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

AMD Radeon HD 7970 3072 MB

Discussion in 'Reviews' started by W1zzard, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    45,712 (10.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,135
    Location:
    Australalalalalaia.
    not to mention with various driver enhancements and bugs, sometimes you do just get weird results.
     
    w3b says thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  2. Kaotik

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Of course newest reviews are always the most relevant, as all the cards are being benched with the said set of drivers & games (unless same set of drivers and games has been used before to bench the said card, which isn't true for this case)

    Let's turn those to actual numbers and compare to 1 review ago and the original one too - all have different drivers and games - and of course we won't compare to 7970, but 6870 and 6850 directly

    Numbers presented 6870 compared to 6850, 7970 review / 560Ti 448 review / 6990 / 6870 review
    All res: 0% faster / 17.9% faster / 14.6% faster / 14.9% faster
    1024: 3.1% slower / 14.7% faster / 12.7% faster / 11.1% faster
    1280: 1.8% faster / 17.4% faster / 16% faster / 14.9% faster
    1680: 5.7% faster / 16.7% faster / 15.6% faster / 14.9% faster
    1920: 6% faster / 19.7% faster / 19% faster / 16.3% faster
    2560: 4.4% faster / 21.5% faster / 17.9% faster / 16.3% faster

    Bonus tip: All reviews between 560Ti 448 and 6870 reviews give similar numbers to those

    The relative speed between 2 cards doesn't change notably regardless of which card is being reviewed, only the roundings to nearest full % twist the difference to one way or another a bit, but it doesn't have major impact on it - this is why I've included 6990 in which the 100% mark is even higher than in 7970 review.

    Which review doesn't belong, in which review, it's 100% certain that 6870 numbers are plain wrong, which also makes one think if other numbers in the said review are borked, too?

    Also, it seems there's some fundamental errors in other reviews too - in 6990 review all 5 resolutions have bigger difference than in 6870 review, but the "all resolutions" difference is smaller

    Yes, but when you're talking about 2 cards, which use same chip, of which lower model is using partly disabled chip at lower clocks too, it's impossible, regardless of bugs and whatnot which would be the exact same for both cards, that the lower model of these 2 could outperform the higher model card in tests which are the same for both cards.

    edit:
    Car comparisons are always fun.
    Let's say we have 2 identical Ferraris, which drive straight line - only difference is, the other Ferrari has 1 gear removed and revs limited too. It's impossible that the Ferrari with 1 gear removed and revs limited would outrun the Ferrari with full gears & no rev limits. The full blown Ferrari will keep outrunning the crippled Ferrari no matter if you switch some slowbie driver to fast driver on both cars, and no matter how many faster cars you put to do the same - same applies to 6870 vs 6850.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
  3. yogurt_21

    yogurt_21

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    4,976 (1.23/day)
    Thanks Received:
    986
    Location:
    AZ
    math... you needs more classes in it. Each review is re-stated against the current card reviewed. Ie the baseline for comparison changes with each review. This is why percentages are not comperable between reviews and due to changes in drivers and the games benched fps aren't really either.

    so sure when the 6870 is the baseline, it shows up as 20% faster on the graph. However should the baseline be say a 5450, it would show as a higher percentage. With a better gpu as the baseline the difference between the cards is going to show as a lower percentage. The difference between other cards on the graphs is only comperable against the baseline. So you must compare each against the baseline to come up with the percentage between the two. Stats doesn't allow you to simply add or subtract percentages of the other cards against each other. That's bad math.

    at 1680x1050 the 6870 is actually closer to 10% faster overall compared with the 6850 based on this review. Remember several new bencmarks were introduced in this review and several others were removed. You simply cannot use the other numbers to justify why you think this review is off.

    if you're really interested in the how and why of all this I'm sure there's plenty of course offerings in your area on stats and percentages.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  4. Kaotik

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Wait what, I need math classes? Did you even read what I wrote? :confused:

    If you bothered checking my numbers, you'd see the numbers are correct - they're all counted as how many %'s is the 6870's number from 6850's - the baseline is irrelevant for that, moving the 100% mark only causes some rounding errors. I used 6990 review too just to illustrate this, and could use 5450 review too.

    They're all counted as how many percents faster (or slower in 1 case) 6870 is compared to 6850 - 11.1% faster is the same regardless if of what you have as baseline, 6850 27 vs 6870 30, 6850 90 6870 100, 6850 216 6870 240 - they're all the same.

