![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
AMDs Secret Weapon
- Thread starter SixFootDuo
- Start date
What about microstuttering? Minimum fps is better with the 7970, some people would say its more important than average framerate.. I want a single card (and single GPU) solution that is powerful enough.
why buy older tech
because its better
no more stuttering, lag and searching for good drivers for xfire/sli for me, thx..Crossfire and SLI doesnt work like it should.., It works, but not good enough for me!
(and some would say 5000 scales worse than 6000, I dont really care... )
because its better
Crossfire and SLI doesnt work like it should.., It works, but not good enough for me!
(and some would say 5000 scales worse than 6000, I dont really care... )
7970 is a great card with new tech.
the OC flexibility is another reason to buy it.
Your crystal ball is working great !!!! The Nvidia gtx780 will smoke the hd7970 & the secret shaders will save the day for AMD. WOW I love this shit. I just wish I had something to use to enhance my predictive abilities & still keep my job. The 7970 OCs nicely with no voltage increase +1 for AMD, the card is priced according to its performance 7970>580, Nvidia makes faster cards, that usually have heat & voltage problems when OCing, but with 28nm they might OC as easilly as 7970, a big -1 for AMD. I think the 7950 will be $525 when released to make up for Bulldozer & R&D, they're not giving it away this time, plus 7950=580 so why shouldn't they. Well that's my prediction. Save ur $$$ it's going to be expensive.
You forgot to add that this was all written on the back side of the US Constitution and Nicholas Cage had to go on an epic adventure to discover it.
I've always had bad luck OCing video cards. CPUs, not so much of an issue, run my i5 750 at 3.8 to 4GHz when I need it. Video cards, more often than not you don't get a big gain and it usually seems like more of a gamble with reliability and longevity. Hell, even a lot of factory overclocked cards have been known to have issues. That said, if a card has 30% overclocking potential I might give it a shot.
I've always had bad luck OCing video cards. CPUs, not so much of an issue, run my i5 750 at 3.8 to 4GHz when I need it. Video cards, more often than not you don't get a big gain and it usually seems like more of a gamble with reliability and longevity. Hell, even a lot of factory overclocked cards have been known to have issues. That said, if a card has 30% overclocking potential I might give it a shot.
I consider myself to be EXTREMELY lucky with OC'ing CPUs, and HORRIBLE on GPU's.
my claim to fame (not really that impressive) was getting my 9450 to 3.2 on air. Got an H70 to see if I was going to push it to 3.6 but that was never going to happen. Got my friends current i5-2500k to 4.1 and didnt attempt 4.2 because he thought the processor was going to explode from being too awesome. I blew up a Ti-4600 pushing a whopping 20mhz on the core, fried the memory on a 6800ultra (had the low voltage problem on the memory, when the memory was OC'd the drivers applied a low voltage). My x800pro unlocked for a huge 3 days and crapped the bed ... etc. etc. etc.
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
Same here. I've always been able to overclock the piss out of my CPUs. GPUs . . . not so much. I don't mind working with a variety of aftermarket cooling solutions to help me with my CPU, but I can't be arsed to do it with my video card.
Yeah, I reckon GPUs must be pushed further at stock speeds and binned more carefully than CPUs. I also think a lot of people push their video cards too hard thinking "The GPU core temperature is fine!" when the other components on the cards are cooking and significantly reducing the life of the video card. One great axample is my Accelero Twin Turbo on my old 4870... it dropped core temperatures by heaps, like, 70-90C down to about 40-60C... but if you actually opened GPU-Z and looked at the VRM/VDDC temperature it was far higher than the stock cooler and pushing to unsafe levels even with a mild OC. You hear story after story of "It was overclocked and running fine for a day/week/month and now its artifacting, running badly and XXXXX game won't run properly!".
The 7970 will make up the difference in lower power consumption within a year or so...
I think it's dumb how they randomly skip a generation. At first it was Geforce 200, skip 300, then 400 & 500 for all, and now skip 600?
The first indications were to save the odd number hundreds (300, 500) for oem stuff. That obviously got thrown out the window with the 500 series.
comparing shaders of an older architecture to newer architecture is a wrong way to go bud. New shaders are much more efficient than the older used in 6900 series. If you see the new cards they are a beast when you overclock and show very good performance just like the nvidia shaders when overclocked. It just goes on to show that the shaders on new cards really are effecient when clocked higher and higher. I never saw such a performance boost with the older cayman. The shaders basically didn't react well to clock speeds once clocked to high.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,262
you cant compare CPU overclocking with GPU
think back to PIII days, you could get maybe 100Mhz more out of a CPU, P4 days we saw 500Mhz -1000Mhz... now we see sometimes alot more..
GPU's have always been smaller amounts cause the base clock is considerably lower... when you got an 850Mhz core... do you really expect to see 1000+ that often?
think back to PIII days, you could get maybe 100Mhz more out of a CPU, P4 days we saw 500Mhz -1000Mhz... now we see sometimes alot more..
GPU's have always been smaller amounts cause the base clock is considerably lower... when you got an 850Mhz core... do you really expect to see 1000+ that often?
Its all about the ratios, 100MHz OC on a CPU that's only 550MHz and 500MHz OC on a CPU that's 2.4GHz is both about 20% either way.
Obviously you can't compare them entirely, but you can compare them in the sense what is the value/risk/reliability of OCing a GPU. It was just an observation that even small overclocks on GPUs (talking % wise, not X MHz obviously, that'd be pointless) often lead to issues and unreliability, where as CPU overclocking generally seems more reliable and bulletproof. So having potentially good OCing on a GPU really doesn't factor in to my purchase at all, while good OCing on a CPU might.
I agree, my purchase decision on CPU's used to be based around OC capabilities, not so much anymore. Since my life has sucked with OC'ing a GPU I no longer care about it, I will mess with it a little here and there but nothing crazy like I have done in the past.
Not really sure why I have had the issues in the past, most likely going for too much too fast or just getting bad bin's but I'm not complaining since I knew what I was getting into.
This might also be some confusion from the 7890 release as well. Similar names, similar on die stats. Not sure if AMD needs a secret weapon since they will be releasing a 7990 and with the TDP's they kept on this current GPU it will probably be a recreation of something similar to the 6990, hardly downclocked 7970 GPU's to keep it within the 300watt tdp.