I will be gaming at 1080P, but you and the poster before raise some good points. I'll do some more research on both options because I'm not going to be getting a new GPU until sometime in late summer/early fall (hopefully before either Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 launches).
AMD Radeon HD 7990 Review: Dual GPU Comeback
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I will be gaming at 1080P, but you and the poster before raise some good points. I'll do some more research on both options because I'm not going to be getting a new GPU until sometime in late summer/early fall (hopefully before either Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 launches).
I got them last minute but so far we have only seen improvements in just a few games. At this stage we will likely wait for an official driver before providing a complete review.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +977
Meh hopefully they fix that. I have faith in AMD. They really need to restructure their driver team. That is what is holding them back :/.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +977
Wait for the 700 series. They are supposed to be released in late May/early June. The 760Ti is rumored to use the same amount of cores as the 670 did, etc. I am gonna go into much detail because it isnt official and there is a lot info that is irrelevant.
I am confident that they will. Shouldn't be much longer now and they will have a finished driver.
Yes samples are about a month off.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +977
Are we gonna get a retest with the 13.4 WHQL Steve? http://blogs.amd.com/play/2013/04/24/new-134-135-catalyst-drivers/
No because that is just a certified 13.3 beta driver. The retest wont happen until the final Latency driver is released, we wont see in real improvements from AMD until then.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +977
True, it just has the WHQL tag on it. But something notable that AnandTech brought up is that the 690 works under a 300W power envelope and the 7990 works under a 375W power envelope. That means the 690 should theoretically produce 20% less heat. But, the 7990 also brings 3GBx2 instead of the 690s 2GBx2. So they are basically equal at this point with the latency issues. I wanna see if AMD can solve these issues to combat the 700 series if the rumored release date is true.
VitalyT
Posts: 7,266 +8,927
Increasing the board size and pumping up power consumption isn't really a progress.
Someone needs to educate AMD the notion of ergonomics.
For the first time in my life I downgraded graphical card inside my desktop PC from the 3-year old energy-sucking monster HD 5870 to a fanless HD 6670 that's half the size.
Someone needs to educate AMD the notion of ergonomics.
For the first time in my life I downgraded graphical card inside my desktop PC from the 3-year old energy-sucking monster HD 5870 to a fanless HD 6670 that's half the size.
VitalyT
Posts: 7,266 +8,927
It is not. I ran my own tests on it, and it performs quite well. See reviews about the card on the internet. Windows 7 dropped performance index from 7.8 to 7.1, but for what I need it is still plenty. The only game I ever play is SC2, which still gives me about 30fps in 2560x1600 with almost everything on maximum, which is enough for such game.
The main reason I did such change though was to get my new monitor (DELL U3014) to use its DisplayPort 1.2 in its full capacity, which the old card couldn't support.
Also HD 6670 is the best money-performance choice today if you have PCI Express 2.0 motherboard. It costs about $90, tiny fanless design - great for a quiet and ergonomic system:
1. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Ultimate-DisplayPort-PCI-Express-100326UL/dp/B005LU2Z1G/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1366856540&sr=8-8&keywords=HD 6670
2. NewEgg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102950
There is a good reason it is one of the most highly rated graphical cards
You must be taking your crazy pills today. As LNCPapa said its less than half as fast and that's fact.
https://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performance/page3.html
Note where the 6670 is sitting (at the very bottom) while the 5870 is in the middle. Its also 3x faster in COD Black Ops II.
As for value for money the 6670 is a terrible choice.
For the same money this consumes less power and is much faster...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130827
VitalyT
Posts: 7,266 +8,927
And that fact comes from which source exactly? Made it up all by yourself - didn't you? I have both cards here, and I put both through multiple tests. Perhaps you need to get your "facts" together.
99% of people who bought it think it was the best choice they made. See all the excellent reviews that card received. You must be that unhappy 1%, which is fine by me, as long as you're trying to sell your 1% as a fact to everybody else here.
I may have mood swings at times, but you must be this crazy without any pills to write such nonsense...
