Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Radeon 7970 released - ARMA 2 Performance Gains


  • Please log in to reply
247 replies to this topic
Thread Starter
regulator86
regulator86

    Private First Class

  • Members
  • 31 posts

#1

Posted 22 December 2011 - 10:49

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

http://www.bit-tech....0-3gb-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
Guess Who

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 374 posts

#2

Posted 22 December 2011 - 11:17

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

http://www.bit-tech....0-3gb-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
-FRL-Myke

    Moderator

  • 6571 posts

#3

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:13

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?
Posted Image

PuFu
PuFu

    Poly Bully

  • Members
  • 7215 posts

#4

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:15

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...

Posted Image


Thread Starter
regulator86
regulator86

    Private First Class

  • Members
  • 31 posts

#5

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:29

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
PuFu

    Poly Bully

  • Members
  • 7215 posts

#6

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:32

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...

Posted Image


Guess Who
Guess Who

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 374 posts

#7

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:38

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, while nvidia had 1 year to develop their drivers for the 580...


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 by Guess Who, 22 December 2011 - 12:43.


Leon86
Leon86

    Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 2258 posts

#8

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:58

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.
Arma 3 is a twitchshooter
Needs more rainbow six 1-3

Thread Starter
regulator86
regulator86

    Private First Class

  • Members
  • 31 posts

#9

Posted 22 December 2011 - 13:07

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
Special_Air_Service

    Staff Sergeant

  • Members
  • 241 posts

#10

Posted 22 December 2011 - 13:12

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

BangTail
BangTail

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3517 posts

#11

Posted 22 December 2011 - 13:26

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 by BangTail, 22 December 2011 - 13:30.

Lest you forget, Mr. Hunter, we are a ship of war, designed for battle.

You don't just fight battles when everything is hunky-dory.

What'd you think, son? I was just some crazy old coot putting everyone in harm's way as I yell "yee-haw"?

Capt. Frank Ramsey
USS Alabama (SSBN 731)

msy
msy

    Gunnery Sergeant

  • Members
  • 578 posts

#12

Posted 22 December 2011 - 13:35

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

mustangdelta
mustangdelta

    Gunnery Sergeant

  • Members
  • 556 posts
  • LocationFort Lauderdale

#13

Posted 22 December 2011 - 14:46

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:

Posted Image


metalcraze
metalcraze

    First Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 5157 posts

#14

Posted 22 December 2011 - 14:50

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 by metalcraze, 22 December 2011 - 14:57.

ArmA2: "Doc, I'm wounded, I can barely aim and I'm bleeding badly, come on pull my body out of the harm's way and treat me before I die!"
ArmA3: "You are wounded! Click to instantly regenerate health whenever you feel like it!"

Guess two years post-release aren't enough to make ArmA3 at least half as dumbed down.

Dwarden
Dwarden

    BI Developer

  • 9647 posts
  • LocationBrno, Czech Republic

#15

Posted 22 December 2011 - 14:55

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

RealTimeChat ~ARMA2 in Your browser (w/o Java), RealTimeChat ~ARMA3 in Your browser (w/o Java),
irc.GameSurge.net/ARMA2 (external IRC clients) irc.GameSurge.net/ARMA3 (external IRC clients)
ARMA 3 Feedback Tracker: http://feedback.arma...y_view_page.php
~100k fans @STEAM ARMA 2 + ARMA 2: OA + ARMA 3: + ~2k @XFIRE A2:OA
Follow my Twitter: http://twitter.com/FoltynD or my Facebook http://facebook.com/FoltynD


BangTail
BangTail

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3517 posts

#16

Posted 22 December 2011 - 14:57

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 by BangTail, 22 December 2011 - 15:01.

Lest you forget, Mr. Hunter, we are a ship of war, designed for battle.

You don't just fight battles when everything is hunky-dory.

What'd you think, son? I was just some crazy old coot putting everyone in harm's way as I yell "yee-haw"?

Capt. Frank Ramsey
USS Alabama (SSBN 731)

metalcraze
metalcraze

    First Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 5157 posts

#17

Posted 22 December 2011 - 14:59

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
ArmA2: "Doc, I'm wounded, I can barely aim and I'm bleeding badly, come on pull my body out of the harm's way and treat me before I die!"
ArmA3: "You are wounded! Click to instantly regenerate health whenever you feel like it!"

Guess two years post-release aren't enough to make ArmA3 at least half as dumbed down.

RobertHammer
RobertHammer

    Second Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 4780 posts

#18

Posted 22 December 2011 - 15:00

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
Posted ImagePosted Image
There's one place for One Snake and for One BigBoss !!!
Posted Image

BangTail
BangTail

    Chief Warrant Officer

  • Members
  • 3517 posts

#19

Posted 22 December 2011 - 15:02

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 by BangTail, 22 December 2011 - 15:06.

Lest you forget, Mr. Hunter, we are a ship of war, designed for battle.

You don't just fight battles when everything is hunky-dory.

What'd you think, son? I was just some crazy old coot putting everyone in harm's way as I yell "yee-haw"?

Capt. Frank Ramsey
USS Alabama (SSBN 731)

metalcraze
metalcraze

    First Lieutenant

  • Members
  • 5157 posts

#20

Posted 22 December 2011 - 15:06

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
ArmA2: "Doc, I'm wounded, I can barely aim and I'm bleeding badly, come on pull my body out of the harm's way and treat me before I die!"
ArmA3: "You are wounded! Click to instantly regenerate health whenever you feel like it!"

Guess two years post-release aren't enough to make ArmA3 at least half as dumbed down.