Official Radeon 7970 Reviews Thread

[Flipped Gazelle]

New arch, new process. Yes the product is going to have room to grow. By the time it's available for sale, will probably already have a healthy increase via drivers.

Still puzzled why this thing was paper launched now. But what do I know.

Bragging rights, I'd guess. Year-end optimism. I wonder if BD hadn't been such a stinker, would AMD have launched 7970 today?

 

[Rifter]

Dissapointed with the performance and price. Guess i'll have to keep my SLI 460's at least till kepler high end if not next gen after that to double my performance with a single card.

Maybe it will be a overclocking monster.

 

[Silverforce11]

The holy grail of GPUs being chased for me is a single-gpu card that can really handle 2560x1600. I think we are going to be waiting for the next node for that. Even the 28nm cards yet to come with more speed won't be delivering 60FPS maxed in new games at that resolution.

Your expectations just needs a slight revision. ie. it's already 52 fps @ 1600p in BF3 on ultra. How about running it on High for 99% IQ and easily >60 fps?

Some settings destroy performance for very little visual gain. If you just want automatic MAX everything, you will need 3x 7970 for 1600p, or wait for 12nm, but by then, there's probably BF5 that also needs 3x 9970s to max everything.

So, revise your expectations. Seriously, a single 7970 is capable of playing BF3 at 3x1080p on HIGH, that's impressive enough for me.

 

[amenx]

Typical generational performance gain, roughly 25% more than competitions last top card. With yearly release cycles and no dramatic architectural developments, I think theres only so much GPU makers can do at this stage tbh. I think Nvidias new cards will be have similar improvements as well. Gone are the days of 100% performance gains (8800gtx).

 

[RussianSensation]

Close enough on new drivers. AMD's Dave (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1607915&postcount=1847) has said they already got 5% extra performance via drivers as the cards were being reviewed. Obviously over time it should be a steady 50% advantage, more in some cases.

GTX580 will probably have a price cut to < $400 shortly. Right now HD7970 looks great because GTX580 is almost $500. But relative to a $270 GTX570 or a $250 unlockable HD6950 2GB, the value equation is pretty poor.

Of course the top cards are never about value. I expected a lot more performance vs. HD6970 than just 35-40%. I mean it's only 25-30% faster than a GTX580. How does AMD think they are going to compete with GTX670 and GTX680 with that? :hmm:

Overclocking is a must for this card. AMD left way too much clock speed on the table. It's like GTX460.

 

[Silverforce11]

Do people honestly expect GK104 Kepler with 50&#37; more CUDA cores than gtx580 to beat a gtx590 (which is ~20% faster than a 7970)? Think about that for a bit, and you will see where the gtx680 slots in.

The full kepler is nowhere to be seen and according to NV's own roadmaps, its not even in 2012.

 

[lOl_lol_lOl]

I do wonder what makes you think the GTX680 can change things..?

Indeed. People are expecting too much from 28nm to begin with, and AMD will take most of the flak for launching first.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

GTX580 will probably have a price cut to < $400 shortly. Right now HD7970 looks great because GTX580 is almost $500. But relative to a $270 GTX570 or a $250 unlockable HD6950 2GB, the value equation is pretty poor.

Of course the top cards are never about value. I expected a lot more performance vs. HD6970 than just 35-40%. I mean it's only 25-30% faster than a GTX580. How does AMD think they are going to compete with GTX670 and GTX680 with that? :hmm:

I imagine AMD's thinking that by the time GTX 6xx comes out, they will be able to crank up the clocks on Tahiti. I don't think AMD has to worry for a couple months.

 

[Grooveriding]

Your expectations just needs a slight revision. ie. it's already 52 fps @ 1600p in BF3 on ultra. How about running it on High for 99&#37; IQ and easily >60 fps?

Some settings destroy performance for very little visual gain. If you just want automatic MAX everything, you will need 3x 7970 for 1600p, or wait for 12nm, but by then, there's probably BF5 that also needs 3x 9970s to max everything.

So, revise your expectations. Seriously, a single 7970 is capable of playing BF3 at 3x1080p on HIGH, that's impressive enough for me.

