Originally Posted by RigRebel
Yes they did.. They say in the first sentence. Direct quote > "I saw it argued in the comments that the only fair way to compare a GeForce GTX 680 to a Radeon HD 7970 is with both cards overclocked. Because the 680 employs GPU Boost, it purportedly already demonstrates performance close to its limit, whereas Tahiti-based GPUs are known to offer quite a bit of headroom. "
Again notice the word "fair" ... this is the second type review I've read and the first one said same thing but went on to further say something like "the only fair way to tell is to compair clock to clock" .. again they say this but they forget that the 7970 has 1GB more ram so what's "fair" about that ... hypocritical IMO. I'll post the other review on monday it's in my work mail.
Who cares about clock for clock if the end result is getting as much overclocking as you can in the first place. Isn't that the whold point of Overclocking?... to see just how high you can raise the ceiling and how much you can push out of it... The GTX 680 can raise the ceiling to @1340Mhz...and the AMD is somewhere around @1141Mhz I think. Comparing "clock to clock" in a competition where total overclocking is the goal is just another way of AMD side not admiting defeat and wanting to pick it apart and test anything in their favor, IMO. AGain I use the analogy.. so what if your honda is more efficent per cyclinder... a mustang GT will still smoke ya. lol
i dont think they mean clock for clock, i think what they mean is how much performance can you squeeze out of both cards for the end user who is interested in overclocking.
im not sure on the top overclocks records but i know some people got real high overclocks with the hd7970.
of about 1180 or something, so while that is still lower than kepler, it is like 20% from stock, 1340 for kepler is also about 20% off from stock(since kepler already clocks to 1100 when needed) yet it doesnt scale well(because overclocking kepler is complex and it pretty much makes the max boast 1340 rather than making it native)
but i get what you mean tho, there is no such thing as "fair"
nvidia did a clever move to get as much power out of the envelope as possible, and they did a darn good job, not to mention how handy that will be for oems who are on a restricted thermal/power envelope for laptops and what not.
having oems and power restrictions in mind its interesting tho to see how both teams had their approach to efficiency and battery life, amd pushing for max idle time with zero power, and nvidia pushing for different power states and turbo and what not(and it makes sense since nvidia for the most part always gets paired with an intel cpu that has a integrated gpu for low power. meaning nvidia's optimus does the job for them)
EDIT: i just came across these 2 benchmarks of both cards maxed out with their clocks
my conclusion was somewhat correct, hd7970 gains more momentum when overclocked
i specifically posted the links on the battlefield because nvidia seemed to have an edge in that game, but overclocked they match eachother, even tho nvidia is clocked at 1300 something while amd is in the 1200 range.
same thing going on with arkam city
tho i would take this with a grain of salt because im not sure how legit this website is, but what do you think?