Sapphire HD 7970 OC Edition Video Card Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,620
Sapphire HD 7970 OC Edition Video Card Review - The Sapphire HD 7970 OC Edition video card has arrived and brings promise of low temperatures with Sapphires Dual-X Cooling System. It also features a Dual BIOS with both a passive and more aggressive profile. Will Sapphires highest end HD 7970 be able to keep up and compete with NVIDIA's flagship GeForce GTX 680?
 
Good review. But the best news by far is that this upcoming version of Trixx will finally allow me to use powertune without having to really on the ultra-flaky CCC performance menu!
 
I see this card as better than the GTX 680.
Why? Because for $80 more you're getting a much better cooler, an extra GB of RAM, plus it OC's so well that it handily beats the 680 in every game.
 
This is a nice review, and a nice card!

At least some 7970 models should ship 1150 as base clocks now...

To add to the list above, the extra cost also adds a number of cable accessories which most Sapphire 7970 cards come with standard.
 
It may not be a big deal to some, but the extra cables/connectors I have from the better sapphire cards have saved me real money.

Even the article admits that $500 is th LOW price for a 680. This particular card seems a better buy than ANY 680 you can get.
 
good review, what was interesting is that in 1 or 2 games, OC edition @ 950/1425 was considerably faster than the stock 7970 @ 925/1375 :|
 
Any chance you'll could upload the new TRIXX? Greatly appreciate it.

:)
 
Unless this revised dual fan design would vent deep into the case (like most dual fan coolers) this should have been the reference setup for the 7970... with a 1,001MHz stock clock and a $450 or $500 price.

To Yakk: the upcoming Sapphire Toxic is going to be in the 1,100+ range and if the atomic ever shows up well will be seeing 1,300+ as the factory overclock.

The end verdict though is that the 680 is probably going to wind up being the better pure gaming chip because while NVidia is slicing off more and more compute feature to focus on fps, AMD seems hell bent on adding as much compute as possible.
 
Teenyman45 said:
To Yakk: the upcoming Sapphire Toxic is going to be in the 1,100+ range and if the atomic ever shows up well will be seeing 1,300+ as the factory overclock.

The end verdict though is that the 680 is probably going to wind up being the better pure gaming chip because while NVidia is slicing off more and more compute feature to focus on fps, AMD seems hell bent on adding as much compute as possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm waiting for the 6GB Sapphire card (or 2)... it'll probably be a niche card, but I'll have uses for it :cool:

AMD should come out with a "Gaming Evolved" series of cards or something without the gpgpu like nvidia is doing and keep their GPUs small. But maybe them implementing more compute may have to do with all their console contracts...
 
While this is surely one of the best if not the best 7970 model (certainly the best temps) I don't think it is worth the $100 extra when you can overclock a GTX 680 and it will reach that performance or pass it and do it while consuming far less power. Nearly 500+watt OC'd is pretty scary for a 7970OC!

If the 7970's ever get a price drop this gpu would be very hard to resist.
 
But you're getting a better cooler and more RAM for the $80, so it's still a better deal.
Personally I don't care about power consumption, but that's me.
 
MMAOmegaRED said:
While this is surely one of the best if not the best 7970 model (certainly the best temps) I don't think it is worth the $100 extra when you can overclock a GTX 680 and it will reach that performance or pass it and do it while consuming far less power. Nearly 500+watt OC'd is pretty scary for a 7970OC!
Click to expand...

That's total system power draw, not the card alone. And an OC'd 680 is close to an OC'd 7970 in power draw, don't act like it's a massive difference.
 
Thanks for reviewing this card, I was strongly considering buying this card after doing research yesterday on which 7970 OC's the best, and it seems like this is the 7970 to get. I was going to wait it out for the 680 4GB card but at the rate the 680's stock is at retailers, who knows when I'll be able to get one. Theres also the 7970 6GB model but who knows when that will be released. I think the 3GB card will be enough for me at 1920 for awhile.

Also thanks for putting in a few 1920 fps numbers, I hope to see more of those in future reviews.
 
Great review. I like how he deducted the gold award because of the price at the end. Smart move. It should be closer to 500.

This card is awesome, and has a beast overclock. Really crushing that mid-range Kepler board.
 
nice review Grady. again, it's nice to see overclocking results first and then those results compared in gaming benchmarks.
 
Wow - I am really on the fence now. I love my Sapphire Toxic 6950 (flashed to a 6970) but with my 30in. monitor running at 2560x1600 I would really benefit from either the 7970 or the 680. I really think the 680 is a better value (if you can get it). It will be interesting to see how some of the 680's with a custom cooling solution will compare.
 
