Radeon 7970 released - ARMA 2 Performance Gains

[Rouen58 10]

From Bit-Tech, one of the few websites that uses ARMA 2 in its benchmark suite:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/10

"In Arma II at 1,920 x 1,080 with 4x AA the HD 7970 3GB produced a mighty minimum frame rate of 66fps, matching the dual-GPU HD 6990 4GB due to CPU limitation (yes, from a 3.3GHz Core i5-2500K). This was 18fps faster than its predecessor and 16fps faster than the GeForce GTX 580 1.5GB - a 30 per cent improvement over the Nvidia competition. At 2,560 x 1,600 with 4x AA the minimum frame rate dropped to 41fps, but this was still an incredible 50 per cent faster than the GTX 580 1.5GB."

Some significant performance gains to be had. Also, it's interesting to think that the ARMA 3 demos were obviously run on current kit (I recall someone saying the Gamescon Machine was an I5 with a GTX580). If these new 7 series cards can push out more fps in the current engine, it could be a positive sign for people wanting to gear up for ARMA 3.

[Guess Who 10]

From Bit-Tech, one of the few websites that uses ARMA 2 in its benchmark suite:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/10

"In Arma II at 1,920 x 1,080 with 4x AA the HD 7970 3GB produced a mighty minimum frame rate of 66fps, matching the dual-GPU HD 6990 4GB due to CPU limitation (yes, from a 3.3GHz Core i5-2500K). This was 18fps faster than its predecessor and 16fps faster than the GeForce GTX 580 1.5GB - a 30 per cent improvement over the Nvidia competition. At 2,560 x 1,600 with 4x AA the minimum frame rate dropped to 41fps, but this was still an incredible 50 per cent faster than the GTX 580 1.5GB."

Some significant performance gains to be had. Also, it's interesting to think that the ARMA 3 demos were obviously run on current kit (I recall someone saying the Gamescon Machine was an I5 with a GTX580). If these new 7 series cards can push out more fps in the current engine, it could be a positive sign for people wanting to gear up for ARMA 3.

Yeah, nice performance. If AMD could only code some decent drivers it would be a nice toy. Until then it's just useless.

[[frl]myke 14]

Yeah, nice performance. If AMD could only code some decent drivers it would be a nice toy. Until then it's just useless.

So you say they tested it with "not so decent drivers" and still managed to surpass nVidia cards by 30%? Would you mind to explain what you expected?

[PuFu 4600]

don't bother mike...

the card is up to 30% faster than the 1.5gb GTX580 (confirmed by guru3d review as well) even when AMD only has beta drivers for their new addition, while nvidia had 1 year to develop their drivers for the 580...

[Rouen58 10]

Yup, the driver argument is tired and pointless and both Nvidia and AMD have their own issues. And I don't want this thread to turn into AMD vs Nvidia.

The real push is for ARMA 3 - and if this release makes BIS change their plans in terms of graphics implementation in any way.

[PuFu 4600]

The real push is for ARMA 3 - and if this release makes BIS change their plans in terms of graphics implementation in any way.

What and why would they change anything based on the continuous video card release?

I really don't understand what are you asking...

[Guess Who 10]

Myke;2076455']So you say they tested it with "not so decent drivers" and still managed to surpass nVidia cards by 30%? Would you mind to explain what you expected?

don't bother mike...

the card is up to 30% faster than the 1.5gb GTX580 (confirmed by guru3d review as well) even when AMD only has beta drivers for their new addition' date=' while nvidia had 1 year to develop their drivers for the 580...[/quote']

Sure. Performance is great now, even with beta drivers. But what about in a year or so? I own one of the first 5870s available in Germany almost two and a half years ago. That is a freakin' awesome piece of hardware. nVidia wasn't even near that power to comsumption ratio up to date. The last usable driver though, that's a totally different animal. I run driver version 10.4 and just stopped trying to update to a more recent one a year ago. Since the 10.6 version they only introduced new bugs like cursor corruption, lots of blue screens during driver installation ...

I for my part use a graphics card somewhat longer than a year and I like good support a lot (well, that's why I am here :D). In my book awesome hardware is worth hardly more than nothing without support/drivers. And that is what is missing with AMD. I will use my 5870 until ArmA 3 is demanding more power, probably still with the 10.4 drivers. When that moment comes, I'm back to green.

