Sapphire HD 7850 GONE

[Durvelle27]

@ RussianSensation


Too much


Anyways you aren't showing me anything, you're showing avg, of which the AMD is always lower, but that isn't the point.

Everyone of your tests is flawed.

Crushblow to Krazz... You're talking about running on a dead server from one unpopulated area to another, it's pointless.

BF3 is all SP, who cares that's not what's going to crunch a CPU and you know that.


Either way it's still missing the point.

What I'm telling you is in a real life situation when playing it won't matter if you have a 460 or a 7970, when the load goes to 11 Bulldozer goes to 3. Who cares if you get 100 fps with one card and 70 with the other when at the end of the day they're both going to bog out and produce crap fps because of the processor? In a 10 minute fraps session you might have 2-3 bog downs but the avg fps difference won't be much different, but the end user experience will be vastly different.

I'd rather have a i5-2500k and a 7850 than a 4100 and a 7970 any day no matter what, there is no reassurance with the AMD processor, just because you're playing a game that is ok now doesn't mean another Skyrim won't come out and you'll be sitting there twiddling your thumbs with a $400 gpu that is operating at 30% usage because of the CPU. It's a waste of money imo.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2261039

 

[BallaTheFeared]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2261039

Yep, nothing going on and your cpu is already taxed with less than 60 fps.

What happens when there are 20+ guys around you and things start to pop off?

CPU bottlenecking of course.

I wouldn't waste a lot of money on a high end gpu with that processor imo.

 

[RussianSensation]

Balla, his performance went from 45-54 fps on High to 74 fps on Low. The reason he can't get 60 is because the GPU is maxed out on High. That's GPU limited right there. You can see in his screenshots the game is not being maxed out since he completely ran out of GPU speed. CPU usage varies from 66-78% only. Huge GPU bottleneck.

HD7950 is a good upgrade here. It's way way better to get HD7950 and get 55 fps with DX11 and Ultra settings (where a Core i7 might get you 60-62 fps here) than to get an HD7850 and end up with 40 fps.

You are killing it now if you think a GPU upgrade won't be fast on an FX4100 @ 4.2ghz. Yes, it won't be as fast as Core i7 + GTX670 SLI vs. FX4100 @ 4.2ghz + GTX670 SLI but for single-GPUs, he is almost completely GPU limited. He'll see a HUGE performance increase with a new GPU. Also, you are completely ignoring all the other games he listed besides BF3. Furthermore, he can turn on FXAA+AA and he'll again be GPU limited on the 7950.

People should really not even talk about CPU bottleneck for modern quad-core Phenom II/Bulldozer systems for BF3 unless they are running at least $500 of GPUs and have completely maxed out all the settings in BF3 on Ultra + AA. You are also forgetting that DX11 takes 1 full generation of performance hit. So going from HD4870 DX9/10 to HD5770 DX11 will be way slower in BF3. You need to account for that also. HD7850 isn't fast enough to handle DX11 + 4xMSAA+FXAA in BF3 at 1080P. Forget about any CPU bottlenecks in GPU intensive games with a 7850.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

No I'm saying when it matters he'll be wasting money, screen caps from the middle of nowhere don't mean much, except that the load is already extremely high on the cpu.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'd rather have a i5-2500k and a 7850 than a 4100 and a 7970 any day no matter what, there is no reassurance with the AMD processor,

That's crazy talk. I generally agree with you but this I don't agree with at all. In 90% of games, the FX4100 + HD7970 system will mop the floor with i5-2500k and 7850 in almost any game I can think of. Turn on 4xAA+ultra in BF3 on the 7850 in BF3. I want to see what happens to your card.

You are making it sound like Core i5 processors are 2x faster now than Bulldozer @ 4.2ghz.

Even Durvelle27 CPU usage and his own testing of lowering GPU settings from High to Low show he is GPU limited. Every game in the world is always either GPU limited or CPU limited or both. It's never about "Does a bottleneck exist?" A bottleneck exists in every game. The question is which is the bigger bottleneck for BF3, the GPU or the CPU? The GPU without a doubt.