You mean to tell us that the Radeon HD 6670 which as a 128-bit wide memory bus, produces 64GB/s bandwidth in its strongest form and has a texture fill rate of 19.2GT/s is faster than the 5870. The 5870 which has a 256-bit wide memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 153.6GB/s along with a texture fill rate of 68.0GT/s? So far everything seems to be at least double, if not more
If you are going to hit us with newegg.com user reviews then we might as well give up now. Yes some people bought the 6670 knowing no better and they were happy enough to make mention of it on the site they bought it from, that does not make it a good graphics card and that certainly doesn’t make it good value.
The 6670 is a slug and shouldn’t be used for gaming, there were far better solution available upon its release and there are certainly much better options available now.
There isn’t a single game where the 6670 is faster than the 5870 but if you can provide us with one link to a professional review that says otherwise I will gladly take a look.
You might have missed the COD Back Ops II link so here is another for you...
https://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page3.html
When testing Far Cry 3 the 6670 was so slow we dumped it, the 6750 is included instead and again notice where that is sitting on the graph opposed to the 5870...
https://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page3.html
Care for some Diable III maybe? 38fps vs. 96fps!
https://www.techspot.com/review/532-diablo-3-performance/page3.html
I'm impressed you can play StarCraft 2 maxed out at 2560x1600 since the 5670 which isn't much slower than the 6670 averaged just 18fps. Are you sure its the 6670 you have there?
https://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page10.html
If you are going to hit us with newegg.com user reviews then we might as well give up now. Yes some people bought the 6670 knowing no better and they were happy enough to make mention of it on the site they bought it from, that does not make it a good graphics card and that certainly doesn’t make it good value.
The 6670 is a slug and shouldn’t be used for gaming, there were far better solution available upon its release and there are certainly much better options available now.
There isn’t a single game where the 6670 is faster than the 5870 but if you can provide us with one link to a professional review that says otherwise I will gladly take a look.
You might have missed the COD Back Ops II link so here is another for you...
https://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page3.html
When testing Far Cry 3 the 6670 was so slow we dumped it, the 6750 is included instead and again notice where that is sitting on the graph opposed to the 5870...
https://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page3.html
Care for some Diable III maybe? 38fps vs. 96fps!
https://www.techspot.com/review/532-diablo-3-performance/page3.html
I'm impressed you can play StarCraft 2 maxed out at 2560x1600 since the 5670 which isn't much slower than the 6670 averaged just 18fps. Are you sure its the 6670 you have there?
https://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page10.html
Sorry my mistake then I though a few posts back LNCPapa said the 6670 is half as fast as the 5870 and you fired back fight away with "It is not. I ran my own tests on it..."
Though you also said...
I just provided those facts at your request for some facts. Now all the facts are here.
VitalyT
Posts: 7,266 +8,927
Lost in translation then.
To digest, I bought it because I needed DisplayPort 1.2 to work in full capacity with the new monitor, and for a fanless tiny graphical card that fits into PCI Express 2.1 and under $90 that card is a good choice, and all who bought it agree. And it is easily the most ergonomic card also. There is not better choice that supports Express 2.0, they better ones require Express 3.0, just too much of a change, if you already have a good working system
To digest, I bought it because I needed DisplayPort 1.2 to work in full capacity with the new monitor, and for a fanless tiny graphical card that fits into PCI Express 2.1 and under $90 that card is a good choice, and all who bought it agree. And it is easily the most ergonomic card also. There is not better choice that supports Express 2.0, they better ones require Express 3.0, just too much of a change, if you already have a good working system
VitalyT
Posts: 7,266 +8,927
To your update, I only objected to LNCPapa saying that the card is half the power, because it is absolutely not. It is slower, of course, but not by half, not even close. From my tests, about 15% or so, but that wasn't comprehensive. And Windows 7 dropped it to 7,1 from 7.8, which seems about right.
And this is where we disagree. In fact if you look at my links provided you will see that the 6670 is in fact 3.4x slower in COD, 3.0x slower in Warfigher, presumable more than 2.2x slower in Far Cry 3 and 2.5x slower in Diablo III.
https://www.techspot.com/review/601-black-ops-2-performance/page3.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/591-medal-of-honor-warfighter-benchmarks/page3.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page3.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/532-diablo-3-performance/page3.html
You are obviously please with your 6670 and that's fantastic. However there are far better options for $100 and that is my opinion and I have also done a bit of testing.
