AMD Radeon 7990 reviews thread

[ICDP]

Would my argument against why a product going for $1000 have much weight if I told you I only game at 1024 x 768 res on a CRT.. that its a bad product because its broken since performance doesn't scale?? While perfectly true and valid, it would carry no weight here on a enthusiast forum (which when it comes to tech hardware, forum goers are already niche as it is!).

Vice versa, PC enthusiasts to folk out massive $$ on gpus do not game at 30 fps and are happy about it.

Once again you offer your opinion as a fact. If someone refuses to compromise/tune or reduce their graphical settings and game at 30 FPS on their PC that is their call. Don't offer them your pity, it is arrogant to assume you are more enlightened than someone else based on nothing but "your" opinion.

 

[Fx1]

Once again you offer your opinion as a fact. If someone refuses to compromise/tune or reduce their graphical settings and game at 30 FPS on their PC that is their call. Don't offer them your pity, it is arrogant to assume you are more enlightened than someone else based on nothing but "your" opinion.

If you cant do 60 FPS with the settings on max then your system isnt powerful enough.

Thats not opinion its FACT

 

[Souv]

Radeon pro is better than nvi adaptive v-sync.John Mautari must be given the due credit...The test is done on November and even though not much CFX fix driver for amd at that time,but with implementation of radeon pro,the results are magical...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,review-32563-10.html

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,review-32563-11.html

Conclusion from Tom's-

"Aside from a few dropped frames and a handful of spikes when the test changes scenes, our dual-Tahiti card enjoys much smoother sailing. In fact, the end result is often better than what you'd see from a single graphics card, with virtually no micro-stuttering left.

The RadeonPro software is more complicated to use than Nvidia's hardware-based solution because you have to manually create a new profile for each and every game. But the results speak for themselves. This is nothing short of a revelation for the folks who pin the scalability of their gaming machines on multi-GPU configurations, but hate the idea of micro-stuttering. John Mautari, the utility's developer, deserves big thanks from the crew at AMD, to be certain. "

 

[96Firebird]

I love how the same poster who berates someone for spending money on Titans is also telling people if they don't maintain a certain FPS they need a more powerful system.

Talk about hypocrisy.

 

[Will Robinson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bystander36
There is no such thing as "correctly" setting up a game. Everyone has a different opinion on what is the best compromise. You sacrifice visuals for higher FPS, other would prefer to sacrifice FPS for higher visuals.

I happen to have higher requirements than you on FPS. I shoot for 80 FPS, unless I'm in 3D, then I have no choice but to live with 60 FPS, and I tune to never drop below.

You have to look outside your own box some times. Not everyone has the same opinion as you.

Fx1
Haha. So you want 80fps when your monitor can only show 60 FPS. Do you have 120hz monitor?

There is correct a way to set your games up. Console games aim for 30fps or 60 FPS for a very good reason. Consistant gameplay and stable performance.

You basically have higher requirements than your system is able to sustain if you cant stay at 60 FPS. It has nothing to do with standards.

30 FPS on Crysis 3 is a joke. 30FPS doesnt work on PC because of the mouse movement becomes choppy. It works on consoles because controllers dont pan very quickly.

Screen tearing and fluctuating FPS with choppy gameplay and stuttering sounds like a really nice gaming experience in the name of more AA or Ultra shadows :thumbsup:

He's right, many of todays games only have a setting or two that drastically boost performance at very minor visual quality loss. i.e. SSAO vs HDAO or HBAO etc, you are unlikely to spot the difference for long in a shooter, get over it.

Recall Metro, DoF on vs off, enjoy the doubling of frame rate or enable a "meh" feature to cripple even CF or SLI top cards at the time?

If you want to game at 30 fps, perhaps stick to consoles. That would be a stutter fest in itself on the PC, with gamers sitting next to a 2ms monitor and high DPI accurate mices would jerk you all day long.

Correctamundo.:thumbsup:

Most serious, and lots of the hardcore guys run graphics turned way down for faster frame rates if necessary.

People who come here tend to have both

 

[ICDP]

If you can do 60 FPS with the settings on max then your system isnt powerful enough.

Thats not opinion its FACT

Lol, no it isn't a fact, it is your subjective opinion, if someone else makes the same statement but states 30 FPS as the figure that is their subjective opinion. I can live with 40 FPS and that is my subjective opinion.

How can you not tell the difference between an opinion and a fact? The topic of what is acceptable performance is purely subjective. It's like a favourite colour debate, we can't tell someone they are wrong because we do not have FACTS to prove their opinion as wrong.