I would bet you that HD7950 @ 1.1ghz + FX4100 @ 4.2ghz would easily beat your overclocked i5 2500k + an 800mhz 1x GTX470 on Ultra + FXAA+4xMSAA. And with other games like Crysis, Metro 2033, Anno 2070, Bulletstorm, Serious Sam 3, Batman AC, etc. it will be like at least 50% faster.

 

[Durvelle27]

Yep, nothing going on and your cpu is already taxed with less than 60 fps.

What happens when there are 20+ guys around you and things start to pop off?

CPU bottlenecking of course.

I wouldn't waste a lot of money on a high end gpu with that processor imo.

all the games i play is 64 mp with full action of more than 32 + player action and it never lags or stutters ? i'll take my chances and just go for the HD 7950 ? its not like i can't return it ?

 

[RussianSensation]

all the games i play is 64 mp with full action of more than 32 + player action and it never lags or stutters ? i'll take my chances and just go for the HD 7950 ? its not like i can't return it ?

Or GTX660Ti. That should also be a good card for BF3. You got nothing to lose by waiting another 16 days. It's like this: You can either get a $250-300 GPU and crank settings to the max to shift the bottleneck to the GPU or go out and spend $300 on Core i7 3770K by itself + $150 on a motherboard + the same $250-300 GPU. If that same GPU doesn't give you the performance that you wanted with the FX4100 @ 4.2ghz, you can simply just go ahead and spend $400-$450 on a new CPU platform upgrade. That sounds like a smart strategy to me since if you were to get a faster CPU, you'd want a card faster than HD7850, right? Well just get the faster GPU to begin with and go from there. If that GPU provides with the performance increase you are looking for, and later you decide you still want a new CPU/platform, you can just get Haswell. The current socket is dead and the Sandy/Ivy bridge architecture is 1.5 years old. No need to waste $ on S1155 at this point if the GPU gives you the boost you need. Then you can hold out until April 2013 and get Haswell. If FX4100 @ 4.2ghz ends up fast enough for your needs, you will have just saved $400 towards Socket 1150 + Haswell instead of wasting it on an 'outdated' Intel architecture.

 

[Durvelle27]

Or GTX660Ti. That should also be a good card for BF3. You got nothing to lose by waiting another 16 days. It's like this: You can either get a $250-300 GPU and crank settings to the max to shift the bottleneck to the GPU or go out and spend $300 on Core i7 3770K by itself + $150 on a motherboard + the same $250-300 GPU. If that same GPU doesn't give you the performance that you wanted, you can go ahead and later waste that $450 on a new CPU platform upgrade. That sounds like a smart strategy to me since if you were to get a faster CPU, you'd want a card faster than HD7850, right? Well just get the faster card to begin with and go from there.

thank you not trying to waste money on a whole new build when i can get a new gpu ? but after i get the gpu later in a few months i will get a FX 8120 or pile-driver ?

 

[RussianSensation]

thank you not trying to waste money on a whole new build when i can get a new gpu ? but after i get the gpu later in a few months i will get a FX 8120 or pile-driver ?

Well don't get the FX8120 if your FX4100 is fast enough. Most games don't use 8 threads yet. I have no idea how pile-driver will perform but I think you'd be better off going with Haswell if you end up rebuilding.

With the HD7950 you can run bit-coin mining on the side when you are not gaming and save up $ for Amazon/Newegg gift cards.

http://www.btcbuy.info/

At 1.1ghz it'll get you 560 Mhash/sec or about 8 Bitcoins a month. Their current value > $10. Even if you mine for 12 hours a day that's $40 a month. In 6 months, the card will make you > $200.

If you end up going with AMD, just PM me and I'll help you set up bitcoin mining. It'll take you about 15 min to set it up. NV cards can't do this task efficiently.

 

[Durvelle27]

Well don't get the FX8120 if your FX4100 is fast enough. Most games don't use 8 threads yet. I have no idea how pile-driver will perform but I think you'd be better off going with Haswell if you end up rebuilding.

