Radeon 7970 released - ARMA 2 Performance Gains

[domokun 515]

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.

By your silly logic comparing the 7970 and 1.5GB 580 is like comparing a sports car and an articulated lorry. I couldn't of thought of a better metaphor to describe your insincerity. Not even Top Gear gets that silly!

Seriously, any fair comparison would compare similarly priced sports cars or similarly priced lorries.

[bangtail 0]

No, any fair comparison would involve not using a card that you know is going to hit the memory barrier against a card that isn't.

JFYI the 3GB 580s have come way down, this one is actually cheaper than the 7970 MSRP so there goes your argument.

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500199

AMD (and certain review sites) used the 1.5GB 580 (and omitted the 3GB results) to make their cards look better than they actually are.

Sure, the 7970 is faster than the 580 but for a card releasing a year later (and a totally paper launch as well), it isn't very much faster.

Anyway, no point in discussing this further, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Edited December 22, 2011 by BangTail

[PuFu 4600]

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'.

While i agree, that is why i actually said the results are based on the 1.5gb version.

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.

Well, to be perfectly honest the difference between the 480 and 580 is anything but impressive just as well...and there was almost of a year difference between the two..

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).

There is still a long way left to kepler...

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.

Whatever it might be, the nvidia and intel both need a competitor on the market.

That said, on the GFX chart, AMD has a place of its own. There is quite larger target in the low and middle range product than on the really high end stuff. And that is where AMD does a really good job.

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

My 2GB 6970 can push over 1.5GB easily @1920x1080, with 150% 3d resolution

[bangtail 0]

Yep, and when Nvidia messes up, I won't be defending them either. Even though I prefer their hardware (generally because of the drivers), they have made their fair share of mistakes.

As to your 480/580 comparison, that's not quite the same thing. The 7970 is supposed to be a 'Next Gen' part and the 580 is just what the 480 should have been in the first place.

Regarding Kepler, I would say May or June tbh which really isn't that far away and I get the impression Nvidia were well aware of the 7970's performance as they will be debuting the 580 Ultra in the very near future which I suspect will compete closely with (or surpass) the 7970 @ stock.

Like you, I think that competition is entirely necessary and I was sincerely hoping these new AMD cards were going to live up to at least some of the FUD that people have been spreading around the Internet.

Unfortunately, these people don't do AMD any favours as from a purely performance standpoint, these cards just aren't that impressive.

Very nice power saving features etc, but as I said before, I don't care about that stuff and it is not something I take into consideration when buying graphics hardware.

Edited December 23, 2011 by BangTail

[Dwarden 1125]

well i think medium end (mainstream) cards based on this architecture will be real deal

low power usage, low price and high performance (i hope 2GB VRAM as standard)

[Rouen58 10]

I've said it on other forums and I'll say it here.

I couldn't care less if there is only a 10% gain over a GTX 580 in BF3, or if Batman AC only gets 5% over a 6970 of whatever.

Every day I play one game - ARMA 2. That's the only relevant performance factor for me.

I'm currently on a GTX560 (non-Ti), on a motherboard that doesn't support sli, only crossfire. On the benchmark below, the GTX 560 is one of the bottom cards. I'll be upgrading in mid 2012 to keep my system up to date, and maybe try pushing for higher resolution.

I purchased this rig a couple months ago to play ARMA 2 after playing the demo on my brothers pc, having not owned a gaming computer for a long time. The last desktop I owned had a geforce 256, which was around about 2001. I was about 14 years old at the time, and if I remember correctly that was the rig I went on to play OFP on, which even now leaves me feeling all tingly inside!

Nostalgia aside, ARMA 2 benchmarks are all I care about. And if the first chart on this page on the below link is correct, then I could get a 25% bump in minimum fps if I upgrade to a 7970 rather than a 580 this year. That is what matters to me. I don't care if it's Nvidia or ATI.

If the drivers work (which they seem to be doing pretty well, given a 25% bump on a paper release card with what is probably early drivers), I'll shell out an extra hundred over a 580 if I have to. As it stands, a 7970 looks to give me a 100% increase on my current GTX560. Once the 7series mid-range cards are out, I'll consider those too based on the relative performance increase.

If Nvidia come back in 2012 with a card that is 50% faster than the 580, then that's the one I'll probably buy.

