AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3072 MB

[HellasVagabond]

Originally Posted by kadeep

while car A (GTX 680) itself tune 100-250 automatically all the times, don't talk innocent

Both cards have similar boost/eco systems, that doesn't really matter. You can easily add more to those 100-250MHz you talk about with the GTX 680 but as i said before AMD/ATI fans (and perhaps NV ones i am not here to defend anyone) compare apples with oranges and call it fair.
Compare OC versions with OC versions if you want to be fair and square, that's all there's to it.

Originally Posted by alienstorexxx

don't waste your time probably he is just trolling you. or maybe he don't know anything he is talking about but thinks those stars are giving him some king of "truth power".

Ignorance is bliss friend, but let's leave it at that.....

[N3M3515]

The real question is why didn't amd released it at 1100 Mhz?
Here this card costs less than the reference 7970 Ghz edition, it's faster, and has a way better cooler. It makes the Ghz edition irrelevant.

[linoliveira]

Originally Posted by N3M3515

The real question is why didn't amd released it at 1100 Mhz?
Here this card costs less than the reference 7970 Ghz edition, it's faster, and has a way better cooler. It makes the Ghz edition irrelevant.

we all know that this edition is irrelevant to compete in the price/performance/quality segment and is just a way AMD can say they got the fastest card in the overall tests and try to sell some more cards till next series.
the deal you pointed out is outstanding! really a must buy (if you got that much money)

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by alexsubri

nice...i was hoping more of a boost for $50 on ATI's part.

true that.

if i were buying id probably go vanilla plus waterblock

no ones got one though and if they do clock better max then a vanilla then fair enough, nvidia didnt hold the crown for very long either way, well untill next months 685 or some such, nvidia can also improve their process init.

has and if not why , wizzard done a max oc on decent volts oc on his yet

Wizzard ,,,, sorry man but i now have a complaint,

your OCin review cards like a tart,, stock volts doesnt equate to either my version of an OC or the max you could have got from your card, and That is the thing i most want to know from as many sources and trustworthy ones at that , when im buying/ reading up on a card.

sorry but i feels this, reviews are excellent though bar max oc attempt (stock coolings ok with me as its representative) maybe just a mention of max Oc achieved.

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by HellasVagabond

Compare OC versions with OC versions if you want to be fair and square, that's all there's to it.
Ignorance is bliss friend, but let's leave it at that.....

Yes, but then lets also compare computational power and other sectors which involve a graphic card or two or four, not just games... I believe that if AMD made a pure gaming card that would compute like a turd (like nv did now) this thing would cost less and still smack nv around. Otherwise you'll have mandarins vs apples.

As others pointed out, this is only a reviewer's card to put the 7970 bar a tad higher than it is on the usual card, which you can still get cheaper and do more with it. Complaints aside, AMD managed to raise to the big green guy's level and that's not a small feat considering how much money nv throws at this game.

[qubit]

Dammit, I'm no AMD fan and it has its caveats, but I think that this card is getting unfairly trashed here. It's pretty damned normal for companies to bring out faster cards after a while and to try to leapfrog each other on performance.

I think a little more appreciation that we have more competition in the graphics card market is in order. A card like this will end up bringing high end prices down and that alone is something to be glad about.

[cedrac18]

Originally Posted by qubit

Dammit, I'm no AMD fan and it has its caveats, but I think that this card is getting unfairly trashed here. It's pretty damned normal for companies to bring out faster cards after a while and to try to leapfrog each other on performance.

I think a little more appreciation that we have more competition in the graphics card market is in order. A card like this will end up bringing high end prices down and that alone is something to be glad about.

Plus you never know nvidia might counter with a better product then 680 in the end the customer wins

[qubit]

Originally Posted by cedrac18

Plus you never know nvidia might counter with a better product then 680 in the end the customer wins

Duh, exactly.