With the HD7950 you can run bit-coin mining on the side when you are not gaming and save up $ for Amazon/Newegg gift cards.

http://www.btcbuy.info/

At 1.1ghz it'll get you 560 Mhash/sec or about 8 Bitcoins a month. Their current value > $10. Even if you mine for 12 hours a day that's $40 a month. In 6 months, the card will make you > $200.

If you end up going with AMD, just PM me and I'll help you set up bitcoin mining. It'll take you about 15 min to set it up. NV cards can't do this task efficiently.

i'm an AMD only guy ? also what's bit-coin mining ?

 

[RussianSensation]

i'm an AMD only guy ? also what's bit-coin mining ?

It's just a program that you run on a GPU that generates virtual coins. These coins are called "Bitcoins". Each of them has a market value. Right now 1 Bitcoin is worth around $10.45 USD. http://www.btcbuy.info/

Without going into a deep explanation, you download an application/program that does the Mining on your videocard and it "mines" the coins every minute. The current rate is about 8 Bitcoins per month on an overclocked 7950.

Then once you have enough, just sell them or convert them to gift cards or PayPayl. Using this method, the card pays for itself OR you get free $ to spend later.

There are 2 more steps to set it up: Getting a mining wallet (which is where you store the coins), and joining a mining pool which is where your videocard teams up with others to actually "mine the coins" (but this process is done automatically through the mining application using username / password).

Right now about $16 Million USD in Bitcoins are traded daily. It's legit. The pie chart shows all the active Mining Pools where people are participating. You just need to register with any of them for free to join the network so to speak.

 

[Durvelle27]

It's just a program that you run on a GPU that generates virtual coins. These coins are called "Bitcoins". Each of them has a market value. Right now 1 Bitcoin is worth around $10.45 USD. http://www.btcbuy.info/

Without going into a deep explanation, you download an application/program that does the Mining on your videocard and it "mines" the coins every minute. The current rate is about 8 Bitcoins per month on an overclocked 7950.

Then once you have enough, just sell them or convert them to gift cards or PayPayl. Using this method, the card pays for itself OR you get free $ to spend later.

There are 2 more steps to set it up: Getting a mining wallet (which is where you store the coins), and joining a mining pool which is where your videocard teams up with others to actually "mine the coins" (but this process is done automatically through the mining application using username / password).

Right now about $16 Million USD in Bitcoins are traded daily. It's legit. The pie chart shows all the active Mining Pools where people are participating. You just need to register with any of them for free to join the network so to speak.

what can this sucky card i have now do ?

 

[RussianSensation]

Not worth it. The electricity cost is higher than what it earns.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison

HD4870 = 90-100 MHash /sec (the speed that measures how much work it can do)
HD5870/6970 = 380-390
HD7950 OCed = 560
HD7970 = 560
HD7970 OCed = 680

vs.

GTX680 = 110.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's crazy talk. I generally agree with you but this I don't agree with at all. In 90% of games, the FX4100 + HD7970 system will mop the floor with i5-2500k and 7850 in almost any game I can think of. Turn on 4xAA+ultra in BF3 on the 7850 in BF3. I want to see what happens to your card.

You are making it sound like Core i5 processors are 2x faster now than Bulldozer @ 4.2ghz.

Even Durvelle27 CPU usage and his own testing of lowering GPU settings from High to Low show he is GPU limited. Every game in the world is always either GPU limited or CPU limited or both. It's never about "Does a bottleneck exist?" A bottleneck exists in every game. The question is which is the bigger bottleneck for BF3, the GPU or the CPU? The GPU without a doubt.

I would bet you that HD7950 @ 1.1ghz + FX4100 @ 4.2ghz would easily beat your overclocked i5 2500k + an 800mhz 1x GTX470 on Ultra + FXAA+4xMSAA. And with other games like Crysis, Metro 2033, Anno 2070, Bulletstorm, Serious Sam 3, Batman AC, etc. it will be like at least 50% faster.

A 4100 @ 4.2GHz won't even go over 50 fps avg with quad 7970s in Crysis @ 1080p.

You're still missing my point, the 60 vs 80 fps discussion is for someone else, it's not for me. What I'm saying is the min fps of the 4100 system are going to be derived from his cpu is many titles, including BF3 MP not between the 7870 vs 7950 choice. Which is what is going to matter in the end, it doesn't matter if he goes with TRI 7970s or a single 7850, when he's in a fire fight and his fps start to drop the route cause is going to be his processor.