A pragmatic approach to hardware is key, yet it seems on the majority of armchair engineers are happier arguing and bickering.

link again: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/4

[Sevenz 10]

No, any fair comparison would involve not using a card that you know is going to hit the memory barrier against a card that isn't.

JFYI the 3GB 580s have come way down, this one is actually cheaper than the 7970 MSRP so there goes your argument.

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500199

AMD (and certain review sites) used the 1.5GB 580 (and omitted the 3GB results) to make their cards look better than they actually are.

Sure, the 7970 is faster than the 580 but for a card releasing a year later (and a totally paper launch as well), it isn't very much faster.

Anyway, no point in discussing this further, you have your opinion and I have mine.

apparently a gtx580 3GB wouldnt change the result that much even at 1600p with AA.

http://www.behardware.com/articles/844-1/geforce-gtx-580-3gb-vs-1-5gb-test-sli-and-surround.html

[Flubadoo 10]

According to Nvidia, the new 6xx series will have 2.4x the performance over current gen (they said it would be released in 2011), and the Maxwell 7xx series would have 7.1x the performance of current generation.

This is impressive, but I'm still waiting on Nvidia's response.

[bangtail 0]

well i think medium end (mainstream) cards based on this architecture will be real deal

low power usage, low price and high performance (i hope 2GB VRAM as standard)

This is where AMD always shines, I totally agree.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

Nostalgia aside, ARMA 2 benchmarks are all I care about. And if the first chart on this page on the below link is correct, then I could get a 25% bump in minimum fps if I upgrade to a 7970 rather than a 580 this year.

If you are buying today obviously you are going to buy the 7970. It's the fastest card out there.

You won't get it this year (unless you feel like paying a huge Ebay premium), as it was an entirely paper launch. When I spoke to my supplier yesterday, he said they had no ETA on the first shipment.

[Rouen58 10]

ok cool - not sure why I wrote that i'll be upgrading this year! I will probably do it mid 2012 if I run on the basis of 1 major system upgrade per year. It's the only spend I can justify, having a young family etc. etc.

[sethos 2]

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...

Wow, a brand new card on a new architecture with new die size that still isn't even publicly available is faster than a 580, which is over a YEAR OLD, build on the Fermi architecture from 2009 and has been sitting on the throne ever since is released. Damn, it's like AMD just pulled magic out of their ass.

No, these benchmarks are not impressive by any means, they are what you'd come to expect. Comparing it to last generation's cards makes no sense either other than comparing the evolution in performance. It'll only be truly interesting when Nvidia gets Kepler out the door and the real head-on can begin.

This new AMD card is only good who uses the 2,560 x 1,600 res

It certainly is not.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Sethos

[scruffy 22]

RAM size doesn't seem to matter in this benchmark, as you can see with 6950 1 and 2GB cards. No FPS difference, LOD loading is something no one will compare though.

It seems to be a nice card and a big enough jump to finally get me interested in an upgrade in the future. It's to pricey though, but that has to be expected. We'll see what Nvidia has to offer in time for Arma 3 I guess. It is a smaller chip, needs less power and is faster than the GTX580. Will be interesting to see how the smaller GTX660 cards will compare.

[=kct=blackmamba 44]

Hd7970 $549.99

[BL1P 35]

Cant wait to see how the 7990 rates

[cotabucky 10]

I've said it on other forums and I'll say it here.

I couldn't care less if there is only a 10% gain over a GTX 580 in BF3, or if Batman AC only gets 5% over a 6970 of whatever.

Every day I play one game - ARMA 2. That's the only relevant performance factor for me.

I'm currently on a GTX560 (non-Ti), on a motherboard that doesn't support sli, only crossfire. On the benchmark below, the GTX 560 is one of the bottom cards. I'll be upgrading in mid 2012 to keep my system up to date, and maybe try pushing for higher resolution.

I purchased this rig a couple months ago to play ARMA 2 after playing the demo on my brothers pc, having not owned a gaming computer for a long time. The last desktop I owned had a geforce 256, which was around about 2001. I was about 14 years old at the time, and if I remember correctly that was the rig I went on to play OFP on, which even now leaves me feeling all tingly inside!

