• 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.

Fall 2012 GPU and Driver Comparison Roundup @ [H]

David_Schroth said:
It would have been great to have had the time to do a before and after comparison, but the amount of time that went into this evaluation was getting up there given the number of cards included. Claimed percentages can be great, but if you get a 10% gain on a 40FPS average, you're probably not going to be able to increase any graphics settings anyway.....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

I was thinking including the scores/FPS that you got when the original reviews came out. And report what driver version was run then. That would be a sufficent enough for me to know the performance increase from when the cards came out in all their glory, to now when the drivers have been refined. That would be a proper driver comparison i would think.
 
DASHlT said:
http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/AMDCatalyst1211betadriver.aspx

Look how the webpage puts it.

It's like its added on the original performance they got.

Now I am not saying you aren't right....Just the way it shows there to me. Looks like even more performance.

First part shows bf3 25%, then with beta 7 says another 10-15%?....yea im not 100% sure either

Ok now i feel stupid. It even says "More performace"

So wow 35-40% more performance for BF3 from 12.11 drivers now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! holy crap
Click to expand...

Look closelier!

10-15% in most cases, and in some cases over 20% is what website says :)

maybe they simply revised their original blanket statement of 25% everywhere.

look even more closelierrrrr!
 
Warrior said:
Thanks for the reply.

I was thinking including the scores/FPS that you got when the original reviews came out. And report what driver version was run then. That would be a sufficent enough for me to know the performance increase from when the cards came out in all their glory, to now when the drivers have been refined. That would be a proper driver comparison i would think.
Click to expand...

That was a consideration, but it really isn't a true comparison because all of the games in the suite have gone through multiple patches throughout the year. Then, how would we be able to determine whether the performance delta was caused by the patch or the driver? To get a true comparison, we'd need driver A and driver B test on the same patch level of each game, which would mean doubling the workload.
 
Brent_Justice said:
As you mentioned, the game version and driver version are both very different between the two. The game has had 3 or 4 patches itself between our gamplay eval and today's article, plus the driver is a lot newer as well from 306.23 to 310.33 is a very big driver difference in the world of drivers, it can all add up to the difference you see.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure the GTX 680 performance numbers at 2560 x 1600 are at Normal AA. The numbers are just not correct

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup/5

GTX 670 1920 x 1080 High AA - 50.8 fps
GTX 680 2560 x 1600 High AA - 51.5 fps

With just about 23% higher shading power than GTX 670 , the GTX 680 is able to run a higher resolution which has close to 2x the pixel count at the same settings with identical fps. thats not logically possible.
 
raghu78 said:
I am quite sure the GTX 680 performance numbers at 2560 x 1600 are at Normal AA. The numbers are just not correct

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup/5

GTX 670 1920 x 1080 High AA - 50.8 fps
GTX 680 2560 x 1600 High AA - 51.5 fps

With just about 23% higher shading power than GTX 670 , the GTX 680 is able to run a higher resolution which has close to 2x the pixel count at the same settings with identical fps. thats not logically possible.
Click to expand...

I think you're right. Given how close the 680 and 670 are typically, it does seem illogical to have a gap that wide.
 
Great review, thanks for all the effort put into this, [H]!

AMD: it's nice to finally see your drivers getting to the level they need to be at to compliment your capable hardware. Kudos.
 
DejaWiz said:
Great review, thanks for all the effort put into this, [H]!

AMD: it's nice to finally see your drivers getting to the level they need to be at to compliment your capable hardware. Kudos.
Click to expand...


So AMD pulls some driver miracles and you spin it as something they should have done all along. Right. That attitude is hilariously prevalent around here. Because Nvidia had the audacity to say they "were disappointed" with the 7970 at launch, many [H] users are tripping all over themselves to agree.

Let's cut the bullshit and call it like it is: AMD turned the tables on Nvidia and, right now, it's an act of total irrationality to purchase an Nvidia card.
 
wabbitseason said:
So AMD pulls some driver miracles and you spin it as something they should have done all along. Right. That attitude is hilariously prevalent around here. Because Nvidia had the audacity to say they "were disappointed" with the 7970 at launch, many [H] users are tripping all over themselves to agree.

Let's cut the bullshit and call it like it is: AMD turned the tables on Nvidia and, right now, it's an act of total irrationality to purchase an Nvidia card.
Click to expand...

They should have had this out sooner, this huge of an across the board increase implies that they had a lot of bugs to work out of their drivers that were holding back their cards. That said, even if it's late its nice to have them. At launch, the 7970 was a VERY disappointing product. It was expensive and the performance simply wasn't there. What has made the cards so good now is a combination of these drivers and all the price drops. AMD has done a great job making the cards competitive, but let's not ignore the facts at the time Nvidia made that statement and how true it was at that time.

Why is it irrational? The 7-series cards do provide better value if you are just looking at single-card performance and solely with one aspect. However Nvidia has better multi-GPU support (AMD does seem to be getting better with that though), Nvidia has FAR better 3D support (HD3D is not the most consumer friendly thing in the world and AMD does not make it easy to figure anything out, 3D Vision is very simple and very well supported), some people really like PhysX (*shrugs* Personally, I can take it or leave it) so there are some very good reasons to go Nvidia over AMD (and vise-versa, of course), depending entirely on the needs of the user. You paint yourself as a fanboy by saying otherwise.
 
wabbitseason said:
Let's cut the bullshit and call it like it is: AMD turned the tables on Nvidia and, right now, it's an act of total irrationality to purchase an Nvidia card.
Click to expand...

Agree its a pain to read all kinds of nonsence here. Let the numbers talk, and eat it or beat it. We need performance and competition, not consumers buying the same brand regardless of facts.
 
wabbitseason said:
Let's cut the bullshit and call it like it is: AMD turned the tables on Nvidia and, right now, it's an act of total irrationality to purchase an Nvidia card.
Click to expand...

Showing up late to the party just in time for the last dance.
 
A sincere thank you to the authors of the article. It played a large part in my decision to go with a 7970, a decision I haven't had too many regrets about.
 
Catching up on my [H] reading. Amazing review, thank you very much [H] crew!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top