[HellasVagabond]

@Andy77

Computational power ? Didn't NV up until this day hold the crown on computational power ? Do we expect miracles or do we "conveniently" forget the past because it suits us ?

Originally Posted by qubit

Dammit, I'm no AMD fan and it has its caveats, but I think that this card is getting unfairly trashed here. It's pretty damned normal for companies to bring out faster cards after a while and to try to leapfrog each other on performance.

I think a little more appreciation that we have more competition in the graphics card market is in order. A card like this will end up bringing high end prices down and that alone is something to be glad about.

It's not getting trashed for no reason at all. There are several "custom" 7970 cards out there that are faster than this and they have been out for months compared to this "new" product.

So what if NV was to release an 680 SE (Special Edition) and up the clocks like AMD did to score even higher and get the title for fastest Single Core Graphics card back ? I bet half of the people here would jump to trash it as well (and they would be right).

Such tactics are not good for the end user no matter how anyone sees it.

[radrok]

It's just marketing, nothing more anyway, a sane person would never buy an overclocked 7970 with a stock cooler slapped on it, take it as "AMD has shown that Tahiti is very competitive (performance wise) with Kepler" even though many of us already knew that Tahiti XT is a very good clocker, heck if you are lucky enough to get a good chip you can even break 1300 Mhz.

I think we should all be happy in the end, ATI has never been so competitive (in absolute performance ofc) with NVIDIA lately.

No one really gains if one side is much stronger than the other, unless they are going to duopoly the market, which seemed so the first days after Kepler launch, no price drops were had, until some weeks later.

[ISI300]

I don't think that the main purpose of this card is to be "better" overall than nvidia's offering, nor outsell it. It is build to become the worlds fastest single gpu card, and I happily would take a 7970 over a GTX 680. Because they've managed to sh*t all over nvidia's face with it and Ujesh Desai's with his smug face while holding the good boys card in the hand and harping on about how efficient it is. I want GPUs to be thirsty monsters and smell when you're gaming.
What AMD is doing, is putting up a fight. by the way GTX 680 is good for one very good reason. they've compromised on computational capabilities. AMD has much less cash to spare on it's whole business of CPUs, Chipsets, GPUs and so on than nvidia does in it's GPUs "only", Remember G80? 475 Million Dollars.
And also remember third party designs which "will" employ better cooling...

[D007]

lol The fangirl gheyness in here is so LOL.. People, get a life, relax and realize neither Nvidia or Amd pay your bills and they won't be running to the forums to cry and point the finger at you, or praise you for buying their products..

[Hilux SSRG]

Originally Posted by ISI300

I want GPUs to be thirsty monsters and smell when you're gaming.

The quote of the day!

[Vinska]

Originally Posted by ISI300

I want GPUs to be thirsty monsters and smell when you're gaming.

This is a MANLY picnic! No glasses. No napkins. Whiskey only.
(i.e.: I approve!)

[theoneandonlymrk]

Originally Posted by ISI300

I want GPUs to be thirsty monsters and smell when you're gaming.

Likewise, so can we get a max Oc result in review big guy.

[sergionography]

Originally Posted by ISI300

I don't think that the main purpose of this card is to be "better" overall than nvidia's offering, nor outsell it. It is build to become the worlds fastest single gpu card, and I happily would take a 7970 over a GTX 680. Because they've managed to sh*t all over nvidia's face with it and Ujesh Desai's with his smug face while holding the good boys card in the hand and harping on about how efficient it is. I want GPUs to be thirsty monsters and smell when you're gaming.
What AMD is doing, is putting up a fight. by the way GTX 680 is good for one very good reason. they've compromised on computational capabilities. AMD has much less cash to spare on it's whole business of CPUs, Chipsets, GPUs and so on than nvidia does in it's GPUs "only", Remember G80? 475 Million Dollars.
And also remember third party designs which "will" employ better cooling...

agree 100%
However amd did this so they won't need to lower prices, now it is faster in both games and compute. However in my opinion even the hd7970 vanilla gave NVIDIA a run for the money, and one has to note that the review is a bit confusing because I'm not sure if they retested the old Tahiti with the new drivers, because alot of the performance came from there, before these dricl era speculations were that amd would need at least 1100mhz clock to start getting an edge over Keller but now that is no longer the case, and clock for clock Tahiti seems to be the better choice however you approach it. Except in consumption but then you are much better off on higher resolutions so there is a lesser need for multi gpus. And even in such case i think zerocore makes that up.

