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

Radeon HD 7970: Bulldozer vs. Sandy Bridge vs. Nehalem

Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Dec 29, 2011.

  1. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    What a nicely written post just to say that BD sucks and it always will suck. I already knew that though.
    Daimus says thanks.
  2. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,556 (5.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,226
    the worst thing is im not trying to troll lol
    qubit says thanks.
  3. theJesus

    theJesus

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,966 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    859
    Location:
    Ohio
    Skyrim does eat CPU for breakfast.
  4. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    I don't think it is possible to troll when talking about BD anymore. I was one of the biggest AMD fanboys on here until reality kicked me in the ass, and that reality is that BD isn't worth the price of admission for anyone that considers gaming their primary use.

    I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my other post or anything, I did find your post very nicely written.
    Daimus and qubit say thanks.
  5. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    I know you're not, as well :toast: and you gotta love the rhyme in "troll lol". :laugh:
  6. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,124 (11.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,459
    trollololololol.
  7. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    Well, what can I say, but 'lol'? :)
  8. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,371 (2.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    562
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    well you and damn smooth are doin a terrible job Not trollin :)
    eidairaman1 says thanks.
  9. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,124 (11.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,459
    considering most people are all 'hey, BD isnt as bad as some people claim' and you two are all OMG ITS STILL LAAAAAAME


    its kinda funny, actually. sure its not the best bang for your buck, but not every CPU can be? theres always gotta be a winner, and more often than not, its not the most recently launched one.
  10. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,556 (5.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,226
    quite the opposite in fact. I didnt say it was totally lame, at best its a passable attempt by AMD. I know the CPU was primarily designed with servers in mind so they might excel at doing things a server normally would do...

    WITH THAT BEING SAID...even Intels Xeon chips for servers are just totally awesome, and it doesnt matter if you use them in a server or a desktop, they will still perform really really well and not require a patch to boost performance.
    fullinfusion, Mussels and qubit say thanks.
  11. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,371 (2.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    562
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    that said amd amd amd amd amd haha not intel intel not simple

    ps intel intel intel nvidia the end

    ford or GM what ya sayin?
  12. Damn_Smooth

    Damn_Smooth New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,435 (1.20/day)
    Thanks Received:
    478
    Location:
    A frozen turdberg.
    I'm the one saying it's lame, and it is. I'm not going to sugarcoat it, AMD dropped the ball on this for gamers and that's who they marketed it to. I didn't even care about the price performance, I wanted a decent upgrade for the Phenom II X6s and every review of the CPU that is out there shows that it was a sidegrade at best.

    As you can see by the board I am presently using, I fell hard for their decent marketing. I take full accountability for that because I know it was my own stupidity, but I am going to call a turd a turd when talking about the CPU.
    Daimus and qubit say thanks.
  13. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,179 (0.74/day)
    Thanks Received:
    186
    Actually bd comic value is awesome I would have been sure by now we'd run out of jokes or gotten tired of making jokes but man...there just dosent seem to be an end to it....what great head room.
  14. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,668 (7.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,980
    Location:
    some AF base
    Because there is a huge difference between a cheap Q6600 and an FX. Thread scheduling should be completely different as the way they are set up is completely different. I am not saying the patch will be the holy grail I am saying its not a "cheat" its a fix becuase the current task scheduling is not designed for a Bulldozer. This is no different than the task scheduling changes that have been built into windows from its various versions. I would put money a quad on windows 95 would behave completely different from windows 98, 2K, NT, XP, Vista and 7.
  15. theJesus

    theJesus

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,966 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    859
    Location:
    Ohio
    Now I want to try installing 95 on my machine just for the lulz.
  16. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,211 (4.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    you will have to pull some of that ram out, 98 supports 1.5Gigs at most if im not mistaken
    theJesus says thanks.
  17. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    Oh crap, I've got 16 gigs of the stuff in my new Sandy build! :eek: and 4 of it is in a single module. Also, Win95 had a bug in it, where it would crash at initial bootup if the processor was too fast - and we're talking about ancient Petium 400MHz CPU's here, let alone the monsters we have today. But Microsoft had a fix for it - yay! Download the exe from their website and boot into your new Windows 95. Run it to automatically unpack the installer and apply the patch in one step... can you see a problem with this? I kid you not. :shadedshu
    theJesus says thanks.
  18. theJesus

    theJesus

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    3,966 (1.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    859
    Location:
    Ohio
    lol, there is a very good reason I said "try". I'm not going to anyways; I know it would be hell just getting it to recognize even the simplest of things.
  19. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,821 (4.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,480
    Oh yeah, hell indeed. :laugh:

    There is actually a way round this Win95 glitch: slow down the processor or boot it up on a very slow processor eg 200MHz Pentium or 486. Let Windows sort itself out with the drivers, then run the patch, then run on the fast system again and it should work. I know this works, because I remember going through this hassle a decade ago, lol. It's almost like Microsoft deliberately made the patch into a catch 22 situation to discourage Win95 use. Bad Microsoft! :laugh:

    You remember what the problem was? A timing loop overflowed. Apparently, some little counter in the bowls of Windows would wrap around through zero if the CPU was too quick and cause a blue screen.
    theJesus says thanks.
  20. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    You realise a design like bulldozers has never been done before right?

    Whilst I'm not expecting miracles a software patch could easily bump up results 10%

    Whilst it still won't be beating Intel chips that a nice boost and makes the fx8120 very competitively priced.

    Considering even with the unfinished leaked patched ( only half of it) got me a 7% higher cine-bench single core score maybe even 10-15% wouldn't be crazy.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2011
    Daimus and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  21. Hamlet

    Hamlet New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    13 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4
    The conclusion I take away from this well-done review is:
    CPU doesn't matter once you go to 1920x1200 (which should be the MINIMUM resolution for ANYONE who buys a HD7970...
    I mean, come on?

    However, once you go up there, the CPU becomes negligible.
    I've read some previews which show that Windows8 will be much better suited for taking advantage of the Bulldozer architecture... so I guess the results will even be closer...


    Suggestion:
    In the resume, I'd loved to see a comment on the fact that some games seem to be so tight, that there is barely a difference while others are showing much larger gaps between the 3 CPUs.
    Are those the (shoddily programmed) games that only use 1 core (so that Intel wins by IPC)?


    As I'm not in the market for 500€ video cards, I'll pass the HD7970 anyway.
    Looking forward to seeing the new 7870/7850!
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2011
    WarEagleAU and theoneandonlymrk say thanks.
  22. bear jesus

    bear jesus New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,535 (1.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Britland
    Ah 640x480, reminds me of the 90's :p

    I only have 1,196,000 more pixels than 2560x1600 :p but it cost less than £600 for the 6970 and 3 22" monitors, many spend that on a GPU or monitor alone, i admit the screens use very cheap panels so don't compare to a £600 monitor but the 5,292,000 colourful flashing pixels filling my vision more than make up for it to me /end gloat :laugh:

    But i have dug myself an expensive hole, as the results show the higher the res the less the CPU plays a part and the more GPU power needed and in the case of DX11 games a 6970 just can't cut it with everything including AA maxed out, even the 7970 seams like just about enough, although with a little overclock and at my silly res the 7970 catches up with the 6990 and 590 yet all three are only just enough to max out some DX11 games above 2560x1600 and in some cases they are still not enough so it will take at least a water cooled 1.1 GHZ+ 7970 to dig me out of this. :D

    OK I'm a very lucky bear :toast:
  23. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND

    You just seen the news post about the saphire cards.

    Try 1.3ghz + on your 7970 :laugh:
    bear jesus says thanks.
  24. bear jesus

    bear jesus New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,535 (1.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    200
    Location:
    Britland
    I just noticed it after posing :toast:
  25. pantherx12

    pantherx12 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,714 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    ENGLAND-LAND-LAND
    Someone needs to get me one of these cards, or give me a job so I can get one myself!

    This + new WC set up would last me a pretty long time I reckon :p

    5ghz + Bulldozer and 1.45ghz* 7970 ploz.

    *Or as close to as possible.

    These days unless I get a 50% over clock I'm not happy :p

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

Share This Page