Nostalgia aside, ARMA 2 benchmarks are all I care about. And if the first chart on this page on the below link is correct, then I could get a 25% bump in minimum fps if I upgrade to a 7970 rather than a 580 this year. That is what matters to me. I don't care if it's Nvidia or ATI.

If the drivers work (which they seem to be doing pretty well, given a 25% bump on a paper release card with what is probably early drivers), I'll shell out an extra hundred over a 580 if I have to. As it stands, a 7970 looks to give me a 100% increase on my current GTX560. Once the 7series mid-range cards are out, I'll consider those too based on the relative performance increase.

If Nvidia come back in 2012 with a card that is 50% faster than the 580, then that's the one I'll probably buy.

A pragmatic approach to hardware is key, yet it seems on the majority of armchair engineers are happier arguing and bickering.

link again: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/12/22/amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-review/4

+1

I have been paying attention too. I have a gtx580 and very happy with it but considered SLI for furure.

Now I may reconsider.

We will see,all I know is I love my GTX580 so its a tough one for me.Also price has a lot to do with it.If the new AMD offereing drives down gtx580's in price I will have a tough decision to make(figure powersupply needed for 2 gtx580's :confused: ).So I'm gonna be at a crossroads I think.

Then again maybe not :) Its all down to price,power needs and performance.

Ohh and the light bill $$$ ;)

Edited December 25, 2011 by cotabucky

[Leg 10]

I don't care about this. Arma2 runs fine for me a GTX 275 and a dual core, especially if you tweak the settings. Making it run in 'super mode' only makes it harder to play (blurrier, laggier, more pixels thus harder to aim across the screen). If you want performance gains with decent but not quite top of the line hardware, try 800x600 with AA on and see how smoothly it runs. Tweak 'sceneComplexity' down to about 50000-70000(max polygons drawn on screen). You only need at least 800 or less view distance for any ground battle, unless you're flying an attack chopper. Make it look decent but not so much that it becomes hard to play or laggy. If you want graphical gains at expense of performance and money, go ahead.. I get my thrill from being a better soldier in gameplay than admiring the view and getting shot like most seem to enjoy.

[sethos 2]

I don't care about this. Arma2 runs fine for me a GTX 275 and a dual core, especially if you tweak the settings. Making it run in 'super mode' only makes it harder to play (blurrier, laggier, more pixels thus harder to aim across the screen). If you want performance gains with decent but not quite top of the line hardware, try 800x600 with AA on and see how smoothly it runs. Tweak 'sceneComplexity' down to about 50000-70000(max polygons drawn on screen). You only need at least 800 or less view distance for any ground battle, unless you're flying an attack chopper. Make it look decent but not so much that it becomes hard to play or laggy. If you want graphical gains at expense of performance and money, go ahead.. I get my thrill from being a better soldier in gameplay than admiring the view and getting shot like most seem to enjoy.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

[lao fei mao 21]

According to Nvidia, the new 6xx series will have 2.4x the performance over current gen (they said it would be released in 2011), and the Maxwell 7xx series would have 7.1x the performance of current generation.

This is impressive, but I'm still waiting on Nvidia's response.

-----------U R too naive, mate. Neither Nvidia nor AMD would do that, otherwise they would kill themselves in market. They will keep each generation performance an increasing of not more than 50%.

[cotabucky 10]

I don't care about this. Arma2 runs fine for me a GTX 275 and a dual core, especially if you tweak the settings. Making it run in 'super mode' only makes it harder to play (blurrier, laggier, more pixels thus harder to aim across the screen). If you want performance gains with decent but not quite top of the line hardware, try 800x600 with AA on and see how smoothly it runs. Tweak 'sceneComplexity' down to about 50000-70000(max polygons drawn on screen). You only need at least 800 or less view distance for any ground battle, unless you're flying an attack chopper. Make it look decent but not so much that it becomes hard to play or laggy. If you want graphical gains at expense of performance and money, go ahead.. I get my thrill from being a better soldier in gameplay than admiring the view and getting shot like most seem to enjoy.

I agree with you and I think its the right additude to have.

One thing I will note though is my system if hosting needs to be up to the task(cause I havnt done the dedicated server thing yet).

My mission currently i'm building and tweaking is quite demanding with lots of explosions,vehicles action,etc,etc and i do try and take a lot of time tweaking spawn placements,ACM activation and everything else to run well on as many systems as possible but I wonder how well it will play on a system that isn't as powerfull or more powerfull than mine.

