Hmm suspenseful. But I'm betting vram limits (2gb) or issues with surround drivers.
Nah, got to be the narrow memory bus, that's my bet. Probably runs out of steam (relatively) at 2560.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmm suspenseful. But I'm betting vram limits (2gb) or issues with surround drivers.
The 7970 still has the edge IMO. Ability to power 3 monitors with 1 card whereas Nvidia needs 2.
The 7970 still has the edge IMO. Ability to power 3 monitors with 1 card whereas Nvidia needs 2.
I LOVE THIS!! Finally a review that recognizes some people have graduated from 1920. Will these reviews include Crossfire and SLI comparisons?
I realize you probably can't say, but I thought it might be worth asking.
Key word there is "some". A good majority of PC gamers are probably in the 1680x1050 to 2560x1600 range, which includes 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 as the growing majority I think. Those reviews will be entirely relevant. Just because they aren't on the [H]ard edge with 3-5monitor setups doesn't mean they should be discounted from reviews. Its nice to see the higher stuff though as you can apply the logic that better at higher settings is better at lower settings (to a degree).
This is what I am worried about and seems to be happening with these damn reviews -
IDIOT REVIEWERS OUT THERE are simply copy/pasting the results that they got when they reviewed the 7970 at launch with SHITTY ASS DRIVERS. While this is no excuse and SHAME ON YOU AMD for releasing these cards with shitty drivers, it paints a COMPLETELY different story now that the drivers are more mature. Therefore - you do get these stupid results of a 7970 running 80 fps on Dirt 3 @1080p. Hell, my old 6950 could do that in its sleep.
So KYLE - Here's hoping you don't follow that trend and actually re-benchmark these AMD cards with current drivers. Yes, its a pain in the ass, but it will paint a better picture than all these other review sites, cause - who the hell wants to see how a non-optimized card benches against another? And no - this does not mean that you shouldn't do a review altogether cause it would be a "mature" card against another - It will just paint a good picture of WHAT IS AVAILABLE HERE AND NOW.
Slightly underwhelmed by the response from Team Green, maybe it'll work its way out eventually.
That being said, it's about time they removed their heads from the sand on the VRAM issue, especially after the 500 series debacle.
Anyone else not impressed? With no AA/AF, the GTX680 is faster at 1080P, but in other situations like adding max AA/AF, or higher resolutions, the 7970 is on par or better. Must be the 2GB of memory. 4GB probably won't be much of an improvement because of that memory bus.
We need to have a broader reevaluation of the benefits of traditional anti-aliasing. MSAA - the memory-intensive method - has slowly fallen to something approaching irrelevance over the past few years. Most games offer or rely on post-processing AA. We first saw AMD's MLAA, which could make text blurry, but now there are all kinds of post-processing AA methods that work much better than MSAA from both a visual and performance standpoint. Nvidia has an FXAA tool that can be applied to almost any game.
Bottom line, why do I need a huge amount of vRAM if MSAA is obsolete?
Lookin' mighty good. Many thanks to the leaker.
Unless I'm reading incorrectly, the 680 > 7970 in 3 of the 4 games tested at 2560x1600. Good news to 30" LCD owners... like me.
FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.
MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.
MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
I agree that those earlier techniques do look pretty bad, however the more recent SMAA post process is damn good and doesn't suffer anywhere near the same problems that you get with ML and FX.
FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.
MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
No, I think that SMAA looks great. I'm completely content using it for transparency aliasing. My gripe is that the edges that MSAA would normally take care of still crawl more than they would with just 4x MSAA. I find SMAA and even 2x MSAA to be a great combo. I really hope that someone implements SMAA into their control panel.
I bet I am way behind here - When is the best guess the NDA is lifted?
does anyone know what resolution H is going to use in their benchmarks?
does anyone know what resolution H is going to use in their benchmarks?
Jesus guys. I was just saying I was happy to see three screen benchmarks.
I did not mean to imply anything egotistical by the term "graduated." Moving to 5760 from 1080 is graduating, no matter how you slice it. That's not to say you can't graduate to something better than that. I didn't mean it like "hey, look at me I'm the best!"
I also never said or meant to imply in any way that the 1920 benchmarks were irrelevant.
Man you guys are touchy today.
I just realized that when a guru3d review got leaked in a similar manner that other review sites published their reviews that night. I wonder if that could happen here too.
I'm going to guess.......several.
Kyle posted several posts back that they were going up to 3 x displays, aka 5760 and I'd guess they'd go as low as 1080, but no lower.
Its not very often that [H] uses 1080p in their $500 video card reviews. I honestly don't think that well see it.
Its not very often that [H] uses 1080p in their $500 video card reviews. I honestly don't think that well see it.
how about posting the nvidia review guide like you did the amd one?
Wow...people are dumping their 580s already, in the last 24 hours alone over 18 ads have popped up on my local craigslist!
I'm off to buy a 580 for $275 WOO wooop!