Medal of Honor: Warfighter - CPU and GPU Benchmarks (GameGPU.ru)

[sontin]

Not to mention HD7970 OC remains the fastest single-GPU, while neither the 280 nor the 480 could claim that title 10 months after their launches.

The last time i checked AMD announced the 7970GHz end of june 2012. nVidia released the GTX285 end of January 2009 (seven months after the GTX280) and the GTX580 beginning of november 2010 (seven months after the GTX480). Yeah you are right 6 > 7...

 

[railven]

The last time i checked AMD announced the 7970GHz end of june 2012. nVidia released the GTX285 end of January 2009 (seven months after the GTX280) and the GTX580 beginning of november 2010 (seven months after the GTX480). Yeah you are right 6 > 7...

But the GTX 285 is not the GTX 280 and the GTX 580 is not the GTX 480.

EDIT: On same semantics, the HD 7970 GHZ is not the HD 7970. So, I'll allow it. haha.

 

[sontin]

Nobody is paying more for a normal 7970 than for the 7970GHz. His comparison is flawed and makes no sense.

BTW: My GTX480 run at 840MHz, which was 20% faster than stock...

 

[railven]

Nobody is paying more for a normal 7970 than for the 7970GHz. His comparison is flawed and makes no sense.

BTW: My GTX480 run at 840MHz, which was 20% faster than stock...

/shrug

I see semantics in both points. He screwed his own pooch by trying to say say HD 7970 GHZ launched 10 months ago.

 

[Silverforce11]

The last time i checked AMD announced the 7970GHz end of june 2012.

He's talking about 7970 OC not Ghz.. there were custom cooled 7970s side by side with reference from the get go with OCs.

 

[RussianSensation]

Sure it is. Steam is probably the largest data base for gamers.

Not sure if you noticed what I said earlier about Steam - it's basically missing most of the gaming population from 4 of the fastest growing markets for PC gaming enthusiasts and upgraders (Brazil, Russia, China and India).

Russian - 14.49% of Steam users
Simplified Chinese - 1.63%
Traditional Chinese - 0.5%
Brazilian Portuguese - 0.41%
India?

Steam essentially cannot track the 4 fastest growing markets for PC gaming worldwide because of the Internet infrastructure of those country and prevalence for pirating PC games. Not only that, it doesn't track sales, it only tracks usage of GPUs for people who use Steam. You can use it for yourself but it has no accuracy whatsoever in terms of global sales of GPUs.

Again, as I said when real world data is available for market share, it's pointless to look at Steam not only because it excludes millions of gamers in emerging countries, but also because it tells us nothing about actual sales. You can't infer anything accurate about sales from Steam. Imagine how many NV GPUs are used for Folding @ Home and none of them shows up on Steam. It's simply a snapshot of what GPUs Steam users have, that's it.

For example, the latest Steam hardware survey shows:

ATI Radeon X700 +0.26%
ATI Radeon X800 +0.01%
ATI Mobility Radeon X2300 +0.22%
NVIDIA GeForce 7950 +0.13%
NVIDIA GeForce 7900 +0.25%

There is only 1 problem - you cannot buy those GPUs in retail and haven't been able to for years. If we used Steam #s to infer sales, we would be suggesting those GPUs still sell in retail. This is why Steam hardware numbers are meaningless when it comes to real world sales #s.

The last time i checked AMD announced the 7970GHz end of june 2012. nVidia released the GTX285 end of January 2009 (seven months after the GTX280) and the GTX580 beginning of november 2010 (seven months after the GTX480). Yeah you are right 6 > 7...

You can flash any reference HD7970 with GE BIOS for free if you want. That's not the point though. If someone bought an HD7970 in January 2012 and overclocked it, they still have the fastest single-GPU (perhaps slower than HD7970 Matrix, but that's still the same GPU family). In other words, unlike GTX280/480, HD7970 still has the bragging rights of being a top dog 10 months after launch. As far as single-GPUs go, you still can't go out and buy anything faster than 7970 OC. Not bad for those who bought it right away in January 2012.

