You think I should go for a 7950?

HonoredShadow · *Last edited by HonoredShadow; 04-09-2012 at 22:13.*

As the question asks really! You can see my specs. Is it worth it?

Both of my cards are overclocked to 765/1125.

I mostly play BF3 atm so 3gig would be good too.

It's alot of money if it's only a slight increase in performance.

orion24 · 04-10-2012, 00:04 | posts: 809 | Location: Greece

Not even close to "worth it". After the NVIDIA 680 release, with a performance higher than the 7970 and an $500 price, the ATI 79xx cards need a price cut to remain competitive. They don't have one because NVIDIA cannot supply enough 680 cards yet. Once this happens, the HD79xx prices will be forced to go down, unless NVIDIA decides to raise the price of the 680.

Eitherway, an 7950 with the current price is not worthy. If you are about to spend this much try the 680

---TK--- · 04-10-2012, 00:18 | posts: 14,693 | Location: New Jersey, USA

450 for a 7950 or 499 for a 680. get the 680 if you can find 1

The Goose · 04-10-2012, 04:11 | posts: 1,274 | Location: shropshire,UK

from what ive read the 7970 beats the 680 at most tests and they`re cheaper ,cooler and quieter, 7970 @ £400 7950 @ £350 and £420 for 680

Agent-A01 · 04-10-2012, 04:40 | posts: 5,621 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Goose

from what ive read the 7970 beats the 680 at most tests and they`re cheaper ,cooler and quieter, 7970 @ £400 7950 @ £350 and £420 for 680

you got it backwards lol

sykozis · 04-10-2012, 04:42 | posts: 13,486 | Location: US East Coast

But at least you can buy a 7970.....lol

Agent-A01 · 04-10-2012, 04:45 | posts: 5,621 | Location: USA

actually tiger direct has some reference galaxies.. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=2279333

sykozis · 04-10-2012, 05:16 | posts: 13,486 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

actually tiger direct has some reference galaxies.. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=2279333

They don't have them in stock....

Quote:

Shipping: Usually Ships in 7 - 21 Days (Details)

They're being shipped from a 3rd party as they become available.

Ryu5uzaku · 04-10-2012, 10:30 | posts: 3,190 | Location: Finland

i'm happy with my 7950 but hmm i upgraded from single 5850. this thing clocked to the max lol.

i don't know 50$ price difference is way too little to say 7950 is good buy over 680. for me it was 100€ difference to 7970 and still would be to 7970 and 680 so rather good buy. with oc to 1200 this does beat both of those cards ofc. easily. if they aren't clocked

HonoredShadow · 04-10-2012, 11:19 | posts: 2,362 | Location: Shropshire, UK

More concerned about the performance compared.

Ryu5uzaku · 04-10-2012, 13:36 | posts: 3,190 | Location: Finland

well @ 1200 / 1600 it should eat your 5850's alive no matter what. my fps in bf3 doubled while i could up everything to ultra and use 4xMSAA with steady 60fps

Rich_Guy · 04-10-2012, 14:46 | posts: 6,660 | Location: UK

Id say its worth it, as once clocked, it'll be nigh on 7970 performance (over), plus single card is always best, and it will give you 2gb more v-ram.

7970's don't need a price cut, they are around same performance as the 680, around the same price, but have 1gb more v-ram.

HonoredShadow · 04-10-2012, 16:15 | posts: 2,362 | Location: Shropshire, UK

How much faster is a 7950 (or when it's overclocked)?

Thanks again.

sTOrM41 · 04-12-2012, 08:46 | posts: 241 | Location: Germany

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryu5uzaku

well @ 1200 / 1600 it should eat your 5850's alive no matter what. my fps in bf3 doubled while i could up everything to ultra and use 4xMSAA with steady 60fps

plz show me how ur 7950 beats this

http://666kb.com/i/c2vn0dly1maemje34.jpg

5850 crossfire and 7950 is equal,
the main problem with 5850 cf is that u only have 1gb vram.

enough power for ultra settings in bf3 + 4*aa , but to less vram for it..

aless83 · 04-12-2012, 10:52 | posts: 158 | Location: Madrid, Spain

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTOrM41

plz show me how ur 7950 beats this

http://666kb.com/i/c2vn0dly1maemje34.jpg

5850 crossfire and 7950 is equal,
the main problem with 5850 cf is that u only have 1gb vram.

enough power for ultra settings in bf3 + 4*aa , but to less vram for it..

Are you aware that you're on a PCIxpress @x4 bus? or am I wrong?

sTOrM41 · 04-12-2012, 19:04 | posts: 241 | Location: Germany

Quote:

Originally Posted by aless83

Are you aware that you're on a PCIxpress @x4 bus? or am I wrong?

jeah my cheap 40 euro board does only X4 on the second lane ,
but thats ok

Ryu5uzaku · 04-12-2012, 11:02 | posts: 3,190 | Location: Finland

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTOrM41

plz show me how ur 7950 beats this

http://666kb.com/i/c2vn0dly1maemje34.jpg

5850 crossfire and 7950 is equal,
the main problem with 5850 cf is that u only have 1gb vram.

enough power for ultra settings in bf3 + 4*aa , but to less vram for it..

i can't get that high in 3dmark 11 cause of my processor ever.

sTOrM41 · *Last edited by sTOrM41; 04-12-2012 at 20:50.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryu5uzaku

i can't get that high in 3dmark 11 cause of my processor ever.

3dmark 11 EXTREME is highly gpu limited, even with ur q6600,
but jeah a 7950 with a q6600 is not that good combo.

proliferazor · 04-11-2012, 00:07 | posts: 684

Don't listen to the benchmark b!tches, they make a huge deal over a few frames difference. The 7950 is a good card, nothing wrong with it, it does also have more on board ram which is nice for future proofing. And for clarity the 680 is also a good card as well, really you can't go wrong with either one, just remember the 7970 is supposed to be the direct competitor to 680. The 7950 is just a tad slower and a bit cheaper. Such a small amount slower you will rarely notice unless your a benchmark b!tch.

orion24 · 04-11-2012, 08:40 | posts: 809 | Location: Greece

Quote:

Originally Posted by proliferazor

Don't listen to the benchmark b!tches, they make a huge deal over a few frames difference. The 7950 is a good card, nothing wrong with it, it does also have more on board ram which is nice for future proofing. And for clarity the 680 is also a good card as well, really you can't go wrong with either one, just remember the 7970 is supposed to be the direct competitor to 680. The 7950 is just a tad slower and a bit cheaper. Such a small amount slower you will rarely notice unless your a benchmark b!tch.

7950 is not just a tad slower, nor was the 680 supposed to be a direct competitor to the 7970. It just turned out to be this way because Kepler is the better performing architecture.
The 7950 card has a performance that might leave a lot of people happy. But the presence of the 680 makes it an unworthy purchase at this time with its current price tag.
Personally if I wanted an 7950 I'd wait for the market to stabilize and would grab once its inevitable price cut arrives. If I didn't want to wait, I'd pay a few more for the 680.

sykozis · 04-12-2012, 04:08 | posts: 13,486 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by orion24

7950 is not just a tad slower, nor was the 680 supposed to be a direct competitor to the 7970. It just turned out to be this way because Kepler is the better performing architecture.
The 7950 card has a performance that might leave a lot of people happy. But the presence of the 680 makes it an unworthy purchase at this time with its current price tag.
Personally if I wanted an 7950 I'd wait for the market to stabilize and would grab once its inevitable price cut arrives. If I didn't want to wait, I'd pay a few more for the 680.

Go back to the nVidia section....geezus. The GTX680 was in fact intended to compete with the HD7970. If it wasn't, it wouldn't carry the labelling that nVidia designates as a "high-end" graphics cards.

angmar · 04-12-2012, 04:32 | posts: 1,018 | Location: Monmouth County, NJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

Go back to the nVidia section....geezus. The GTX680 was in fact intended to compete with the HD7970. If it wasn't, it wouldn't carry the labelling that nVidia designates as a "high-end" graphics cards.

Sometimes you are just down right rude and hostile. You really come off as a real fanboy when you talk like that. Go back to the nvidia section? Not everyone is a fanboy some people are actually just giving unbiased advice. Nothing he said was untrue....and it's pretty much common knowledge now that gk104 was not originally intended to be placed where it's at.

NiColaoS · *Last edited by NiColaoS; 04-12-2012 at 06:08.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by angmar

Sometimes you are just down right rude and hostile. You really come off as a real fanboy when you talk like that. Go back to the nvidia section? Not everyone is a fanboy some people are actually just giving unbiased advice. Nothing he said was untrue....and it's pretty much common knowledge now that gk104 was not originally intended to be placed where it's at.

In other words, GTX680 should cost 250$ ( as the initial plan to get the name GTX660 Ti ), right? But the situation went so bad in AMD's camp and so well in Nvidia's and took advantage, right? Well, I really want to believe you, but do you have any proof? "Common knowledge" doesn't mean much... What tells us that Nvidia hasn't a serious problem in try to release a so powerful card you're talking about? Seriously, I don't say you're not correct, but I'd just like proof, 'cause what you're claiming now, I can claim exactly the opposite... Rumors.

They're only 2 companies... I strongly believe, they don't have any reason to make 2 & 3 steps further at once... They can take their time both and sell as many as they can... Like Intel's tik-tocks... Certainly Intel can skip 1-2 tick-tocks and give us now the Ivy's successor, but why?

Ryu5uzaku · *Last edited by Ryu5uzaku; 04-11-2012 at 17:30.*

100€ price difference around here makes no sense to buy 7970 or 680 tho imo not that big difference in performance if you will oc.

Hard to say how much faster it is than anything cause my processor is goddamn weak i get bad gpu usage in everything yet it did double frames with higher settings from 5850

in bf3 my fps is solid 60 1920x1200 all maxed 4xmsaa with 68-80 gpu usage thats mp, no FXAA on tho but i didn't really notice that much difference in iq.

NiColaoS · *Last edited by NiColaoS; 04-12-2012 at 05:56.*

I can't say either what's exactly the performance difference... But in BF3 from rather slow-motion ( smooth slow-m, not choppy ) in full Ultra ( 1080p ), it becomes 100% playable with the clock being at 1100Mhz, 1.175mV and 64C Max.

I got mine 400€ ( WindForce, not ref ) while the 7970 ref had 120€ difference and the 7970 WindForce even greater ( 170€ ). Currently we've very few choices of 680's and one example, Gigabyte ref 560€... That means, 160€ difference. This is always the case in my small country, they're raping us especially at the beginning.

This makes my purchase seem normal/logical, although If I was in USA, I'd certainly regret it. But the fact is, what I see on YouTube, simple users have uploaded videos on BF3... It's not that amazing they made us believe... The card on Ultra is many times around 50+ FPS... That's -almost- my card if I give exactly the same overclock as the 680, 1050Mhz... But still, ok... If you're in USA, give a few more and get the 680.

I'm really not trying to create excuses out of nowhere. I was 12 years in Nvidia's camp, first time in AMD's. And I don't live in US where the prices are better and normal, without surprises, especially when our suppliers have to convert the US to EUR. Usually 1US=1EUR here. Madness... :S