3,180
- 0
- 0
So 2 generations later we're sitting about 15-30% faster, but the price is still the same or even higher (assuming ~300ish).
I have to echo many of the statements above. The price is too high to motivate everyone to upgrade. It fits in if you were thinking of a GTX 580, then you're better off getting a HD79xx but otherwise it's a bit lackluster imo.
If the price were considerably less I'd be all over this.
That sums it up, compared to the 6970 you gain 13% (fp$), but it costs $100-$150 more.
That chart doesn't take overclocking into account, but it's still a valid point as they are selling them at that rate and that speed.
With the latest drivers, AT has the 7970 beating the 6970 at 1200 by 44% in Metro, 40% in Crysis, 59% in Dirt3, 54% in Shogun2, 37% in BM:AC, 32% in Portal 2, 37% in BF3, 37% in SC2. They didn't test Civ5 for some reason at 1200, but it was 59% faster at 1600 and 58% at 1050.
Other than the outlier of Portal 2 where even the 6970 was over 140 FPS @ 1200, the 7970 was 45% faster than the 6970 @ 1200. Even with Portal 2 in the mix it was still 44% faster. The 7970 will have 45% more SPs than the 7870, but only 33% more ROPs and a slightly slower stock clock. The drivers from GCN will keep improving while improvements to the 69xx series won't be as dramatic, so I don't see it as being that unlikely that a 7870 will outperform a 6970 by a few percent.
notty22
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2010
- 3,375
- 0
- 0
The high resolution photo of the powercolor pcs 7950, show the 1.5gb cards should be coming, there is a small check box for either.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7950_PCS_Plus/images/front_full.jpg
The title of the OP thread would be correct if you substituted Cayman for Fermi
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_7950_PCS_Plus/images/front_full.jpg
The title of the OP thread would be correct if you substituted Cayman for Fermi
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter