1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

7970 vs 6950 2gb CFx

Discussion in 'AMD / ATI' started by jonathan1107, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. jonathan1107

    jonathan1107

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    866 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    Can someone tell me which is better? 7970 single card vs 6950 2gb CFx (unlocked shaders)...

    Or point me towards the forum post that has my answer pls.
  2. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,321 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    6950 setup will be faster, but will have to deal with scaling in some games. A single 6950 or 7970 is more than enough. With my 7970 at 1125/1575 and my 2600k at stock I was getting around 80 fps average in BF3 on max except 4x AA at 1920x1080.
  3. jonathan1107

    jonathan1107

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    866 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    lol... a single 6950 is far from enough for demanding games like crysis and skyrim... You won't have a solid 60 FPS in skyrim with a single 6950... because it's such a CPU bound game...

    I found out in most cases, my 6950 CFx was way better than my previous single card config (1x 6950)...

    Although the 7970 is very tempting because it's a single card config... so less driver bugs and CFx issues indeed...

    Althought it's a little pricy
  4. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,890 (8.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,467
    My 570 isnt that much faster then a 6950 and I max out SKYRIM.
  5. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,321 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    Skyrim is a game based on a decade old engine, and Crysis will be just fine as long as you watch the AA (after all this isn't the year 2000 where 1024x768 needed AA because so few of pixels, we got the pixels on the screen to drop AA count now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out 2x 6950 will be faster than a single 6950....

    Just sell your 6950's and buy a 7970, if you are worried about price that should make I would think at least $400 back.
  6. jonathan1107

    jonathan1107

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    866 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    hitting 60fps during gameplay in skyrim is not "maxing out"... keeping the 60fps all around... that's what matters to me... might not matter to you but it does to me...

    So if I can keep and hold the 60 fps with 2x 6950 and not with an 7970, the decision is obvious for me... I guess I'll just wait for AMD to release the next gen... my 2x 6950 should be able to perform till then...

    By the way, skyrim, even with the best hardware out there... with max settings, will drop to 30-40FPS at times... even if you might consider that 70% of the time you got 60fps... with my setup, there are places where the FPS can drop very low... even though my video cards are good, because it has to do with the CPU and not the GPUs...

    For instance, some dungeons have crazy FPS drops...

    All of this you can't deny... so no... you are not maxing skyrim (in other words... you might have maxed the settings... but you can't hold a steady 60 FPS in this game... unless they released a very good patch as of yesterday...)
  7. ChristTheGreat

    ChristTheGreat

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    913 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Well, keeping 60 fps, it depends on how you can handle the frame rate. I,ve been able to play Bad company 2, 1680x1050, HD4870 1gb, full details with 2x AA, with an average of 38-39fps, minimum 34. I never found the gaming laggy. For sure ,it's not like having an average of 50-60fps.

    For a test, I don't know if they did the dungeon: http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page6.html

    4xMSAA, 16AF, max details, average of 54fps, with one HD6950.

    http://www.techspot.com/review/467-skyrim-performance/page7.html

    in 1680x1050, faster the CPU is, the better it is.

    If you have max details, and able to play skyrim without any lag, the game is maxed.. you don't need a minimum FPS of 60 to say the game is maxed. if you have a minimum 0f 30-35, the game is running fine..
    Crunching for Team TPU
  8. jonathan1107

    jonathan1107

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    866 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    I understand your point of view fully... Indeed, if a game plays "fluidly" then yes, it sure feels right... but there IS a difference between avg 40 fps and Solid ALL AROUND 60 Fps...

    It's like the difference between watching a DVD movie vs a FULL Hd Blu ray Movie... A lot of people struggle to find the difference worth the price (dvd vs blu ray) but I definitly am a "perfectionnist" and I accept nothing less the SOLID 60 FPS for any game I play...

    And for that, I am willing to spend extra and get the hardware... or spend extra time on Overclocking to achieve the same result...

    I feel the difference between a solid 40 fps and a solid 60 Fps...

    This being said, I'm aware that this is not everyone's standard for gaming of course... it's just a personal preference ;)
  9. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,890 (8.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,467
    I average 60FPS with the latest drivers with a single 570.

    This was BEFORE the 45% increase patch and its at 54fps.
    [​IMG]
  10. ChristTheGreat

    ChristTheGreat

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    913 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    360
    That,s it, personal preference :)

    Anyway, with the potential of the HD7970, it is a good choice vs your crossfire, but you woN,t get a big gain, since your HD6950 are unlocked.

    I would say first wait for Kepler, and see. yoru crossfire is still doing very good. I would like to get one if I have the opportunity, or seeling my HD6950, for a HD7950 if the price can drop (or HD7870, but again the gain is not enought big, for price difference.
    jonathan1107 says thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  11. jonathan1107

    jonathan1107

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    866 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes I agree with you ...

    @ mailman: I'm not talking about your avg... My avg is at the same place as yours... we're talking about your Min FPS here... or about the ability to HOLD a 60FPS throughout the whole game content...

    Now that's a crazy standard for gaming... but it's my personal standard, being a perfectionnist ;)
  12. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,157 (5.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,959
    Location:
    Home
    Skyrim will never be able to have a reasonable min fps with any graphics card since its cpu bound.
  13. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,890 (8.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,467
    Mine doesnt really drop below 54 fps from what I have seen. So unless you have super sight and can see 6 FPS difference then a single 580 or even a 570 like mind should be enough for SKYRIM.
  14. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,157 (5.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,959
    Location:
    Home
    You obviously have not been shouting into a room full of cheese then :roll:

    The CPU became such a bottleneck that the graphics card spun down.
  15. TheMailMan78

    TheMailMan78 Big Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    20,890 (8.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,467
    :laugh: Well I think my CPU is a lil' faster then yours going by your listed system specs. I agree SKYRIM is CPU bound but its not THAT demanding.
  16. Outback Bronze

    Outback Bronze

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    489 (0.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    103
    Topic. 7970 with oc or wait 4 Keplar.
  17. NanoTechSoldier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    27 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7
    LOL.. You've Got To Be Kidding Me.. Check The Specs..

    The HD 7970, Is A 28nm 384bit Graphics Card, That Runs On PCIE 3.0 & Can Run Quad HD..
    http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/7970/Pages/radeon-7970.aspx

    The HD6950, Is A Dual GPU 40nm 256bit Graphics Card, That Runs On PCIE 2.0..
    http://www.amd.com/us/products/desk...6950/Pages/amd-radeon-hd-6950-overview.aspx#2
  18. Wrigleyvillain

    Wrigleyvillain PTFO or GTFO

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,644 (3.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,763
    Location:
    Chicago
    You also will get a full gig more vram with the 7970.
  19. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,321 (5.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    If your a perfectionist then you probably would want to look to a CPU upgrade rather than GPU as you keep putting Skyrim up as benchmark here. You got the GPU power, but higher clocks from a 2600k or 3820 is going to get you the fps, or a wait for Ivy. Upgrading from 2x of the previous Gen upper tier to a single of the next Gen upper tier is never an AVG FPS gain, but it might be a min gain, because of scaling.


    Do you have a hard time reading? Way to compare 1 card vs 1 card when he has 2x 6950's right now. /golfclap
    cadaveca says thanks.
  20. Red_or_Dead

    Red_or_Dead New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    76 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    YOU Knighted king-DOM

    :confused:
    cadaveca says thanks.
  21. happita

    happita

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,355 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    394
    I was laughing so hard, I almost shit my pants. Good thing I didn't eat my raisin bran this morning.
  22. jonathan1107

    jonathan1107

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2010
    Messages:
    866 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    Location:
    Canada
    Yes indeed, I do intend to upgrade the CPU... but this computer build is only 1 year old... So I think I'll wait for another generation of CPU and GPUs to come out... at which point, new stuff even more powerful will show up and then I'll upgrade...
  23. Xaser04

    Xaser04

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    734 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    100
    Depending entirely on the resolution, settings used and game in question the HD7970 will either be as fast as or somwhat slower than a HD6990 / HD6950(70)CF.

    As an example in BF3 at 1080p, ultra settings HD6970CF will be noticably faster in raw FPS terms than a single HD7970 (something like 110 vs 80).

    However switch to 3560x1920 (3x1080p in Portrait Eyefinity w/ Bezel correction) and the HD7970 is basically as fast as HD6970 CF. In my own testing a single HD7970 overclocked is roughly 75% faster than a single HD6970 at the same settings (settings where the HD6970 doesn't run out of memory).

    Obviously this won't hold true across all games but I was genuinely suprised at just how much quicker a HD7970 is compared to a HD6970 in Eyefinity scenarios.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page