Also as a hot tip the Windows 7 performance index under no circumstances should be used to measure GPU performance, especially for gaming.
VitalyT
Posts: 7,266 +8,927
Well, I do not play FPS games, and as I wrote earlier its performance in SC2 gave good results, which was all I cared about.
Just to return to my first message, I only mentioned this downgrade because the article was about the most anti-ergonomic product AMD ever made, perhaps, and for that reason I resend it being anything good or associated with progress in PC graphics. It's like trying to promote a V12 engine today that though pumps out 1000bhp, gives 10mpg and weights 500kg, just as ridiculous.
Time to go green people!
Just to return to my first message, I only mentioned this downgrade because the article was about the most anti-ergonomic product AMD ever made, perhaps, and for that reason I resend it being anything good or associated with progress in PC graphics. It's like trying to promote a V12 engine today that though pumps out 1000bhp, gives 10mpg and weights 500kg, just as ridiculous.
Time to go green people!
G
Guest
Steve plz include amd prototype driver perf improvement in the test...waiting for it
G
Guest
Not really that great of a comeback if it's just several percent better than already all too old GTX 690. I even expected more. Is AMD slipping here as well?
It will hold for some time, but come June GTX 780 will probably prove to be a better investment.
It will hold for some time, but come June GTX 780 will probably prove to be a better investment.
Burty117
Posts: 5,607 +4,488
Just going to stop there, are you seriously using the windows index as a performance measure? my core i5 HD3000 in my laptop gets 6.3, enough said.
No, its not, not even close, as per the link Steve so kindly gave you, for that price range the best money-performance choice is an Nvidia 650 and what the hell has PCI Express 2.0 got to do with any of this? if you have a PCI Express 3.0 motherboard its backwards compatible and if you check comparisons PCI Express 3.0 doesn't make much if any difference in games anyway. And if the graphics card supports PCI Express 3.0 it is backwards compatible to PCI Express 2.0 motherboards? why are we even talking about this?
There is a good reason it is one of the most highly rated graphical cards
No its not, in fact across the internet the world over you'll find its very low in the ratings, only on places like new egg will it have a half decent score because it was purchased by someone who... well by a particular set of people
So the small amount of testing you did shows only a 15% decrease? have you got a dual core AMD Athlon in your rig or something?! every single test across the internet will clearly show you've put in a graphics card with almost a third of the performance.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Thats a very biased response, your basic logic for the GTX cards being better than AMD cards is as such
"We beat them in one benchmark, therefor we are better than them"
The HD 7970 GHz edition is a better bang for buck card because the power differences is noticeable and as drivers get better, the card has only gotten better. The same can be said for the GTX series of cards, but AMD has been making huge strides (Including now beating them on BF3) to make their cards perform better.
I personally have a Desktop with dual HD 6990's and they perform very nicely. I would have bought the GTX 590 but I could not get one at the time and I got these for a good price. My laptop has a gtx 675m card and I love it as well. However I would not go off on a tangent and flat say I prefer either in one direction totally.
On the note of the GTX cards having the smoothest gaming experience, I dissagree, the minor difference in the frame deliverance test does not show a huge difference in most cases which im sure many will be fixed with updates. The GTX 690 has been out for 6 months roughly and your comparing it for better performance in games that its made updates to run and improvements on for that 6 month period. Lets wait and see what happens in a few months after its release and see where the performance stands (Though even on a pre-release its performing in most thigns better FPS already).
Im not trying to start a fan-boy war or anything, but comments like that annoy me because its logic is just "1 thing is better so its better". Overall, I see the HD 7990 as better and will only get better with time as usual after reading the benches shown here. Now with time, we will see what happens or whose cards go where. If your going to make a judgement like that, you better have more fact to back it up instead of 1 thing that a card excels at over the like 5 other things cards do.
Thats my 2 Cents
Similar threads