[N3M3515]

It is very weird for me, when people criticize a highend gpu for "consuming too much" i mean, if you're buying a 500 bucks card, sure as hell you can buy a 850W corsair/ocz/antec/enermax psu!

Seriously, WTF people?

[HellasVagabond]

Originally Posted by sergionography

agree 100%
However amd did this so they won't need to lower prices, now it is faster in both games and compute. However in my opinion even the hd7970 vanilla gave NVIDIA a run for the money, and one has to note that the review is a bit confusing because I'm not sure if they retested the old Tahiti with the new drivers, because alot of the performance came from there, before these dricl era speculations were that amd would need at least 1100mhz clock to start getting an edge over Keller but now that is no longer the case, and clock for clock Tahiti seems to be the better choice however you approach it. Except in consumption but then you are much better off on higher resolutions so there is a lesser need for multi gpus. And even in such case i think zerocore makes that up.

You do however realize that the same goes for GTX 680 cards right ? The latest drivers show quite a bit of improvement over the initial ones but on the other hand don't expect anyone to test every single card with every driver update. It's not an easy task.

[ISI300]

Originally Posted by theoneandonlymrk

Likewise, so can we get a max Oc result in review big guy.

Logically, the GTX 680 is the superior card at games up to about 2560x1600. Performance per watt in gaming is "Better" than 7970. but I meant excluding the numbers, I'd go with a 7970 and be happy with it.

[ISI300]

Originally Posted by D007

lol The fangirl gheyness in here is so LOL.. People, get a life, relax and realize neither Nvidia or Amd pay your bills and they won't be running to the forums to cry and point the finger at you, or praise you for buying their products..

Don't be so sure... I own both nv and amd.and when it comes to choosing the right one, It's matter of what a person needs for what he pays. and I'm not being fanboyictic, It's the truth that AMD has much less cash to spend on engineering and development than nv and yet they've built the larger GPU. If there were no GTX 680 and GK104, They'd still be selling those 7970 at 550+, and now they've cut the prices, they're making less money than nv however you cut it.
GTX 680: Small die, less memory chips (same rated speed as 7970), cheaper "to build" PCB.
7970: exact opposite.

[N3M3515]

Originally Posted by ISI300

Don't be so sure... I own both nv and amd.and when it comes to choosing the right one, It's matter of what a person needs for what he pays. and I'm not being fanboyictic, It's the truth that AMD has much less cash to spend on engineering and development than nv and yet they've built the larger GPU. If there were no GTX 680 and GK104, They'd still be selling those 7970 at 550+, and now they've cut the prices, they're making less money than nv however you cut it.
GTX 680: Small die, less memory chips (same rated speed as 7970), cheaper "to build" PCB.
7970: exact opposite.

It's not like 7970 is a behemoth dude......LOL
it may be "bigger" relative to GTX 680, but it's still a efficient chip. it's still a great gpu, no matter how you cut it, it is great enough for some people not caring about GTX 680 being even more efficient per mm2, that's what a lot of people are triying to say.

[ISI300]

Originally Posted by N3M3515

It's not like 7970 is a behemoth dude......LOL
it may be "bigger" relative to GTX 680, but it's still a efficient chip. it's still a great gpu, no matter how you cut it, it is great enough for some people not caring about GTX 680 being even more efficient per mm2, that's what a lot of people are triying to say.