No doubt you can do 2560x1600 on a single card with IQ reductions. I should of clarified my post to say without compromise. :awe: I know I come at gaming from a small niche, but I want to play with everything turned up, I am a sucker for it. It really irks me turning off HBAO and 4xMSAA in BF3 multiplayer.... Really.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

You know I did some digging and check this out:

vs

Compared to the HD 5870 release it isn't even that bad....I think people had some ridiculous expectations. Albeit the HD 5870 released at $380~ .

Disagree. The 5870 was a bigger jump over the 4870 than this will be over the 6000 series. Also, the 5870 was cheaper.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

No.
Also, there are some people who need more than just 30fps. Think of faster games like racing, shooters etc. More fps mean also less noticable input lag afaik.

Input lag is part of 2560x1600 panels simply because they aren't as fast as cheaper TN panels. Input lag is a monitor problem and not a GPU problem.

Also, if a gamer is truly worried about FPS issues they will either turn down settings for a competitive advantage, or use a lower resolution monitor for the FPS gain. All these benchmarks that show unplayable FPS's at 2560x1600 are use extreme amounts of IQ settings simply to try and stress the GPU.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

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.

For me, this

 

[AnandThenMan]

Bragging rights, I'd guess. Year-end optimism. I wonder if BD hadn't been such a stinker, would AMD have launched 7970 today?

I never thought of that. It does help improve AMD's image I would imagine.

BTW, can people please stop quoting huge posts like that? It's needless.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Input lag is part of 2560x1600 panels simply because they aren't as fast as cheaper TN panels. Input lag is a monitor problem and not a GPU problem.

Also, if a gamer is truly worried about FPS issues they will either turn down settings for a competitive advantage, or use a lower resolution monitor for the FPS gain. All these benchmarks that show unplayable FPS's at 2560x1600 are use extreme amounts of IQ settings simply to try and stress the GPU.

I know both these things. But I said that I think that with more fps the input lag is less annoying. I could be wrong here, of course.

Turn down settings with a highend card? Blasphemy :biggrin:
My point was simply, that 30fps is not playable for everyone or every genre.

 

[Grooveriding]

Not even close! It's not 50&#37; 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.

But really they don't need to do anything right now though, do they ? There is no 680, there is no 670 and there isn't even a 660. They have no competition, so as it stands the card dominates, kicks ass and is the card to get if you want the best.

This argument just doesn't hold because it's discussing the 7970 competing with a card that doesn't even exist. Going on what we have seen leaked, the 680 is a non-contender until the middle of 2012. The 7970 likely will find its self competing with some sort of 28nm card from nvidia in the interim and it will probably do quite well against it.

Considering how well this card is doing in DX11, tessellation and overclocking scaling; it sure looks like a solid foundation for a monstrous refresh. Will have to wait and see.

But right here and now, there is no competition, the 7970 is the best. When there is a 680 or some early mid-range derivative actually in reality, then it is the time to pass judgments on the 7970 in contrast against said future unreleased card.

 

[badb0y]

Disagree. The 5870 was a bigger jump over the 4870 than this will be over the 6000 series. Also, the 5870 was cheaper.

It didn't replace the 4870 it replaced the 4890. So 30% increase vs 23% increase. It's still not bad and is within the margin of acceptance. Another 7% might have net you 1 FPS more...

 

[Silverforce11]

No doubt you can do 2560x1600 on a single card with IQ reductions. I should of clarified my post to say without compromise. :awe: I know I come at gaming from a small niche, but I want to play with everything turned up, I am a sucker for it. It really irks me turning off HBAO and 4xMSAA in BF3 multiplayer.... Really.

See, if i had unlimited $$ and a wife who lets me spend whatever... sure i'd go for your approach too.

But consider the following:

Thats already on ULTRA with HBAO which hurts perf a lot. Such high res, and how little MSAA improves BF3, you can do without it. Now, turn it down to High and you can enjoy the game at near max and get a lot more fps. If HIGH actually reduced IQ a lot, i would hesitate, but have you really spent time trying it out? There's hardly any difference, much less in fluid motion than even in screens which are hard to tell apart already.

