[vga.zol] hd 7950 ocing and 3dmark 11 results.. fermi better be scared

[Keysplayr]

First, by asking me to "be fair later," you're assuming that I wouldn't be unless you called me out on it. That's a personal attack and an insult to my character, you should know better. Secondly, I don't favor AMD. I favor whatever is the best solution available using the proposed metrics. I recommend cards from either company (and even Intel as the situation may call for). The fact that you're biased reflects solely on you, no one else. Just because you choose a side doesn't mean others want to nor should they be forced to "join a side." This is an enthusiast's forum and the bottom line is great hardware, regardless of who makes it.

I guess you "can" look at it that way. But I urge you not to. As I said, this forum is notorious for flip flopping when the cards change. It was meant for you, and I as well as anyone else. But if you persist on insisting that I personally attacked you, there isn't much I can do about that besides apologize for making you feel that way, which I have already done. Not enough? I'm sorry about that too. :thumbsup:
Anyway enough about that.

 

[MrK6]

Unable to read much?

You purposefully and dishonestly misrepresented the benchmarks, stop deflecting. I just ran those two benchmarks on my card at 1300/1600MHz and got:


So in Crysis 2, your average is actually only 6.3% higher while your minimums are 2.3x lower. That 6.3% advantage could very well disappear in the next few Cat releases, despite this being a NVIDIA developed game. CoP I guessed was run at 1080p and 4xAA and SSAO enabled, but who knows because neither benchmark shows the advanced settings, so you could set whatever you want.

940/950 isn't my max, sorry

Then get higher scores and prove it isn't.

Which is saying what? I won't have these cards long enough for the power draw difference to make up for the initial cost difference. Not even close, I'd have to keep them for decades.

It's more about the extra radiator you need and the extra heat in the room, not the power cost.

You never proved anyone wrong, 3Dmark11 isn't a game.

Yes, I did. You never said "my GTX 470's are 30-50% faster than a much lesser overclocked 7970 in CoP and Crysis 2." That would have been the honest thing to say. You said:

I do it myself when I get 30-50% more performance than a 7970 overclocked with considerably less invested while having enjoyed that performance for over a year now.

which I showed isn't the whole truth. Now you're hypocritically changing the conditions at every post regarding this, something that you attacked others of doing in this very same thread.

$560 initial cost, $10 to return it, 15% restocking fee, another $560 purchase, plus your $60 block.

Not at all, NCIXUS waived and restocking fees since it was so soon and they pay for return shipping. You should check your facts instead of making them up, no one is going to believe you anyway after how you've misrepresented yourself numerous times in thread. Also, the block was a sunk cost since it was already on my 6950, so that's a moot point. The Gigabyte cost $550 even, that's it.

 

[MrK6]

I guess you "can" look at it that way. But I urge you not to. As I said, this forum is notorious for flip flopping when the cards change. It was meant for you, and I as well as anyone else. But if you persist on insisting that I personally attacked you, there isn't much I can do about that besides apologize for making you feel that way, which I have already done. Not enough? I'm sorry about that too. :thumbsup:
Anyway enough about that.

Well no, that's not how anyone looks at it. You can't call someone out and say you're going to hold hard evidence against them in the future to keep them honest and then come back with this timid "j/k" after getting reprimanded in return. You're not naive, so I'm going to guess your backtracking after firmly securing your foot in your mouth. Hopefully this lesson will improve your decorum in future posts. :thumbsup:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

You purposefully and dishonestly misrepresented the benchmarks, stop deflecting. I just ran those two benchmarks on my card at 1300/1600MHz and got:


So in Crysis 2, your average is actually only 6.3% higher while your minimums are 2.3x lower. That 6.3% advantage could very well disappear in the next few Cat releases, despite this being a NVIDIA developed game. CoP I guessed was run at 1080p and 4xAA and SSAO enabled, but who knows because neither benchmark shows the advanced settings, so you could set whatever you want.
Then get higher scores and prove it isn't.
It's more about the extra radiator you need and the extra heat in the room, not the power cost.
Yes, I did. You never said "my GTX 470's are 30-50% faster than a much lesser overclocked 7970 in CoP and Crysis 2." That would have been the honest thing to say. You said:



which I showed isn't the whole truth. Now you're hypocritically changing the conditions at every post regarding this, something that you attacked others of doing in this very same thread.