Teenyman45 said:
Unless this revised dual fan design would vent deep into the case (like most dual fan coolers) this should have been the reference setup for the 7970... with a 1,001MHz stock clock and a $450 or $500 price.
Click to expand...

I have this card, and yes the cooler vents the heat back into the case(but not all, a nice portion is pushed out the vent). It doesn't hurt if you have good airflow, but I wouldn't overclock and over-volt one if your case was a bit cramped. All in all, I'm to the point where I prefer coolers like these despite their obvious shortcoming because it's easier to deal with a little extra heat in my case than the noise of a blower style cooler.
 
This card was $540 last week at newegg with a coupon, I almost bit. I believe I will if the coupon comes back. Every review I've read of this particular card was able to hit at least 1200 on the core. IMO this card is better then the msi lighting......
 
Seriously? Apples to apples on 1080p? Dude, after all the flak from 680 review and you still continue with this?
 
Sapphire has its gear together all right. It's interesting to see how well the Toxic will fare, and whether they'll actually release the rumored Atomic cards.

[H] should really update their display setup though. I'd wager there's a lot more people playing at 2560x1440 or 5760x1080 than on a 30" monitor. Also 1080p and insane AA isn't really something people use with these cards. I'd only consider 1080p and 4xAA for the most demanding games like BF3 or Metro. This of course applies to enthusiast level cards only.
 
I hope folks know when AMD drivers AA quality is selected to SSAA, it is just not transparent textures getting SSAA, it is every pixel rendered (whole screen and everything in it). When selected to Adaptive, each transparent texture will get either SSAA or MSAA depending upon location, size etc.

Great review overall, always fun to read as well.
 
Here is what i dont get, why is it when the last gen cards from amd and nvidia where out, the ones that got nvidia cards said that power efficiency was irrelevant, but now that the tables have turned thats all they hit on?

I for one dont care who made the card, to me its all about bang for the buck, and when your talking 80 dollars for more memory, and more included ( cables and adapters) plus one heck of a cooler, that 80 dollars is negligible.
 
crashbox said:
Here is what i dont get, why is it when the last gen cards from amd and nvidia where out, the ones that got nvidia cards said that power efficiency was irrelevant, but now that the tables have turned thats all they hit on?

I for one dont care who made the card, to me its all about bang for the buck, and when your talking 80 dollars for more memory, and more included ( cables and adapters) plus one heck of a cooler, that 80 dollars is negligible.
Click to expand...

I don't really see why you would think power efficiency is "all they hit on" in regards to the 680. The fact is, at stock, it outperforms the 7970 in just about everything, and does it with lower temps, lower power consumption, lower noise. Oh, and it's $50 cheaper at MSRP. It's not just about power efficiency.
 
MavericK96 said:
I don't really see why you would think power efficiency is "all they hit on" in regards to the 680. The fact is, at stock, it outperforms the 7970 in just about everything, and does it with lower temps, lower power consumption, lower noise. Oh, and it's $50 cheaper at MSRP. It's not just about power efficiency.
Click to expand...

The people who spend USD 500+ for a graphics card will definitely play around with overclocking and settle with stable OCs. The fact that the sapphire HD 7970 OC reached 1150 Mhz without voltage modification should give you a hint that most users will be running at 1100+ speeds. So this stock GTX 680 vs stock hd 7970 argument does not pass. The GTX 680 vs HD 7970 at 1.15 Ghz is definitely in favour of HD 7970. Across a large sample of games the HD 7970 proves it sheer superiority at these speeds. Also the fact that custom HD 7970s are having good acoustics and temps at 1.25 Ghz+ max voltage OC should count for some value against stock GTX 680 which are at 80C + for stock speeds. The comparison is even more favourable to HD 7970 when considering the compute benefits of HD 7970 which definitely bode well for future games which use more demanding compute shaders and require lots of bandwidth eg Metro 2033 with DOF.
 
The only thing that kept me from waiting and getting this card is the better warranty on the MSI Lightning. If Sapphire stepped up their warranty their cards would be very hard to resist.
 
mobhill
Have u purchased an MSI HD 7970 lightning. How has your experience been with OC it. Whats the max stable clocks u could reach.
 
MavericK96 said:
I don't really see why you would think power efficiency is "all they hit on" in regards to the 680. The fact is, at stock, it outperforms the 7970 in just about everything, and does it with lower temps, lower power consumption, lower noise. Oh, and it's $50 cheaper at MSRP. It's not just about power efficiency.
Click to expand...

If you want to play with OC, then you are choice would be 7970, since the OC on GTX 680 cannot match a 7970 OC, like this article mention and what I previously stated before 680 NDA lifted.
 
Agreed, raghu.