Seriously.. Skyrim so playable on max in eyeinfinity, ppl complaining? Add a hefty 20% OC on that, or 30% when voltage mods are out.

Have to add this again: Do people honestly expect GK104 Kepler with 50% more CUDA cores than gtx580 to beat a gtx590 (which is only ~20% faster than a 7970)?

 

[Barfo]

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.

good point

 

[Gloomy]

Is Nvidia still planning to release in mid '12?

 

[Vesku]

They have to work within the PCI-E power spec, that switch is the best way to be able to use PCI-E labeling but allow max OC (and control OC warranty returns), correct ?

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.

 

[nsavop]

Do people honestly expect GK104 Kepler with 50% more CUDA cores than gtx580 to beat a gtx590 (which is ~20% faster than a 7970)? Think about that for a bit, and you will see where the gtx680 slots in.

The full kepler is nowhere to be seen and according to NV's own roadmaps, its not even in 2012.

GK104 is not replacing the the 580, GK100 is. And yes if rumored specs are true it should come close.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Can you imagine what this would be like if they released a refresh using comparible die sizes to nvidia? A gtx580 is 520mm2 I believE? The 7970 is only 365mm2. I smell 7980 for the holiday season next year. Well a guy can dream can't he?

 

[Silverforce11]

@ Barfo: No its not a good point. Metro with DOF, everything tanks. Just because some features kill frame rate does not mean the GPUs suck. A gtx590 costs $750 and gets 20 fps. WTF, just disable those features and enjoy your game at almost identical IQ.

@ nsavop: Do you also know the rumored release? According to NV's roadmaps presented at conferences, gk100 is not due for 2012, period. It may have 1024 CUDA cores, but its not in the picture for so long you may as well compare it to unicorns.

GK104 is the only thing thats remotely close, and its still Q2 2012, there's rumors of Q1 but nothing as concrete as the Q2 leak. So lets play some speculation games. 768 CUDA cores. Will it match a gtx590?

 

[3DVagabond]

Disagree. The 5870 was a bigger jump over the 4870 than this will be over the 6000 series. Also, the 5870 was cheaper.

As badboy mentioned, the 4890 was the TOTL single gpu ATI card at the time the 5870 was released. While the 5870 was appreciably cheaper, as you say, the 4890 was selling for ~$200, which is a lot less than the 6970 sells for.

 

[Grooveriding]

Can you imagine what this would be like if they released a refresh using comparible die sizes to nvidia? A gtx580 is 520mm2 I believE? The 7970 is only 365mm2. I smell 7980 for the holiday season next year. Well a guy can dream can't he?

Each company's strength is also its achilles heel, one takes it on the front end (nvidia) and the other takes it on the back end (amd).

AMD's small die strategy has been letting them get to market first and have it all to the themselves. This has gotten them penetration and increased sales. The 5770 is still the most used/sold DX11 card, in large part due to AMD having DX11 all to themselves for six months. Their downside is they can't match the top-tier big die from nvidia.

Nvidia's big die strategy lets them claim the single-gpu crown when they end up getting a card out and get the premium pricing for it. But they take longer to get to market and lose those initial sales AMD takes up, leaving them locked out of some buyers who went AMD and are not going to upgrade again for 20&#37; more performance and more money.

If AMD has their ducks lined up they should get out the 7870, 7850 and 7770 in no short order before nvidia gets anything out the door. I believe they did this with the 5XXX series launch ? They should aim to do it again.

edit: A more direct response to your 7980 comment. Looking at the crossfire scaling, overclocking potential and thermals - the 7990 is going to be a complete beast for a single card. This is also where AMD has been winning the fastest graphics card crown with their small die strategy. They can pack two dies on a single card and keep the temperatures reasonable while keeping the clocks high. Nvidia takes an arrow in the knee on dual gpu cards with their big die strategy.

Hence 5970 was the fastest card and nvidia couldn't even release a dual 480 due to thermals, then 6990 replaced it and again the 590 is slower because it is held back by thermals. We'll likely see the same play out for 7990, although with the delayed nvidia timeline, I'm thinking it will be 8990 or whatever they call the refresh vs the 690.