Radeon 7970 released - ARMA 2 Performance Gains

[RobertHammer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

[domokun]

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

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]

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...82E16814500199

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.

[PuFu]

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]

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.

[Dwarden]

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)