A lot has been made about stock vs. stock comparisons, but in reality this is still [H]ardforum, and people are far more likely to tweak their video cards than not. Some won't because they are worried, sure, but I think those willing far outnumber those who aren't, at least on this forum.

Thus the "at stock" argument should have little weight here. Maybe at Best Buy or over and Anandtech that stuff matters more, but I don't understand it here. Video cards include two BIOSes by default. ATI has OC software built into their Catalyst software, and many aftermarket carriers improve upon that.

The way I see it, the criteria for being the fastest video card for playing games should be: How fast is the card at a speed that can be used 24/7?

If people want to under-utilize their card, that's their business. But that's not [H]ard's niche.
 
shansoft said:
If you want to play with OC, then you are choice would be 7970, since the OC on GTX 680 cannot match a 7970 OC, like this article mention and what I previously stated before 680 NDA lifted.
Click to expand...

Seems you did not read the [H] GTX 680 Overclocking Review. Looks pretty damn close to me and in at least one case the 680 outperforms the 7970, even though the 7970 is clocked higher.
 
MavericK96

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/10/sapphire_hd_7970_oc_edition_video_card_review/7

At 2560 Ultra 4X MSAA settings GTX 680 at stock with Turbo upto 1.1 Ghz does avg 42.9 fps min 25 fps. The HD 7970 at 950 Mhz does avg 40 fps min 27 fps. The HD 7970 OC at 1.28 Ghz rocks at avg 50.7 fps min 34 fps . The HD 7970 OC shows a 94% scaling from 950 to 1280. (40 * 1280 / 950 * 0.94 = 50.66) . The GTX 680 needs to scale at 100% to 1.3 Ghz to just reach the HD 7970 OC perf. (42.9 * 1.3/1.1 = 50.7 ) which is not going to happen. GTX 680 on air has not been shown to cross 1.3. Even if it does scaling is still a factor.

All this is in BF3 which many say runs faster on GTX 680. Games like Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Alan Wake, Deus Ex, Stalker Call of Pripyat, Alien vs Predator, Anno 2070 at max settings run faster on HD 7970 at stock speeds and will open up quite a performance gap when both cards are at 1.2 Ghz + speeds. Games which are shown to run marginally faster on GTX 680 (less than 5%) like Crysis 2, Civilization 5, Witcher 2, also turn in favour of HD 7970 at those 1.2 Ghz+ max speeds. Only games like Batman Arkham City , Lost Planet 2 , Just Cause 2 where the GTX 680 is significantly faster will run faster on GTX 680 even when OC is considered.

Across a large sample of games the HD 7970 is superior when OC . The GTX 680 OC vs HD 7970 OC will skew more in favour of HD 7970 OC at Eyefinity resolutions.
 
Last edited:
raghu78 said:
MavericK96

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/10/sapphire_hd_7970_oc_edition_video_card_review/7

At 2560 Ultra 4X MSAA settings GTX 680 at stock with Turbo upto 1.1 Ghz does avg 42.9 fps min 25 fps. The HD 7970 at 950 Mhz does avg 40 fps min 27 fps. The HD 7970 OC at 1.28 Ghz rocks at avg 50.7 fps min 34 fps . The HD 7970 OC shows a 94% scaling from 950 to 1280. (40 * 1280 / 950 * 0.94 = 50.66) . The GTX 680 needs to scale at 100% to 1.3 Ghz to just reach the HD 7970 OC perf. (42.9 * 1.3/1.1 = 50.7 ) which is not going to happen. GTX 680 on air has not been shown to cross 1.3. Even if it does scaling is still a factor.

All this is in BF3 which many say runs faster on GTX 680. Games like Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Alan Wake, Deus Ex, Stalker Call of Pripyat, Alien vs Predator, Anno 2070 at max settings run faster on HD 7970 at stock speeds and will open up quite a performance gap when both cards are at 1.2 Ghz + speeds. Games which are shown to run marginally faster on GTX 680 (less than 5%) like Crysis 2, Civilization 5, Witcher 2, also turn in favour of HD 7970 at those 1.2 Ghz+ max speeds. Only games like Batman Arkham City , Lost Planet 2 , Just Cause 2 where the GTX 680 is significantly faster will run faster on GTX 680 even when OC is considered.

Across a large sample of games the HD 7970 is superior when OC . The GTX 680 OC vs HD 7970 OC will skew more in favour of HD 7970 OC at Eyefinity resolutions.
Click to expand...

And to add the 680 is only doing half fps on the side monitors which is the equivalent of only powering 2 screens full fps so the 7970 is doing more work..
 
