The 'massive overclockability and subsequent gains' is an important selling point, particularly with reference to the 580. It will lure alot of buyers. AMD is carefully using the the time advantage it has.
The 'massive overclockability and subsequent gains' is an important selling point, particularly with reference to the 580. It will lure alot of buyers. AMD is carefully using the the time advantage it has.However, at stock clocks, HD7970 isn't much better than 20-25% over GTX580. Looks like apoppin was right afterall. But with overclocking, the HD7970 just takes off (no wonder since 1125 vs. 925 is a 22% overclock). AMD went way too conservative with clock speeds. Should have shipped this card at 1050 mhz.
Especially in Crossfire, could turn out to be a real bang/buck setup.The 7950 is what I am really interested in
Remember when we speculated about this yesterday? It seems like Tahiti is as responsive to overclocks as Fermi. According to my calculation 22% OC brought about roughly a 17% performance increase. This is much better than before when a 20% overclock would net a 10% performance increase.I think you'd really need to overclock those HD7970 cards to make it worthwhile from GTX580 level of performance in BF3. Early overclocking results are very favourable for BF3.
However, at stock clocks, HD7970 isn't much better than 20% over GTX580 in BF3. Looks like apoppin's estimates of 25-30% on average was right afterall. But with overclocking, the HD7970 just takes off (no wonder since 1125 vs. 925 is a 22% overclock). AMD went way too conservative with clock speeds. Should have shipped this card at 1050 mhz.
Also, the reference cooler seems loud. I'd probably wait for 3rd party cards with factory pre-overclocks, better aftermarket coolers and unlocked BIOS that lets you easily overclock past 1125mhz and not have the reference fan sound like a jet engine at > 1.1ghz overlcocks.
Personally I'm disappointed. I think the right price point is $449. For $549 it will trickle off the shelves IMO. GTX 580 is close enough in benches that the choice becomes a wash unless you are looking for eyefinity.
Remember when we speculated about this yesterday? It seems like Tahiti is as responsive to overclocks as Fermi. According to my calculation 22% OC brought about roughly a 17% performance increase. This is much better than before when a 20% overclock would net a 10% performance increase.
7950 could trade blows with a GTX 580 while costing less. It's a solid launch for AMD, quite good.
I think you'd really need to overclock those HD7970 cards to make it worthwhile from GTX580 level of performance in BF3. Early overclocking results are very favourable for BF3.
However, at stock clocks, HD7970 isn't much better than 20% over GTX580 in BF3. Looks like apoppin's estimates of 25-30% on average was right afterall. But with overclocking, the HD7970 just takes off (no wonder since 1125 vs. 925 is a 22% overclock). AMD went way too conservative with clock speeds. Should have shipped this card at 1050 mhz.
Also, the reference cooler seems loud. I'd probably wait for 3rd party cards with factory pre-overclocks, better aftermarket coolers and unlocked BIOS that lets you easily overclock past 1125mhz and not have the reference fan sound like a jet engine at > 1.1ghz overlcocks.
We had lengthy speculation on performance estimate here, i think we came to the conclusion that it should be around 50% faster than 6970 and ~30% faster than gtx580. It met its target,
Well that's what I get for being lazy, I didn't read all the reviews, and usually skip Tom's. That's a large overclock and looks like AMD finally is scaling well with an overclock too.
Not even close! It's not 50% faster than HD6970. Look again.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm was premature. I read other reviews and this card doesn't do well enough at 2560x1600, especially once you add on AA. For people like you who wanted a huge performance boost on 30 inch monitors, you'll need to wait for a HD7970 with 1100+ mhz stock clocks or for drivers to improve at least 15%.
In regards to people who really wanted more performance, 2560x1600 users, this videocard upgrade from GTX580 is going to take them from unplayable to unplayble category in pretty much all the games that actually needed more performance.
Too slow.
Too slow, almost a slideshow.
Only 30% faster with AA.
Slideshow.
Too slow.
Almost 50% faster with AA, but still not even 45 fps. Decent, not great.
Too slow.
Obviously at $550, it's a better buy than a GTX580, but I don't think the performance increase is anything spectacular for those people who actually needed it (and that means 2560x1600 and above users, not 1080P users).
arredondo, here is my take on this card.
For people running smaller monitors, it's not bad. However, for those of us with 30" monitors, many were hoping for a single card solution that lets us play at 2560x1600 at high settings. This card is not that. It comes close, but it doesn't quite make it.
So for me, it means I still have to fool around with SLI or Crossfire, and all the bugs and driver updates that entails.
For me, it is basically as bad as no release at all -- Especially at this price, I would have been better served by buying a 580 at release.
Benchmarks I saw for 2560x1600 showed 30+FPS With 4x-8xAA? how is that not playable? Since AA is mostly irrelevant at those resulotions I think a single 7970 is very playable at 2560x1600. Especially when they get their driver teams rolling out optimizations for this new architecture.
Living up to your username, well done. D:its over, amd is finished
Not even close! It's not 50% faster than HD6970.
Wonder how much of the high price is due to poor yields from 28nm TSMC, and how much is it to make up for BD's failure.
its over, amd is finished
Not even close! It's not 50% faster than HD6970. Look at the overall benchmarks in the lastest demanding games: it's only 36% faster at 1920x1080 4AA and just 26% faster at 1920x1080 8AA than HD6970. Look again. And that's with a review that really tests the most demanding games under the sun out today: Witcher 2, Dragon Age 2, Metro 2033, Crysis 2, BF3, Hard Reset, Serious Sam 3, etc.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm was premature. I read other reviews and this card doesn't do well enough at 2560x1600, especially once you add on AA. For people like you who wanted a huge performance boost on 30 inch monitors, you'll need to wait for a HD7970 with 1100+ mhz stock clocks or for drivers to improve at least 15%.
In regards to people who really wanted more performance, 2560x1600 users, this videocard upgrade from GTX580 is going to take them from unplayable to unplayble category in pretty much all the games that actually needed more performance.
Too slow.
Too slow, almost a slideshow.
Only 30% faster with AA.
Slideshow.
Too slow.
Almost 50% faster with AA, but still not even 45 fps. Decent, not great.
Too slow.
Obviously at $550, it's a better buy than a GTX580, but I don't think the performance increase is anything spectacular for those people who actually needed it (and that means 2560x1600 and above users, not 1080P users). AMD is going to need to refresh this card one more time to compete with GTX680.