GTX285 and GTX580 superseded NV's previous gen flaships within 10 months of release. Not so for HD7970. NV has no faster card and neither does AMD. For $550, early adopters did pay a premium but in return they got bragging rights of having the fastest single-GPU this entire generation (perhaps early batches of voltage unlocked MSI Lightning 680 were faster with older drivers, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day since constant driver improvements kept HD7970 near the top anyway). HD7970 lost less than half of what GTX280 lost in value during the same period of time. HD7970 also lost less than 480 did during its cycle. I remember when GTX570/580 launched, GTX480s were readily available for $299 on Newegg. In North America, HD7970 users even had the option of bitcoin mining on the side, which means by now the card has been fully paid off.

With latest drivers, HD7970 owners are looking at a card at least as fast as a GTX680 and they paid just $50 extra 2.5 months before GTX680 even launched. That's not really a rip-off for early adopter enthusiasts who know that by buying the latest and greatest, they are paying a certain premium for the bragging rights. GTX280 & 480 owners paid the premium and that turned out FAR worse than it did for HD7970 early adopters.

BTW: My GTX480 run at 840MHz, which was 20% faster than stock...

It wasn't faster than GTX580 OCed though. What card can an HD7970 owner get now that's faster than his GPU overclocked? Maybe Asus HD7970 Matrix. But some people who bought HD7970 Lightning hit 1250-1300mhz overclocks earlier in the year. For them there is still nothing faster from either NV or AMD. HD7970 continues to be a premium GPU offering 10 months later, having lost less in resale value than did either the 280 or the 480. Was it too expensive at launch? Ya, but early adopters know they are paying a premium.

Your logic works both ways. HD7970 was too expensive to start, but GTX680 has been overpriced based on its performance for at least 5 months now since June 2012. If you say that HD7970 was overpriced, well now you can get HD7970 1Ghz with 3 free games for $380. Using the exact same reasoning you used to say that HD7970 was overpriced, that means GTX680 was also a rip-off since you can now get similar performance for $120 less. What's your point exactly, that GPUs get faster and/or cheaper with time as that's how the technology cycles work in GPUs? I don't remember NV users saying how much of a rip-off GTX280/480 were though in terms of depreciation or early adopter premium for 280.

The best part about HD7970 is people who took 10 min to set up bitcoin mining, got their cards for free. GTX280/480/580/680 cannot claim anything of this nature. That made HD7970 for $550 a good deal actually for some buyers.

 

[raghu78]

The last time i checked AMD announced the 7970GHz end of june 2012. nVidia released the GTX285 end of January 2009 (seven months after the GTX280) and the GTX580 beginning of november 2010 (seven months after the GTX480). Yeah you are right 6 > 7...

Even when the GTX 680 launched it was only faster than HD 7970 (925 Mhz) When both cards were overclocked the HD 7970 (1200 Mhz) was on par with GTX 680(1300 Mhz) . With 12.7 beta in late June that changed to HD 7970 (1200 Mhz) being faster than GTX 680 (1300 Mhz) and winning majority of demanding games except BF3, Shogun 2. With 12.11 beta even BF3 is out. There is now only shogun 2 which is a demanding game which runs better on GTX 680. Games like World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2 in which GTX 680 leads do not make a difference because both cards are running at 100+ fps at 1080p and 70+ fps at 1600p.

But take a game like Metro 2033, Sleeping Dogs where all the high end cards are struggling and HD 7970 Ghz is showing close to 25% performance increase over GTX 680 at the highest settings at 1080p and demanding resolutions like 1600p

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/13.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/14.html

Even BF3 is 10% - 20% faster on HD 7970 Ghz

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/5.html
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/46905-amd-catalyst-1211-benchmarked/?page=3

So its very clear that HD 7970 Ghz wins when it really matters and with significant margins. there is no doubt that its the fastest card. :thumbsup:

 

[SirPauly]

There is only 1 problem - you cannot buy those GPUs in retail and haven't been able to for years. If we used Steam #s to infer sales, we would be suggesting those GPUs still sell in retail. This is why Steam hardware numbers are meaningless when it comes to real world sales #s.