Thnx guys for more 7970 insight - good arguments for the 7970 above, glad you are all happy with your cards, playing your favorite game/s and don't need to bag the opposition:rolleyes::rolleyes: Sherioushly though, :eek::eek: isn't it a shame AMD have all these wonderful gizmo's ...that don't work:eek::eek::eek: Since yawl mention what is [H] and what isn't, didn't some guy here swap from 2x 7970 to 2x GTX680? Pretty well known guy, between 40- 50 yo...
My point is, 3.5 frames one way or other isn't a deal-breaker to most, stability and consistency are...7970 is a terrific card, only let down by the old AMD-ATI Achilles, attention to detail...only my 2p worth, flame me if you have to...:D:D:D
 
ivansoze1 said:
Thnx guys for more 7970 insight - good arguments for the 7970 above, glad you are all happy with your cards, playing your favorite game/s and don't need to bag the opposition:rolleyes::rolleyes: Sherioushly though, :eek::eek: isn't it a shame AMD have all these wonderful gizmo's ...that don't work:eek::eek::eek: Since yawl mention what is [H] and what isn't, didn't some guy here swap from 2x 7970 to 2x GTX680? Pretty well known guy, between 40- 50 yo...
My point is, 3.5 frames one way or other isn't a deal-breaker to most, stability and consistency are...7970 is a terrific card, only let down by the old AMD-ATI Achilles, attention to detail...only my 2p worth, flame me if you have to...:D:D:D
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as perfect software. Both companies have had driver issues. Relatively Nvidia is better. AMD has to improve its drivers quality in comparison to Nvidia especially launch day drivers for AAA titles. Also AMD needs to get more aggressive with developer relations cause the reason more games run better on Nvidia is because of TWIMTBP program. AMD's GAMING EVOLVED has lesser titles than TWIMTBP.
 
ivansoze1 said:
Thnx guys for more 7970 insight - good arguments for the 7970 above, glad you are all happy with your cards, playing your favorite game/s and don't need to bag the opposition:rolleyes::rolleyes: Sherioushly though, :eek::eek: isn't it a shame AMD have all these wonderful gizmo's ...that don't work:eek::eek::eek: Since yawl mention what is [H] and what isn't, didn't some guy here swap from 2x 7970 to 2x GTX680? Pretty well known guy, between 40- 50 yo...
My point is, 3.5 frames one way or other isn't a deal-breaker to most, stability and consistency are...7970 is a terrific card, only let down by the old AMD-ATI Achilles, attention to detail...only my 2p worth, flame me if you have to...:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Reputations are often earned, but always manufactured. What I am saying is that a few bad experiences in the past tend to color the discussion today. People who haven't touched AMD cards run around and claim that AMD's drivers are horrific. Why? Because AMD has garnered such a reputation in the past, and typically, like you, they are invested in the competition.

Nvidia has their share of bad cards and driver issues - the Nvidia forum here is a testament to that. Somehow people tend to overlook that, though, relying on unscientific hearsay instead to insist that AMD is so much worse.

While I can appreciate the fact that you felt threatened enough by this card to come post a prepubescent rant, it would be more helpful if you let us know what AMD cards you've owned in the past, and why you feel the way you do about them based on that evidence.
 
raghu78 said:
MavericK96

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/10/sapphire_hd_7970_oc_edition_video_card_review/7

At 2560 Ultra 4X MSAA settings GTX 680 at stock with Turbo upto 1.1 Ghz does avg 42.9 fps min 25 fps. The HD 7970 at 950 Mhz does avg 40 fps min 27 fps. The HD 7970 OC at 1.28 Ghz rocks at avg 50.7 fps min 34 fps . The HD 7970 OC shows a 94% scaling from 950 to 1280. (40 * 1280 / 950 * 0.94 = 50.66) . The GTX 680 needs to scale at 100% to 1.3 Ghz to just reach the HD 7970 OC perf. (42.9 * 1.3/1.1 = 50.7 ) which is not going to happen. GTX 680 on air has not been shown to cross 1.3. Even if it does scaling is still a factor.
Click to expand...

Kinda seems like you are assuming that overclocks have linear performance increase, which is grossly mistaken.
 
MavericK96 said:
Kinda seems like you are assuming that overclocks have linear performance increase, which is grossly mistaken.
Click to expand...

I am just giving you the HD 7970 numbers from the review. Nothing is made up. What are you trying to tell ? That the GTX 680 can do more than 100% scaling :D The GTX 680 performance does not scale as well as HD 7970 at very high clocks especially at very high res (2560 x 1600) with 4x AA where bandwidth is a big factor.
 
Last edited:
i like this card, this is probably the 7970 that i'd get but for me i'd have to get two don't ask me why
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top