indiangamer
Posts: 58 +11
Just one question
does it look better than crysis?
and
what about including some laptops in test?
does it look better than crysis?
and
what about including some laptops in test?
And the comedy comment of the day goes to...
Try reading the graphs again, the i7 3770K at 3.5Ghz gets 70fps while the FX 8350 at 4.5Ghz gets... 70fps
lol I think we found a bigger fanboy than the other dude crying about the Nv 690 not being in the reviews. He was mad that the radeon Ghz edition was at the top of all the charts....
I agree, it would have been very interesting to see how a Core 2 Quad stacks up against AMD's FX processors.I just wish that older Core2 quads are thrown into the mix (CPU scaling)...
Welcome to Techspot Jesper, I will try to be a bit more preceptive than my fellow TS friendsFrom 3.5GHz to 4.5GHz the i7 gained only 5 fps. In the same clock range the FX gained 13 fps. This comment: "It's interesting to note that the FX-8350 at 4.5GHz was only able to match the Core i7-3770K at 3.5GHz." is very biased and unsuitable for a serious tech site. Combined with the driver "choice" towards a better nVidia performance (or worse AMD performance) makes this test less trustworthy. Very, very biased against AMD. :-(
For the CPU part i7 scales poorly with clock speed. FX scales much better. Make them both run at 5GHz and see the FX outperform the i7 (if i7-3770K would ever run at 5GHz).
And the comedy comment of the day goes to...
Try reading the graphs again, the i7 3770K at 3.5Ghz gets 70fps while the FX 8350 at 4.5Ghz gets... 70fps
The fact that the AMD FX scaled more than the Intel CPU simply means that with the Intel CPU the game is not bottelnecked by the CPU, but instead by the graphics card.
If the performance was really bottlenecked by the GFX there shouldn't be a performance difference with the different clock speeds on the i7. But there is. A very tiny one compared to the great jumps in clock speed. That's poor scalability.
This is the third time some Ahole has taken a stab at me on a performance review just because I wanted to see charts of the 690. Click on "Ultra" then tell me who is on top for every single resolution? I saw the 7990's performance on other sites, but since it was never released by AMD I understand that it wasn't ever included here. The 690, however, was officially released.
Link the post. I want to see if you're BSing me or if there actually is another person "in that same camp". Truth be told, I was an AMD guy, until BC2 and BF3 crashed every time I wanted to play the game. That's why when I upgraded, I got the 680 instead of the 7970.Funny thing is I wasn't even talking about you it was the other guy.
But thank you for showing the rest of us that you are in that same camp.
Link the post. I want to see if you're BSing me or if there actually is another person "in that same camp". Truth be told, I was an AMD guy, until BC2 and BF3 crashed every time I wanted to play the game. That's why when I upgraded, I got the 680 instead of the 7970.
I will go back and find the poster name later but I assure you it wasn't you. And lets use some logic here I play both BC2 and BF3 and been on a Radeon 6970 since launch and I had no crashing. So maybe the issue isn't the radeons and something else in your system.
You are going to have to make a better argument than one game crashing if you are trying to say the NV cards are more stable then the AMD cards in those two games.
Reminds me of one of my boys during the Windows XP era, whenever the system was unable he would just format and reinstall windows instead of trying to fix the problem.
So what trouble shooting did you so you can place the blame purely on the radeons?
You're making me sound like I have no idea what I'm doing. I tried everything to get my 6970 to work, but the card just would not play BC2 for longer than 20 minutes without crashing. I reseated the card, installed latest drivers, searched forums for fixes, and I even put the card into a different system with the same results. I was fine with BC2 crashing because at least I could play it for 20-30minutes, but BF3 didn't play longer than 3 minutes. That card was an "upgrade" from SLI 460s (temps entirely too high on a micro atx board). I never had these problems with my 460s. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a dead card. I have had absolutely zero problems with my 680. It's worked like a dream since I installed it back in July. I'm not an nvidia fanboy, I just want to see what the two monster cards can do (690/7990). It's nice seeing how games scale in sli and crossfire.
Actually I have to agree somewhat, AMD didn't put out decent drivers for the 7970 until several months after release and Crossfire support was non-existent. BF3 never crashed for me though. But the drivers are much, much better now and CF scaling is approaching 100% in games such as BF3 which is hugely impressive.Truth be told, I was an AMD guy, until BC2 and BF3 crashed every time I wanted to play the game. That's why when I upgraded, I got the 680 instead of the 7970.
You're making me sound like I have no idea what I'm doing. I tried everything to get my 6970 to work, but the card just would not play BC2 for longer than 20 minutes without crashing. I reseated the card, installed latest drivers, searched forums for fixes, and I even put the card into a different system with the same results. I was fine with BC2 crashing because at least I could play it for 20-30minutes, but BF3 didn't play longer than 3 minutes. That card was an "upgrade" from SLI 460s (temps entirely too high on a micro atx board). I never had these problems with my 460s. Maybe I was just unlucky and got a dead card. I have had absolutely zero problems with my 680. It's worked like a dream since I installed it back in July. I'm not an nvidia fanboy, I just want to see what the two monster cards can do (690/7990). It's nice seeing how games scale in sli and crossfire.
Actually I have to agree somewhat, AMD didn't put out decent drivers for the 7970 until several months after release and Crossfire support was non-existent. BF3 never crashed for me though. But the drivers are much, much better now and CF scaling is approaching 100% in games such as BF3 which is hugely impressive.
Hi,
Is this with SSAO, HBAO or HDAO? Because with 4x msaa with the latest drivers using gtx 680 on 1920x1080 and HDAO I get not as good average FPS as here, I got dips nearly all the time to 40-46..
What transparency AA? thx
Back to quoting the same review that's using an old Nvidia driver not fully optimized for HDAO? I thought I'd put you straight on that earlier.AMD cards run better with HDAO in Farcry 3. look at PCGH...
Technically the four HDAO benches they ran are all unplayable, and of those four, the highest res/game iq (25x16/ HDAO+8xMSAA) actually favours the GTX 680 by a solitary fps...gamegpu
Not overly definitive (hence the preview status), and not exactly a slam dunk at the max playable settings for CrossfireX I would say:...and hardocp
We've talked about this before, and it is very true here, that GTX 680 SLI was smoother, I.e. no stutter, no choppiness, no lag, no "micro stutter" as we played at this setting. Yet, with 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire we definitely felt it stuttering. It doesn't show up in framerate, but it was very blatant and obvious as we moved about the game at this setting on 7970 GHz Edition CrossFire.