Fact. 60 FPS with max settings is better than 30 FPS with max settings.
Opinion. 60 FPS with reduced graphics settings is better than 30 FPS with max graphics settings
Opinion. 30 FPS with max settings is better than 60 FPS with reduced graphics settings.

P.S. I assume you meant to say cannot rather than can.

 

[Fx1]

Lol, not it isn't a fact, it is your opinion, if someone else makes the same statement but states 30 FPS as the figure that is their opinion. I can live with 40 FPS and that is my opinion. How can you not tell the difference between an opinion and a fact? The topic of what is acceptable performance is purely subjective. It's like a favourite colour debate, we can't tell someone they are wrong because we do not have FACTS to prove their opinion is wrong.

Of course its fact.

you cant hold 60 FPS your system isnt powerful enough.

 

[Fx1]

I love how the same poster who berates someone for spending money on Titans is also telling people if they don't maintain a certain FPS they need a more powerful system.

Talk about hypocrisy.

Titan is a total rip off.

Dual GPU cards are better solution same as CF or SLI

 

[ICDP]

Of course its fact.

you cant hold 60 FPS your system isnt powerful enough.

Lol, whatever, you clearly are an opinionated individual who refuses to accept others opinions as valid. You win, everyone else is to be pitied

 

[f1sherman]

Titan is a total rip off.

Dual GPU cards are better solution same as CF or SLI

Another fact?

Or minority opinion

 

[bystander36]

Haha. So you want 80fps when your monitor can only show 60 FPS. Do you have 120hz monitor?

There is correct a way to set your games up. Console games aim for 30fps or 60 FPS for a very good reason. Consistant gameplay and stable performance.

You basically have higher requirements than your system is able to sustain if you cant stay at 60 FPS. It has nothing to do with standards.

30 FPS on Crysis 3 is a joke. 30FPS doesnt work on PC because of the mouse movement becomes choppy. It works on consoles because controllers dont pan very quickly.

Screen tearing and fluctuating FPS with choppy gameplay and stuttering sounds like a really nice gaming experience in the name of more AA or Ultra shadows :thumbsup:

I do have a 120hz monitor, but you do gain a benefit even with a 60hz monitor. While it wouldn't show a full 80 images at 60hz, you do still get 80 updates on the screen in partial images. Even though they aren't full screen images, they do give you the feed back for more responsive game play.

You are not the center of the universe, others don't agree with you.

 

[bystander36]

Radeon pro is better than nvi adaptive v-sync.John Mautari must be given the due credit...The test is done on November and even though not much CFX fix driver for amd at that time,but with implementation of radeon pro,the results are magical...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,review-32563-10.html

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-7970-x2,review-32563-11.html

Conclusion from Tom's-

"Aside from a few dropped frames and a handful of spikes when the test changes scenes, our dual-Tahiti card enjoys much smoother sailing. In fact, the end result is often better than what you'd see from a single graphics card, with virtually no micro-stuttering left.

The RadeonPro software is more complicated to use than Nvidia's hardware-based solution because you have to manually create a new profile for each and every game. But the results speak for themselves. This is nothing short of a revelation for the folks who pin the scalability of their gaming machines on multi-GPU configurations, but hate the idea of micro-stuttering. John Mautari, the utility's developer, deserves big thanks from the crew at AMD, to be certain. "

You do realize that the RadeonPro dynamic Vsync setting is set to 50 FPS. That means there is a FPS limiter in place, something you could do with Nvidia, just using a different tool.

 

[bystander36]

Of course its fact.

you cant hold 60 FPS your system isnt powerful enough.

It is quite clear Fx1 is a troll or never went to school.

 

[chimaxi83]

Fx1, why is crapping on high end hardware the only thing you do? Serious question. I'm sorry I have to ask this, but... you mad bro?

 

[Silverforce11]

Once again you offer your opinion as a fact. If someone refuses to compromise/tune or reduce their graphical settings and game at 30 FPS on their PC that is their call. Don't offer them your pity, it is arrogant to assume you are more enlightened than someone else based on nothing but "your" opinion.

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But whether it carries any weight is a different matter. % of ppl who folk out for $1k gpus and run games at 30 fps??

 

[bystander36]

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But whether it carries any weight is a different matter. % of ppl who folk out for $1k gpus and run games at 30 fps??

Have you considered the fact that these people did not choose high end hardware to play at 30 FPS, but rather, they bought high end hardware to play games maxed out (you see this all the time on forum requests). In most games, that gets them maxed out visuals and high FPS. In bleeding edge games, they get lower FPS.