    I know several games were changed for this review, and that can of course affect the difference between 2 cards a bit, but it doesn't do what happened in this review, it doesn't put a card ~15-20% faster on every occasion before to be around 5% faster to actually being slower just because you switch games
     
  5. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    I wonder how the HD 7850 and 7870 will perform and how much they will cost?
     
  6. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    45,712 (10.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,135
    Location:
    Australalalalalaia.
    i'm more interested in their power to performance ratio, they could turn out to be extremely fast for their power consumption, which is a massive win for ITX/mATX system builders.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  7. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,361 (3.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16,570
    problem found why hd 6870 sucks so much since the rebench:

    [​IMG]

    result of the damage -> card running at pcie x2 (that's 2 lanes vs. 16 it should run at)

    off to find another hd 6870
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
    w3b, SK-1, Kaotik and 7 others say thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  8. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    17,016 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Incorrect. The 7000 Series had a precise launch and met or exceeded performance expectations, Marketing of this model series hasnt been exaggerated by the marketing dept. FYI Bulldozer is far from a failure because people and businesses are buying them.
     
  9. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    16,003 (3.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,069
    Location:
    Beaumont, Alberta
    Ouch. Good catch though, W1zz!
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  10. crazyeyesreaper

    crazyeyesreaper Chief Broken Rig

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,683 (2.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,555
    Location:
    04578
    yup that definitely a bummer and explains the discrepancies in performance.
     
  11. pantherx12

    pantherx12

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    9,744 (3.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,728
    Location:
    Suffolk/Essex, England
    One day I hope those get embedded in the PCB it's self rather than surface mounted.

    Knocked so many off them off over the years.
     
  12. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    17,016 (4.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,414
    Never knocked smds off. Ive shorted ram out n bent a cpu pin but thats pretty much it
     
  13. twicksisted

    twicksisted

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,441 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    353
    wow 3gb of gfx ram, wonder how crap it performs on a 32bit OS!
     
  14. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,361 (3.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16,570
    don't store your electronics like this and you will be fine

    [​IMG]
     
    theoneandonlymrk, w3b, SK-1 and 3 others say thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  15. twicksisted

    twicksisted

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,441 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    353
  16. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    16,003 (3.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,069
    Location:
    Beaumont, Alberta
    10 Year Member at TPU
  17. acperience7

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    Messages:
    282 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    35
    I was really looking forward to seeing their liquid chamber tech on these cards:(. Other than that I'm really liking the performance numbers, but I think I'll be able to get by on my 5870's for a while.
     
  18. twicksisted

    twicksisted

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,441 (0.70/day)
    Thanks Received:
    353
    but on a serious note, what happens if you try and use one of these on a 32bit OS?
    If a 32bit OS can only address 4gb of ram in total that doesent leave much left for the gfx memory to be duplicated in the system memory or has this since changed in Win7?
     
  19. arnoo1

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    756 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Location:
    Netherlands
  20. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,361 (3.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16,570
    i added the cardboard today after discovering the damaged hd 6870. but then was too lazy to do it for the other boxes :p

    the card will only allocate a 256 or 512 mb window in the cpu address space (i actually checked this with a hd 7970, but forgot which of the two it was)
     
    cadaveca and twicksisted say thanks.
    10 Year Member at TPU
  21. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    11,935 (4.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,643
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011
  22. Kaotik

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    I wouldn't worry about the cards performance so much - i'd be more worried how on earth the OS itself would perform with the leftover address space :laugh:
     
  23. Kaotik

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    This can't be right :confused:
    It has to map everything it's going to ever use to the address space there is, which is exactly 4GB in 32bit system, since PAE hasn't been supported since.. was it XP SP2?

    Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory - Mark's Blog - Site Home - TechNet Blogs
    The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed
    Memory Limits for Windows Releases
     
  24. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    45,712 (10.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,135
    Location:
    Australalalalalaia.
    Kaotik: thats not how much is usable max, its how much is reserved, (minimum) per card.
     
    10 Year Member at TPU
  25. W1zzard

    W1zzard Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    16,361 (3.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16,570
    finished rebenching the hd 6870 and updated the summary graphs
     
    10 Year Member at TPU

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