I'm not saying he won't have higher fps with a 7970, I'm saying between a 7950 and a 7850 his cpu will be the cause of his min fps, not his gpu so long as he uses feasible graphics settings. You can cripple any card using AA and other methods, it not really a talking point I care to discuss.

I think it's a waste of money to go that big on a budget cpu.

 

[Durvelle27]

ok thx for all your help ?

 

[RussianSensation]

Which Crysis 1 or 2?

Crysis 2 is almost entirely GPU limited with a single card when paired with a modern quad-core processor, which FX4100 @ 4.2ghz is:

Phenom II X4 has no problem getting > 60 fps

OTOH, GTX580 can't even get 58 fps in DX9

Once you turn on DX11 (Ultra + AA) in Crysis 2, GTX580 is finished:

Only a 4 fps difference between FX4100 @ 4.2ghz and 2600K. Huge GPU bottleneck with a GTX580 in Crysis 2. Same with Crysis 1 since it takes an HD7970 @ 1.15ghz to crack 60 fps.

HD7850 < HD6970 won't even get you 40 fps in Crysis 1. GPU limited like crazy:

^ Those are all without 4AA/16AF. Turn those on and the performance difference is probably 2-3%.

MMOs, Strategy games tend to be CPU limited.

FPS, Racing games, RPGs, action adventure games are first and foremost GPU limited with a modern quad core CPU (especially on Max + AA graphical settings), and once you get a fast enough GPU, you'll start to get CPU limited eventually.

Can HD7850 manage 49 fps minimum and 68 fps average in BF3 multiplayer on Ultra + 4xMSAA?

No way in the world it can:

Phenom II X4 980 can manage that no problem:

Now move the slider from Medium + 0AA/4AF to Ultra + 4xMSAA/16AF and see what happens to the 7850 as it drops below 40 fps.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

1, nobody cares about 2

Crysis 2 only has FXAA.

Also you're still looking at avg so I'm not sure the point to any of this anymore

I say: The 4100 will dog either of the options he's looking at now when it matters, causing the min fps to be derived from the cpu. Neither card is so much faster that there will be a major difference between the two when not cpu limited. We are not talking about two cards with such drastic gpu performance differences that one is playable at settings another really isn't, at least not settings that actually matter.

You say: The AVG fps won't be affected much, especially in games with little to no cpu load.

We keep circling around, I never once said in non cpu bound titles there was going to be a problem with the 4100. When you're sampling fps using FRAPS or any other fps program you're doing it over the course of several minutes, if the 4100 or any other AMD cpu is bottlenecking during times causing a lower min fps than other cpus with the same gpu the overall difference isn't going to be much, even in situations where the gpu is powerful enough to bottleneck on the 4100 at the top end. Those situations simply do not occur enough typically in most testing/games to be reflected properly in the over "avg" fps readouts you are using.

However those are the times where the end user will actually notice a fps difference, at the low end, not at the 50+ end.

 

[RussianSensation]

BF3 Caspian Border Phenom II 980 = 49 fps minimum on an HD6990.

HD6970 can only manage 39 fps average with 4xMSAA/16AF in BF3 single player. GPU limited.

Your solution is that the OP get a much slower 7850 GPU and chop off 15-20 fps off his performance 95% the time. HD7850 will be a bottleneck in BF3 over 7950 in 99% of the time because the game is insanely GPU limited. I am not talking about getting into some spot on the roof where you need 3960X @ 4.5ghz to get 60 fps minimum. HD7850 will never see those types of frames-rates with a 100 ghz 3960.

How about this? You want to prove it for real? Turn on BF3, move everything to max, enable 4xMSAA

1) Benchmark 1 GTX470 at 607mhz stock with i5 2500K @ 4.5ghz
2) Benchmark 2x GTX470 with Core i5 2500k @ Stock
3) Benchmark 3x GTX470 Max Overclock with Core i5 2500k @ 2.8ghz.

