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. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,968 (3.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,773
    while i appreciate your comment, i disagree. i dont run a religious outfit, so feel free to ask questions and criticize. we're all here to learn
     
    BlackOmega and cadaveca say thanks.
  2. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.86/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    Very true. Just out of curiosity why do you still test at such low resolutions? Just to get a comparison with some of the lower end cards or is there a deeper reasoning?
     
  3. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,968 (3.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,773
    comparison data for low end cards.

    in theory i could leave out the graphs of the lower resolutions for high-end cards. i'd still have to bench them for comparison. but some readers might be interested in the low-res graphs to look at them for advanced concepts like cpu dependency, resolution scaling etc.

    the majority of readers should have no issues skipping over a few graphs on each page
     
  4. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,748 (5.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,544
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    Ditto^^^ it makes me feel kind of good even though I have had this chip for 3 odd years.....and as most of us here overclock, I would guess that if all the CPU's on test were cranked up to BD's stock clocks, the results would have been even more interesting.
     
    Makaveli and THE_EGG say thanks.
  5. Makaveli

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    430 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Hey Wiz have you seen techreports new approach to graphing FPS if so what do you think about it?
     
  6. antuk15

    antuk15

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    401 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    138
    Crysis
    Crysis 2
    Stalker series
    Far Cry 2
    Cryostsis
    Batman : AA
    Metro 2033

    There's HUNDREDS of games that have built in benchmark programs that messure minimum fps without the need for fraps or any other program.

    A few other website actually provide minimum frame rates but if you look closely its only for games that have built in benchmarks that show and record them. These built in benchmarks are much more consistent then fraps and you should know that.

    But yes you're right, They all use fraps :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
  7. OOZMAN

    OOZMAN New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    160 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hey man, fraps is awesome.
     
  8. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    14,968 (3.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11,773
    you want me to bench with those games only? almost all new titles dont have benchmarking functionality

    how do you define consistent ? and whats your reference value to compare to ? part of the issue is what i mentioned further above for which you apparently have no answers. another problem is that time measurements are quite difficult to do on windows. i'd expect fraps to do better in that department than most engine benchmarking code

    just looked at it. good to see someone trying new things.
    http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/11

    [​IMG]
    personally i think fps graphs are too complicated for many readers and offer little additional insight.
    not sure why tr graphs their data the way they do, but frame number on the x axis seems like a bad choice. you want to put time on x axis. look how each of their graphs has a different number of frames for its own run.
    frametimes on y is also counterintuitive to what most readers expect, especially if the values are in the 20-100 range where people instantly think fps

    the use of 99th percentile frametime makes no sense to me (yes i know what 99th percentile is). most people will look at that graph with the big scientific name, skip it, and be impressed with it

    time spent beyond 50 ms: good idea. bad naming, i thought FPS again
    so each of their benchmark runs runs a different time duration. then they add up how long the frametimes were 50+ ms (for a different number of frames in each run) and then compare these values by putting them in a graph. so they compare a shorter maximum time with a longer time?

    edit: so i found their article explaining the changes: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21516
    good read. their choices make more sense now. need to think more about it, but that alone is a problem. review readers dont want to read an instruction manual for the review
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2012
    Steevo and cadaveca say thanks.
  9. someone New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    Saarbrücken, Germany
    Hi there :)

    @techreport
    I generally like their ideas very much. As a former user of a multi-gpu setup I particularly know that fps don't tell the whole story. In fact, they don't even tell half the story sometimes. I remember playing Crysis at 70-80fps (vsync=off) which stuttered big time and felt worse than 40fps without micro stuttering.

    As per the metrics, they should definiitely normalize everything, that would eliminate the problem of comparing runs of different lengths (or different amounts of frame times). Instead of counting the number of frame times larger than a given threshold, they would then report the proportion which is larger than 50ms. I find this transformation quite standard and straightforward, and it's a clear improvement IMO.



    @BD vs. SB vs. NH
    The results are pretty much as expected (sadly for AMD, one should note).