I think that includes me too, I didn't mean that Tahiti is inefficient, that's stupid. but in gaming situations compared to 680 it uses more juice per frame. other than the GPU die and transistor count, there's the 384-bit ddr5 memory and different PCB design. Just wanted to add balance to make someone's mind clear about I'm not fanatic. but the think that really bugging me is this: why Tahiti with 25% more shader processors comes just as fast as the 680 at nearly the same speed?

[erocker]

Originally Posted by ISI300

I think that includes me too, I didn't mean that Tahiti is inefficient, that's stupid. but in gaming situations compared to 680 it uses more juice per frame. other than the GPU die and transistor count, there's the 384-bit ddr5 memory and different PCB design. Just wanted to add balance to make someone's mind clear about I'm not fanatic. but the think that really bugging me is this: why Tahiti with 25% more shader processors comes just as fast as the 680 at nearly the same speed?

The architectures are different/the GPU's are designed differently.

If I were to choose between the GTX 680/670 and 7970 right now I would just find the best deal I could. Power consumption is low enough on either card for most not to worry about or be concerned with. Of course, since there is a difference between the two cards in terms of power consumption (regardless of the actual difference) it of course has to be a talking point, though in reality it is moot.

[EarthDog]

+1 to all of that.

Personally, I cant believe AMD released this card with (any) fanfare considering at the time we published the press release (upon NDA release) there were SIX(6) cards on newegg with the same or higher clocks.

AMD fail. Bring something more to the table already would ya? Let your performance do the talking and not your marketing team.

[raghu78]

AMD has a very good gaming + compute chip in the HD 7970. Even when the inital reviews were out most reviewers appreciated the overclocking headroom and scalability in performance. With the launch of GTX 680 Nvidia beat the HD 7970 in a stock configuration. Everybody who has a HD 7970 card which overclocked well (1125 at stock volts and 1200+ with extra voltage) knows that HD 7970 OC performance is faster than GTX 680 OC. At 1080p/1200p its a contest, higher up there is only one card which can be called the fastest card - HD 7970. the launch of HD 7970 Ghz edition is just to beat the GTX 680 in stock and win the marketing battle. Also the latest drivers also have played a part in that win with siginificant improvements in Dirt 3, Skyrim, Batman AC (MSAA). So its actually not just hardware which has tilted the scales, but a mix of hardware and software. If people don't acknowledge that basic fact they are just in denial.

Some of the most demanding games clearly run better on HD 7970 especially at max settings. BF3, Crysis 2, Witcher 2 / Witcher 2 EE, Anno 2070, Shogun 2, Batman AC, Alan Wake, Dirt Showdown, Metro 2033, Crysis Warhead . Radeon HD 7970 wins most of the games except Shogun 2. BF3 is pretty much equal on both cards. Even Batman AC runs faster at 8X MSAA on HD 7970, though on FXAA its clearly faster on GTX 680. The rest run faster on HD 7970. the gap gets wider at 1600p and multi monitor, which is where a USD 500 flagship card's performance really matters. Even these most demanding games run at 60+ fps at 1080p. So I don't see any merit in judging them by 1080p performance when playabililty differences are going to difficult to tell because all these cards are giving more than sufficient performance. The gap in games like Alan Wake (25%), Metro 2033(20%), Crysis Warhead (25%), Witcher 2 (20%) especially at higher resolutions is very significant. The most important point is none of these games hit 60 fps at 1600p. And frankly these are the games which truly tell us about these high end cards. Games which do 100+ fps at 1600p aren't going to give any idea of the true capabilites of their architectures and performance.

Also overclocking does not have guarantees and the responsibility lies on the user to extract max possible performance. There are chances of getting a chip which is a dud at overclocking. So assuming that every chip will overclock reliably is a big mistake. With the AMD Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition the cards are guaranteed to run at those speeds. When the GTX 680 launched and HD 7970 users mentioned that a HD 7970 at similar clock speeds would beat the GTX 680 , lots of people said only stock configurations should be compared. Fair enough. Now that same theory should be applied.