Personally look to see what sku's show the most growth each month -- considering the sheer size of steam -- garner "some" insight what gamers may be choosing.

For October:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/?sort=chg

 

[raghu78]

Hardocp has tested MOH Warfighter

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/07/medal_honor_warfighter_gameplay_performance_review/4

the HD 7950 boost beats GTX 670 at 1440p while at 1080p GTX 670 is slightly ahead. the GTX 660 Ti performance at 1440p with 2x MSAA is equal to HD 7950 Boost performance with 4x MSAA. Now thats some serious difference. Nvidia needs to rethink their pricing strategy.

 

[SlowSpyder]

In all fairness, RS, the 7970 wasn't the fastest card for that entire 10 months. When the GTX 680 launched it was faster. The 7970 has reclaimed the top single GPU spot with driver improvements and a clockspeed bump. Its not as black & white as it launched and simply has been the fastest part for 10 months, there is some grey area there.

But as someone who paid the premium by buying in January, I cannot say I'm unhappy. Even when the GTX680 launched, I was running at 1100MHz. so I was plenty happy with my GPU performance. But, what I've learned from owning a 5870 and the 7970, as well as seeing the GTX670 is that I think waiting and buying the second tier GPU makes more sense in the future.

 

[Souv]

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page2.html

At 3 resolutions tested,hd 7950 boost is par with gtx 680 and 7970 and 7970ghz is clear winner on Medal of honor warfighter(both are tested with latest drivers):thumbsup:

 

[Makaveli]

http://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page2.html

At 3 resolutions tested,hd 7950 boost is par with gtx 680 and 7970 and 7970ghz is clear winner on Medal of honor warfighter(both are tested with latest drivers):thumbsup:

This link was already posted in page 9 you may want to read the entire thread.

 

[tviceman]

Far Cry 2.

Aside from the pretty graphics, the spawning (and respawning) camps and enemies made that game absolutely terrible. Oh, and the extremely generic missions / story. Yeah. Terrible.

 

[Souv]

Warfighter single player better than battlefield 3 but MP not good as bf3...i played both games maxed out.....but in my opinion,Warfighter graphics looks more polished and detailed texture with superior character modelling....EA even stated that Warfighter has the best frostbite 2.0 fps graphics upto date (heavy texture can swallow even 1330+ mb of vram)...it top sells in uk and many of the people even liked it....henceforth,critics needs fresh perspective,and not emotionally invested in something and loose judgement..:thumbsup:.

 

[Makaveli]

Warfighter single player better than battlefield 3 but MP not good as bf3...i played both games maxed out.....but in my opinion,Warfighter graphics looks more polished and detailed texture with superior character modelling....EA even stated that Warfighter has the best frostbite 2.0 fps graphics upto date (heavy texture can swallow even 1330+ mb of vram)...it top sells in uk and many of the people even liked it....henceforth,critics needs fresh perspective,and not emotionally invested in something and loose judgement..:thumbsup:.

I would expect the single player to be better anyone that bought BF3 for single player is a moron.

I will have to check this game out myself i've heard too many mixed reviews.

 

[DiogoDX]

Another review.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medal-of-honor-warfighter-performance-benchmark,3336.html

 

[sze5003]

I like the story of bf3 better than call of duties. Didn't favor the qte events much. Why didn't they let you control the halo jump? As for far cry 2, nice game but missions were too similar and respawn of enemies was a pain.

Haven't finished moh sp campaign yet but bf3 multiplayer can't really be matched. Can't wait to see what they do for number 4.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I can play this game at 25x14 maxed out with NO AA, so 0x AA rest everything max. Only on my second level ( or post training level) but rarely do fps dip below 70+ and often reach 90+. Similar to bf3 for performance.