    Here are two interesting things in the results:

    1. In Skyrim, going from 1024 to 1280 keeps the fps constant, the same for 1680 to 1920.
    But there's a difference between the upper resolutions and the lower ones:

    [​IMG]
    (black arrow=no difference, red arrow=difference)


    2. In Starcraft, on the other hand, there are neither "horizontal" nor "vertical" changes, or at least the upper resolutions are more similar to the lower ones than in our example before (Skyrim):

    [​IMG]


    I suspect the aspect ratio makes the difference, since the upper resolutions are 4:3 and 5:4 whilst the lower ones are 16:10 and 16:9 respectively. The wide screen aspects require more rendering in the horizontal than in the vertical, compared to the 4:3 (and 5:4) ratio.


    The explanation, why there is a difference in Skyrim and (almost) none in Starcraft is then, that
    - there's not so much going on in the vertical in Skyrim: floor texture and sky texture, from which especially the latter is very simple to compute for the CPU. So, when you add more horizontal pixels, I would expect a much larger amount of CPU computations necessary than when adding vertical ones (just paint some more heaven and floor, to oversimplify).

    - in Starcraft, since it's a top-down view, adding horizontal pixels and adding vertical ones should make (almost) no difference. It's far less asymmetric than Skyrim, since more terrain, buildings and units will be computed, regardless in what direction the image is expanded.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012
  10. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,240 (0.93/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    Interesting read: hadn't seen that approach before.

    If i may make a suggestion: instead of using seconds, why not use the next value along the line, as in tenths of seconds? Wouldn't this catch more of the issues described in that techreport site's article?

    Ofc, i'm assuming there's a tool that can measure this because, otherwise, no point in even trying.
     
  11. MilesRdz New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    A lot of people seem to not notice or care that Bulldozer is vastly underutilized in most of these games.
    While SB is using half or more of it's resources, BD is using about 1/4th.

    If games used more threads to feed the graphics card, we wouldn't be discussing this issue to death.

    Some people could argue that if BD had better single-threaded performance, games would run better.
    That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that BD is underutilized.
     
  12. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,380 (11.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,683
    and thats why people still have hope for the two-patch solution MS is working on for windows 7 and BD.
     
  13. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,235 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Yeeeahhh but ain't

    1/4 of 8 =2

    1/2 of 4 =2

    Sooo.....its pretty much a fair match up ratio

    Wait.....no it aint....sorry my math was off
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2012
  14. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,742 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    982
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Good to see my "outdated" Core i7 920 is not for old junk just yet...
     
  15. TheGuruStud

    TheGuruStud

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,621 (0.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    168
    Location:
    Police/Nanny State of America
    That doesn't fix apps only using a couple threads, though.

    And we all know that since M$ released the patch it doesn't do anything at all. We will have to wait for win8 for any small improvement.

    It wouldn't be discussed at all b/c intel would lose in every game. That's how the game works don't you know? :ohwell:

    A lot of sites (paid by you know who) won't bench apps favorable to AMD b/c they're paid not to. We end up with reviews massively one siding a situation regardless of real performance.
    I remember Athlon 64s losing to pentium 4s back in the day in benches....now, I wonder how that was possible LOL
     
  16. BlackOmega

    BlackOmega

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    624 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Where do people get off saying BD is fail? I looked through every page and, more often than not, it was beating Nehalem, and sometimes even beating the 2500k.

    While sure it's not superdooperawesome like a lot of people were hoping for, but it's far from fail IMO.

    EDIT: W1zzard, how come you guys don't test in 1080p? I'd dare say that the probably THE MOST common resolution used these days, yet it's always omitted in tests.
     
  17. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,467 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,189
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    That is because at higher resolutions, your bottleneck is almost always your video card. Bulldozer didn't fail, it just had a lot of hype for something that was decent at best in comparison to the T1100 and T1090. Bulldozer did good enough where it has to and shines when SMP really matters. It's the first step towards something better. There aren't a whole lot of applications that use a lot of SMP, but there very well could in the future.