---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

Yup, the driver argument is tired and pointless and both Nvidia and AMD have their own issues. And I don't want this thread to turn into AMD vs Nvidia.

The real push is for ARMA 3 - and if this release makes BIS change their plans in terms of graphics implementation in any way.

Why would they. There is nothing depending on nVidia.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Guess Who

[Leon86 13]

Best thing about this card is the idle power consumption. if the monitor turns off it's down to 3W. Also means a multigpu system uses only 3W extra in idle.

Anyway, performance is good, beats the 580 in every benchmark. Only disappointment is battlefield 3, only a couple fps more on ultra.

[Rouen58 10]

What and why would they change anything based on the continuous video card release?

I really don't understand what are you asking...

I'm not asking anything - trying to spur discussion.

BIS official line on system requirements is "a lot could change between now and release", so they don't give us anything more detailed.

A logical assumption is that they are weighing up the graphics environment, upcoming changes in the market etc. and developing the game based on this. An example would be taking into account DX11.1 features (not sure if this has been covered or confirmed already, I'm just giving an example) now that the 7970 is the first DX11.1 compatible card (according to a review I read earlier).

If that's not how game development works then I'm wrong - I was making an educated guess.

Given the hardware intensive nature of the RV engine, I would have assumed the devs have a very close eye on the hardware market and how it's looking to change over the coming year.

[special_air_service 10]

Beside all the technology improvement, I wonder how much will this card be costed ? :confused:

[bangtail 0]

don't bother mike...

the card is up to 30% faster than the 1.5gb GTX580 (confirmed by guru3d review as well) even when AMD only has beta drivers for their new addition, while nvidia had 1 year to develop their drivers for the 580...

Comparing a 1.5GB card to a 3GB card is outright dishonest when claiming superior performance and AMD has been pushing results using 1.5GB 580s, that's not 'Apples to Apples'.

It's actually closer to an average of 20%, which for a card that is a full year later than the 580, is not particularly impressive.

It's time at the top will be extremely short lived as I'm pretty sure even the forthcoming 580 Ultra will match (or beat it) and there is little doubt that Kepler will steamroll it (short of any major delays).

Add to all this that the 7970 is an almost completely paper launch and things are not looking good for AMD in 2012.

With all the FUD etc leading up to this release, I was expecting alot more, but after the Bulldozer fiasco, I can't say as I am that surprised.

Edited December 22, 2011 by BangTail

[msy 22]

The ARMA2 OA version tested in this media is too old. Maybe in 1.60 full patch it will run higher.

[Rich_R 1087]

I understand about not wanting to make this a Nvidia vs AMD thread, but I won't even think about buying this after my horrendous time over drivers for my last radeon card (5870).

It may be an old argument, but as of the beginning of this year it was still a valid argument.

Now I am happy to hear about this monster of a card coming out because it means Nvidia will be pushed to the next level of performance:bounce3:

[metalcraze 290]

don't bother mike...

the card is up to 30% faster than the 1.5gb GTX580 (confirmed by guru3d review as well) even when AMD only has beta drivers for their new addition, while nvidia had 1 year to develop their drivers for the 580...

So top of the line card of current generation is faster than the top of the line card of the previous generation? You don't say

Comparing a 1.5GB card to a 3GB card

makes no difference. The amount of VRAM is like the least important thing on the videocard unless it's really low. And they didn't compare with 10 km that's for sure.

It's all about the bus+memory speed with which the videocard is able to load those textures. And then HDD may easily limit that speed on both videocards equally.

Edited December 22, 2011 by metalcraze

[Dwarden 1125]

they will need to update the test with 1.60 release cause that's major change :)

[bangtail 0]

So top of the line card of current generation is faster than the top of the line card of the previous generation? You don't say

makes no difference. The amount of VRAM is like the least important thing on the videocard unless it's really low. And they didn't compare with 10 km that's for sure.

It's all about the bus+memory speed with which the videocard is able to load those textures. And then HDD may easily limit that speed on both videocards equally.