A lot of people, and I bet even you, would have found 40-50 FPS your FPS target just 4-5 years ago. Almost everyone played Farcry and Crysis with FPS lower than 60.

I also would not recommend anyone use more than 4x MSAA on demanding games, and I'm perfectly fine with sacrificing some settings for 80+ FPS, but I'm not so self absorbed to think that my opinion is the only opinion. Unfortunately, I don't believe Fx1 and possibly a couple others here would consider 80+ FPS to be acceptable (yes, I have a 120hz monitor), as it hurts their AMD is perfect ideal.

 

[Fx1]

I do have a 120hz monitor, but you do gain a benefit even with a 60hz monitor. While it wouldn't show a full 80 images at 60hz, you do still get 80 updates on the screen in partial images. Even though they aren't full screen images, they do give you the feed back for more responsive game play.

You are not the center of the universe, others don't agree with you.

Yes and that is called screen tearing.

Why would someone want to up the visual quality and then put up with horrific screen tearing.

Choose and argument and stick to it.

 

[ICDP]

As I said, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But whether it carries any weight is a different matter. % of ppl who folk out for $1k gpus and run games at 30 fps??

You are basing your opinion on an assumption and unless you can produce stats to show that the majority of people who purchase $1000 GPUs do so to attain 60FPS I could easily assume otherwise. For example I could argue a large portion of people purchase a high end $1000 GPU purely so they can play at max graphical settings in every game. 60 FPS solid is not necessarily their goal, they purchase purely to crank up the eye candy to maximum. What they perceive as playable FPS is most likely different to you, me or Fx1.

It is a purely subjective opinion and will differ from person to person. Your's, Fx1's or my position on this is purely our individual opinion and nothing to do with facts.

Forgive me for repeating this, but it does highlight the difference between fact an opinion fairly well IMHO.
Fact. 60 FPS with max settings is better than 30 FPS with max settings.
Anyone who argues the above is wrong is incorrect, period.

Opinion. 60 FPS with reduced graphics settings is better than 30 FPS with max graphics settings
Opinion. 30 FPS with max settings is better than 60 FPS with reduced graphics settings
Anyone who adopts either stance is voicinv an opinion or preference.

 

[Fx1]

Fx1, why is crapping on high end hardware the only thing you do? Serious question. I'm sorry I have to ask this, but... you mad bro?

I have a 7970. ill probably pick up another soon.

I have ONLY high end hardware.

Titan is a great GPU at a stupid price.

The 690 GTX should be £500-£600 not £800

7990 should also be £600 not £850

Im in it for me and not the shareholders and executives ripping off their customers.

Also Titan has already fallen £80 within weeks of launch. Prices are falling already due to poor sales. Consumer wins when you vote with your wallet.

 

[Fx1]

It is quite clear Fx1 is a troll or never went to school.

LOL.

READ THE WORDS

If your system cant do 60 FPS on max then your system isnt powerful enough.

explain how this isnt a fact

 

[BallaTheFeared]

7970 is mid-range bro.

 

[Fx1]

7970 is mid-range bro.

How is a 7970 mid range?

Its faster than the 680 GTX only the 690 GTX was faster at the time.

Titan only just launched

 

[crashtech]

This argument about frame count is similar to the ones regarding price versus perfomance, the metric here being that too low of fps is considered to be too expensive and/or foolish. But just like it is not up to one person to decide how to spend another's money, it's not up to anyone to decide how to "spend" my fps.

This so-called reasoning applies mainly to shooters, where buttery smooth gameplay obviously confers an advantage and makes the experience more enjoyable because there is a lot of rapid movement going on. But there are more games than just shooters, and actually people like me end up playing shooters not because of the combat, but in spite of it, because shooters tend to be out on the edge of 3D graphics technology. That's what I'm in it for, the latest game engines and the best graphics technology. While I may drop quality settings briefly to during a boss battle, it's not the way I personally want to experience the entire game.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

How is a 7970 mid range?

30-40% slower than high end, shareholders are still getting theirs off you :thumbsup:

 

[bystander36]

LOL.

READ THE WORDS

If your system cant do 60 FPS on max then your system isnt powerful enough.

explain how this isnt a fact

You have not specified a requirement to call it a fact.

If your requirement is to play Crysis 3 at max settings on 1440p, then all you have to do is be able to play Crysis 3 at max settings on 1440p. 60 FPS is not a requirement.

Seriously go to school.