    This review kind of puts everything into perspective imho.
    http://guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-cpu-scaling-performance-review

    In all realism, BD isn't that bad. Keep in mind that a lot of these titles don't use a lot of cores yet, so there is a lot of horse power BD still has waiting to be used. Nothing is stopping someone from transcoding video while playing a video game and not have a problem. That is what AMD is trying to do.

    Albeit, Intel has better IPC counts, but that is only because SB has a shorter pipeline than BD. BD has some obstacles to overcome, but all in all, it is more space friendly, so you can cram more cores on the same amount of die space.
     
  18. BlackOmega

    BlackOmega

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    624 (0.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I know that, but thanks anyway. The reason I'm asking is because why would you review at a resolution that 7% use, as opposed to a resolution that is THE MOST commonly used --1920x1080 (25%). Which is followed by 1680x1050 @ 17%. (source)
    You're absolutely right, it didn't but all of these intel fanboi's would lead people to believe that it's slower than socket 939 single core. When in reality, it's their fastest CPUs' to date. Regardless of whether the software can utilize it or not.
     
  19. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,050 (4.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,207
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    For most peopel though, this is what's most important.

    The question gets asked "Will this make what I do now faster?"

    And the answer, of course, for most is "Not Really".


    The hype let people down, but of course it's not a bad chip...but it's not "The best" either. I think many more people would be happier if the 8150's price matched the 2500k's, but it doesn't.

    I've recommended to many PHenom II quad users that they upgrade to 8150, and soem have. Not one has been disappointed in the change.
     
  20. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,235 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    204
    Aaaaahhhhhhhh thats like having the fastest speed boat....in the middle of the desert. JUST ENJOY THE DARN THING!!!!!!!! There is no mighty, morphing power ranger upgrade fix for it. Its not the intel killer. By the time software catches up to it....sometime 10 times better will be available... I still use my mindisc and laserdisc player....why? Because I paid for it and it makes me happy....get it? Apply
     
  21. NdMk2o1o

    NdMk2o1o

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,444 (2.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    922
    Location:
    Redditch, Worcestershire, England
    Don't really see what all the fuss is about with BD, it compares and competes directly with Intel Nehalem which before SB was the target. I would be happy with BD if I had one, just so happens I have SB and am able to :nutkick: BD lol but seriously, still a half decent chip and if anything with AMD the 2nd revision will always be stronger as they improve upon the 1st build. Nice review W1zz, thanks as always!! :rockout:
     
  22. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,467 (6.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,189
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    You also have to realize that single-threaded workloads isn't bulldozer's strong suit. You do some media encoding with the 8150 and it will give any 1155 CPU (at the moment,) a run for it's money, and in some cases get's close to 990X performance when it comes to media. If I look at framerates for any game and see them practically at 50-60fps, I wouldn't complain. Also SC2 isnt as dependent on IPC as it is on memory bandwidth, which is what Intel's chips are currently excelling it. Just keep in mind that a properly tuned bulldozer can crank out some impressive numbers.

    Also, rumor has it that the next version of bulldozer, "Enhanced Bulldozer," may have a quad-channel memory controller while still using AM3+. That could be a good selling point as AMD processors are reasonable to replace without having to change all of your hardware. Intel's IPC counts are much nicer than AMD's, but AMD has something going for it because bulldozer has a very scalable architecture. Once AMD trims off the fat, reduces the length of the pipeline and gets its memory controller up to snuff. It will do better in single-threaded applications, and there will be more cores at the same time.

    The future isn't single-threaded applications, just keep that in mind. Remember where we were 10 years ago, and 10 years ago before that.
     
  23. Prima.Vera

    Prima.Vera

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,251 (1.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    293
    Damn. I have a 4 years old Core 2 Quad Q9650 which is on pair with the I7-920, and still beats the crap out of the Shitdozer. Shame AMD, shame!
     
  24. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,380 (11.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,683
    show me where you got these numbers from, please
     
  25. InnocentCriminal

    InnocentCriminal Resident Grammar Amender

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,484 (1.83/day)
    Thanks Received:
    847
    Yeah I'll 2nd that. I'll be interested to see how it compares with my Q9550.

    :p
     

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

Share This Page