Please dont talk if you dont know what you're talking about, thanks ;)

When a 1.5GB card hits it's limit and the 3GB card still has 1.5GB left, you will see a direct and drastic effect performance wise on the 1.5GB card.

You can't test 1.5GB cards vs 3GB cards at 2560 x 1600 and claim it's a fair test. I run at that resolution and 1.5GB is not enough for most newer games (even older ones with the AA cranked up).

Edited December 22, 2011 by BangTail

[metalcraze 290]

That's why I'm talking.

A GDDR5 1 GB card will leave GDDR3 2 GB card with the same "base" 1 GHz eating dust unless a game like totally needs 1.5 GBs all the time or something

[roberthammer 582]

This new AMD card is only good who uses the 2,560 x 1,600 res - wondering how many of guys have that kind of res :D

also this card must be expensive as hell , maybe twice than GTX580

[bangtail 0]

That's why I'm talking.

A GDDR5 1 GB card will leave GDDR3 2 GB card with the same "base" 1 GHz eating dust unless a game like totally needs 1.5 GBs all the time or something

Yes and games frequently do need the memory at high resolutions which renders your point absolutely moot as we are talking about high end cards at high resolutions with max detail settings where the amount of VRAM is a major consideration.

Anyway, back on topic.

Edited December 22, 2011 by BangTail

[metalcraze 290]

Yes and games frequently do need the memory at high resolutions which renders your point absolutely moot as we are talking about high end cards at high resolutions with max detail settings where VRAM is a major consideration.

OA at Takistan certainly doesn't need more than 1.5 GBs where the test took place

[roberthammer 582]

Well it isn't that super expensive than i thought ,but still expensive

AMD's recommended price will be $549 in the US and €499 in Europe.

While GTX580 costs 440$ to 499$ in US

[bangtail 0]

OA at Takistan certainly doesn't need more than 1.5 GBs where the test took place

You don't game at 2560 x 1600 I'm guessing because I am always over 1.5GB regardless of where I am.

Secondly, maybe you took my original post out of context but I was referring to the use of 1.5GB vs 3Gb cards in tests across the board and not just with regards to ArmA II.

Either way, you are wrong on both counts.

1. The amount of VRAM is a major consideration when gaming at high resolutions/details etc and will directly affect performance should the card run out of memory.

2. ArmA II does use over 1.5GB @ 2560 x 1600.

[jedra 11]

I do game at 2560x1600 and I have been disappointed with my HD5970OC since I bought it just after it launched. This 7970 looks interesting - I am nervous about jumping onto another expensive bandwagon though. At around £415, it's an expensive gamble.

(I'll have one by the end of January!!!!)

[domokun 515]

Comparing a 1.5GB card to a 3GB card is outright dishonest when claiming superior performance and AMD has been pushing results using 1.5GB 580s, that's not 'Apples to Apples'.

It's actually closer to an average of 20%, which for a card that is a full year later than the 580, is not particularly impressive.

It's time at the top will be extremely short lived as I'm pretty sure even the forthcoming 580 Ultra will match (or beat it) and there is little doubt that Kepler will steamroll it (short of any major delays).

Add to all this that the 7970 is an almost completely paper launch and things are not looking good for AMD in 2012.

With all the FUD etc leading up to this release, I was expecting alot more, but after the Bulldozer fiasco, I can't say as I am that surprised.

Dishonest? Hardly! What matters is to compare cards in the same price bracket.

As for the rest it rather sounds like sour grapes to me.

Though I have to agree that unless this paper launch hits shelves quick, the future doesn't bode well for AMD....

[bangtail 0]

I'm only interested in performance and while I can appreciate your comments about price/performance, I want to know the difference between 2 3GB cards as that is objective. Trying to make out that the 7970 is yards faster by forcing the 1.5GB 580 to hit the memory limit is just cheap.

By your silly logic we could compare a Ferrari and an 18 wheeler performance wise as long as they are the same price :rolleyes:

Sour grapes - Lol, if they had been any good I might well have grabbed a couple (even though I hate their drivers). As it stands, Ill pick up a couple of 580 Ultra's in a few weeks and then hold out for Kepler.

Edited December 22, 2011 by BangTail