Can you run these tests and post some screenshots? Phenom II X4 gets 49 fps minimum in Caspian + HD6990. If your theory is true, Core i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz + 1 GTX470 would blow away Setups #2 and Setups #3.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

980 is faster than a 4100 @ 4.2GHz

Also variance of MP means you need to take those results with a grain of salt.

But to get this straight you are recommending someone with $110 processor buy a $310 gpu based on your opinion that 4xAA and max level AO are required and thus requires you purchase a card that grossly dwarfs your platform setup for one game with an overbearing AA mode and AO?

The 43.9 avg fps of the 7950 is unplayable IMO, perhaps it's time to tone back the settings and be more reasonable.

 

[RussianSensation]

It's not overbearing AA and AO settings. Are you aiming for 60 fps min / 120 fps avg in BF3 on Medium or Low? That's your point that CPU is a bottleneck since it won't get 100+ fps? You are creating artificial scenarios to move the bottleneck to the CPU. Most gamers first max out the GPU and then start lowering the graphical settings to get more FPS.

Also, at 1.1ghz HD7950 goes to 55 fps in BF3, something that's impossible on the 7850. Dial down MSAA to 2x and you are at high 50s.

Using your logic, the OP can just get a Core i5 2500k overclock it to 4.5ghz and keep the HD4870 and lower everything to LOW. Let's start playing games at 1024x768 while at it.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

He's at nearly 80% cpu usage at 40 fps with nobody around, I'm not sure why you aren't able to follow this train of thought but it doesn't matter much.

You aren't following my logic at all, but it's ok we'll agree to disagree. It doesn't much matter since the OP has limited himself to the worst possible brand choice for BF3.

There is a reason bulldozer was shunned off the web. Especially when you're talking about spending $310 on a gpu for a lackluster 43 fps best case since nobody in their right mind not even AMD tests any gpu with an AMD cpu due to you know, bottlenecking.

 

[RussianSensation]

That's why I said he can get the HD7950 since it's worth it over the 7850 imo. If the FX4100 is too slow, he can go out and get the 2500k/3570k and still keep the awesome 1.1ghz 7950. If he gets 7850 and the performance is still poor, he'll have to go out and buy the Intel setup and be stuck with still a much slower GPU. Doesn't make any sense to me.

If he is already dead set on improving BF3 performance, the worst thing he can do is blow $240 on an HD7850 and find out he is GPU bottlenecked.

The 7950 for $315 allows him to get good performance and he is ready to go for Haswell next year and have 34-35% more performance over the 7850 for $75 more. At minimum the 7950 will be as fast or faster than the 7850 for the next 7 months before Haswell. With bitcoin mining there is almost no risk since HD7950 will be 80% faster in that task over the 7850! So it'll actually cost less to own over 6 months than the 7850.

 

[Durvelle27]

Batman: AC

1280x720 All HIGH Settings and 4xMSAA

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's why I said he can get the HD7950 since it's worth it over the 7850 imo. If the FX4100 is too slow, he can go out and get the 2500k/3570k and still keep the awesome 1.1ghz 7950. If he gets 7850 and the performance is still poor, he'll have to go out and buy the Intel setup and be stuck with still a much slower GPU. Doesn't make any sense to me.

If he is already dead set on improving BF3 performance, the worst thing he can do is blow $240 on an HD7850 and find out he is GPU bottlenecked.

The 7950 for $315 allows him to get good performance and he is ready to go for Haswell next year and have 34-35% more performance over the 7850 for $75 more. At minimum the 7950 will be as fast or faster than the 7850 for the next 7 months before Haswell. With bitcoin mining there is almost no risk since HD7950 will be 80% faster in that task over the 7850! So it'll actually cost less to own over 6 months than the 7850.

I don't believe he'll ever get a Intel cpu for any reason ever, just like he won't get a Nvidia GPU even if they're offering better perf/$ in BF3.

 

[Durvelle27]

I don't believe he'll ever get a Intel cpu for any reason ever, just like he won't get a Nvidia GPU even if they're offering better perf/$ in BF3.

you get me so well ? and to point out nvidia isn't doing better than AMD in BF3 now there on par with each other ?