Not at all, NCIXUS waived and restocking fees since it was so soon and they pay for return shipping. You should check your facts instead of making them up, no one is going to believe you anyway after how you've misrepresented yourself numerous times in thread. Also, the block was a sunk cost since it was already on my 6950, so that's a moot point. The Gigabyte cost $550 even, that's it.

I did what?

lol wow dude, it's only hardware no reason to go cheating on benchmarks and using only the cpu limited crysis 2 run without even using the correct settings /facepalm

Min doesn't even matter in Crysis 2, at no point ever except when loading up the screen were my fps that low. Same for CoP, mins are reported in the first few MS of the bench.

Have some self respect.

I never changed any conditions, what I said still stands and I've only brought up more relevant information which I find warranted in this situation since I'm dealing with someone who is defending his overpriced hardware purchase two years after the fact.

 

[Skurge]

I did what?

lol wow dude, it's only hardware no reason to go cheating on benchmarks and using only the cpu limited crysis 2 run without even using the correct settings /facepalm

Have some self respect.

I never changed any conditions, what I said still stands and I've only add more conditions which I find warranted in this situation since I'm dealing with someone who is defending his overpriced hardware purchase two years after the fact.

Give it a rest guy,

He proved you were wrong. There is no 30-50% gap that you were claiming. How about you own up to that.

What correct settings are you talking about? The look the same to me, the only thing is some of yours are blank.

What about the COP bench? That does not look like 30-50% to me. And your minimums are MUCH lower.

I'm pretty sure you're using custom cards, He has a reference 7970, once those lightning and Atomic 7970s come out, they should clock even better.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Man it's like a political debate with word warping and all.

His settings aren't the same, get a clue please it's hard to even reply to someone so far off.

I'm using reference, he's using the same with water.

Secondly my comment was directed towards what we've seen from 7970s on air, we haven't seen anything yet from them on water so I couldn't actually be making a comment on their water performance when it hasn't been seen yet could I?

 

[MrK6]

I did what?

lol wow dude, it's only hardware no reason to go cheating on benchmarks and using only the cpu limited crysis 2 run without even using the correct settings /facepalm

Have some self respect.

What, you didn't expect someone would actually take you up on your claims? There's no cheating there; just admit you were wrong and apologize to the forum for your dishonesty. Having a little humility will take you a long way around here. Your initial claim was debunked, it's been shown by me and others that you set up an unfair comparison to try to prove your point, and now my own benchmarks show how far off your claims actually are.

I never changed any conditions, what I said still stands and I've only add more conditions which I find warranted in this situation since I'm dealing with someone who is defending his overpriced hardware purchase two years after the fact.

Have a pity party somewhere else, not here. Let me again quote:

And if it isn't faster, they'll talk about performance per watt and price vs performance.

The key to victory is changing the conditions to suit your needs.

You're hypocritically doing exactly what you bashed others for in this exact same thread. This discussion is over.

 

[Skurge]

Man it's like a political debate with word warping and all.

His settings aren't the same, get a clue please it's hard to even reply to someone so far off.

I'm using reference, he's using the same with water.

Secondly my comment was directed towards what we've seen from 7970s on air, we haven't seen anything yet from them on water so I couldn't actually be making a comment on their water performance when it hasn't been seen yet could I?

Well how are the settings different?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

No Edge AA in Crysis 2, he only ran the first test which is cpu limited for me with a 100 fps cap.

Here is the 1125/1575 7970 run I was comparing to:

We actually maxed everything out whereas you can probably figure out MrK6 didn't... Not even close.

 

[Crap Daddy]

Just been reading these posts under a thread that has total misleading title. Fermi scared of what? 7950 will be on par with the 580 for 50$ less. By now the 580 at its price point is useless, it's a card meant for high-end and high-end users will shell the extra 50 bucks for the fastest card which is the 7970. Case closed. Now what will high-end customers make of the 7950? I don't no, I can't find a reason for this card to be priced at 450$. What will be next, the 7870 at 350$ for the performance of a 6970? Same price for the same performance for a new gen of cards? So Fermi has no problems to compete anywhere except the top card. And, even if some around here hope that Kepler will never arrive, it will.

 

[blackened23]

Whats going on here guys D:

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

So much butthurt in this thread... As if its AMDs fault that Nvidia is always late to the party with the new processes

And going by past history, this isnt a good sign at all... Cards which get delayed always end up being disappointing, this goes back to the X1800 or even earlier, so all the people thinking Kepler will destroy the current cards, dont get too excited

It blows my mind how people think its unfair to compare cards which are all currently available... If you are gonna compare it to a phantom card called Kepler, then why not use the AMD refresh which will likely be released around the same time considering how much OC headroom the 7xxx series has?