If you played on my mission i would have to set your character up custom I think with a specific draw distance in order for you to play and be happy in my mission(I could be wrong).

My buddy with his Sandybridge 2600k OC'd to 4.5-5ghz and gtx580 says it runs great without slowdown on his end but I can tell you on my end I see some slowdown in places do to so much crazy shit going on in mission and me hosting(I am an exteremely NOT PRO mission builder btw ).

I do use mods and can say Bohemia's missions are silky smooth with a gtx580 so that has something to do with it as well i'm sure.Right now I usually run my gtx580 with settings maxed out with Drawdistance of at least 3000M because when I back off settings I don't seem to gain much so I say F-it and take the slight FPS hit to gain visuals.Like you I just want to be able to play it and enjoy it in my own way.

You may try my mission and say it is horrible and unplayable,maybe not. I'm just saying I agree but sometimes you do need more.In your case as long as your joining probably most games would be fine like you said and I would rather appreciate what I have than constantly say I need more :) .As you can see though if I can get more I will lol .JMO

---------- Post added at 03:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 AM ----------

-----------U R too naive, mate. Neither Nvidia nor AMD would do that, otherwise they would kill themselves in market. They will keep each generation performance an increasing of not more than 50%.

Its do to cost of design and manufacturing imo.If they could they would leap way ahead of the competition.Look at the Sandybridge from Intel for example.

Instead of making another high $$$ CPU that none of us can afford they invested in what it would take to make a super powerfull low $$$ cpu and take out AMD at the knees.

Its available technology and cost imo.

If Nvidia could they would make it ten times as powerfull if they could pull off what Intel pulled of with Sandybridge.Same goes for AMD.Sales and profit .jmo

Edited December 27, 2011 by cotabucky

[wasserkool 1]

I don't care about this. Arma2 runs fine for me a GTX 275 and a dual core, especially if you tweak the settings. Making it run in 'super mode' only makes it harder to play (blurrier, laggier, more pixels thus harder to aim across the screen). If you want performance gains with decent but not quite top of the line hardware, try 800x600 with AA on and see how smoothly it runs. Tweak 'sceneComplexity' down to about 50000-70000(max polygons drawn on screen). You only need at least 800 or less view distance for any ground battle, unless you're flying an attack chopper. Make it look decent but not so much that it becomes hard to play or laggy. If you want graphical gains at expense of performance and money, go ahead.. I get my thrill from being a better soldier in gameplay than admiring the view and getting shot like most seem to enjoy.

This only makes sense if you use a CRT monitor which can operate at a variety of resolution. If anyone does that on a LCD things will get real blurry and real messy very fast. 1080P LCD monitors are very cheap nowadays and most gamers who owns such LCD will want to play the game at native resolution. Unfortunately ARMA gets quite demanding at such resolution.

[mr_centipede 31]

This only makes sense if you use a CRT monitor which can operate at a variety of resolution..

Yeah... sometimes I miss my CRT... cant LCD do that too? without blurring/screwing the gfx too much?

[maninblue 2]

I would have bought this had i known about it a few months ago where i was happy with ati cards in arma 2, but recently they seem to have started a trend with not supporting vista 64 when releasing new drivers, despite complaints made to the driver developers twitter they havent started supporting it yet. Being a driver freak i either had to install a new OS or start buying Nvidia cards from now on, i chose the latter and boy am i satisfied with the new performance i am getting.

[wasserkool 1]

Yeah... sometimes I miss my CRT... cant LCD do that too? without blurring/screwing the gfx too much?

Any LCD will introduce blurring when running in non-native resolution. Some are better and some are worst but generally its not recommended.

[Leon86 13]

Well, you can play with black borders on all sides to stay on native res. I found that non-native res fullscreen is often a lot better with a bit of antialiasing.

Another neat thing that works with most modern games is to add a custom resolution. I run battlefield 3 on 1920x960, with black borders on the top and bottom.

[4 IN 1 0]

Currently switching camp back to AMD of GFX card, don't care about the price, my local government pay that for me with a $790 cash refund, so I pick a 7970 anyway, I don't usually chase tech, but I am long overdue to a overhual(my rigs last major overhaul is 2 years with a Q 9650 and later with MB and RAM because my old asus when down the drain:( )