Of course you cant do this because it would put dear Nvidia in a bad light

 

[WMD]

Just been reading these posts under a thread that has total misleading title. Fermi scared of what? 7950 will be on par with the 580 for 50$ less. By now the 580 at its price point is useless, it's a card meant for high-end and high-end users will shell the extra 50 bucks for the fastest card which is the 7970. Case closed. Now what will high-end customers make of the 7950? I don't no, I can't find a reason for this card to be priced at 450$. What will be next, the 7870 at 350$ for the performance of a 6970? Same price for the same performance for a new gen of cards? So Fermi has no problems to compete anywhere except the top card. And, even if some around here hope that Kepler will never arrive, it will.

My thoughts exactly. By the time 7870 arrives the 6970 price will drop a little so you pay a little more for 7870 with the same performance but better power efficiency and new features.

 

[badb0y]

My thoughts exactly. By the time 7870 arrives the 6970 price will drop a little so you pay a little more for 7870 with the same performance but better power efficiency and new features.

There was once this card called 5770.....I would look it up.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I'm still not sold on the 7950 being equal to the gtx580 in performance. It would be stupid in my book for AMD to have a card that is 25% slower than their halo card. I still think once we get some legitimate benchmarks it will be 5-10% faster.

 

[WMD]

There was once this card called 5770.....I would look it up.

The 5770 is only little faster than 4870 but offered DX11, Eyefinity, much better AF and massive power savings so it is priced very reasonably at the time.

 

[badb0y]

The 5770 is only little faster than 4870 but offered DX11, Eyefinity, much better AF and massive power savings so it is priced very reasonably at the time.

5770 was slower than a HD 4870 and had a higher price...

 

[wahdangun]

its like HD 5870 all over again, nvdia late for like 6 month.

so i hope evga can endure this and not go bankrupt like BFG lol

 

[Crap Daddy]

I'm still not sold on the 7950 being equal to the gtx580 in performance. It would be stupid in my book for AMD to have a card that is 25% slower than their halo card. I still think once we get some legitimate benchmarks it will be 5-10% faster.

You need to understand that depending on the reviewrs and the games benched, stock clocks at the most common resolution of 1080p the 7970 is 10-20% faster than the 580. AMD has a problem now, 10% less perf for 20% less money or 20% less for 20% perf decrease. Or maybe 15% less for 20% less in price. What do you think it will be? Either way I think it will trade blows with an overclocked 580, few percents above a stock 580.

 

[dac7nco]

Kepler? lol. When Intel releases Atom VII it's gonna make Kepler look like an MFM Controller.

LOL! Still have a boxed ST-4096.

Daimon

 

[IonusX]

So you get to overclock your GTX 470's to the maximum, but the 7970 is gimped to CCC limits? How is that a fair comparison? I mean, didn't you already say in this thread:



Hypocrisy much?

It also uses about half the power and doesn't have to deal with any multi-GPU issues; that alone is worth the price. But please, keep changing the metrics every time I prove them wrong.

dont argue with balla ive learned this k6. hes just mad

i bet i should bring up the nudered gt240 up.. oh i think i should. gotta go pm an admin to see if it breaks any relevancy boundaries as yeah its a bit date info

basically an nvidia only card maker (not naming names) made a gt240 that was in fact boiled away to preformance worse than a gt220
the board was basically barren of any pieces. it was like a giant plastic rat
here i found a picture of it without its fan and as a result any indicator (from a distance that this is a gt240 card)

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah don't argue with me please, I'd rather have a conversation with someone who actually knows what is going on.

Not with someone who can't get settings right, only runs 33% of the Crysis 2 tests, then does random settings which net him 50%+ performance over another 7970 from an additional 175Mhz overclock.

 

[blackened23]

Why'd you change your old avater, i liked that one better

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It kept coming up as a red x

 

[IonusX]

Yeah don't argue with me please, I'd rather have a conversation with someone who actually knows what is going on.

Not with someone who can't get settings right, only runs 33% of the Crysis 2 tests, then does random settings which net him 50%+ performance over another 7970 from an additional 175Mhz overclock.

you want to see this thing benched.. this gt240. it will make you cringe in horror. amd would never let an AiB butcher a card like this.
its got worse clocks, it has a 64-bit mem bandwidth and 256mb ram. its a barren card.

it nearly lost to a petty sauce gt210 in farcry 2 of all things..