[Computerbase] Fun comparison: GTX580/HD6970 vs. HD7970Ghz/R9 280X (then and now).

[RussianSensation]

Launch reviews often have CPU bottlenecks that do not allow next generation GPU architectures to stretch their legs, while hiding a lot of the architectural weakness of older architectures because oftentimes the games aren't demanding enough to stress these GPUs fully at low resolutions such as 1080P. Also, early drivers are not always able to extract the maximum potential of a brand new architecture.

I am sure everyone here remembers the scorn that Tahiti XT got when it "provided so little performance increase" over 580 and some called it "incremental" at best. As games became more demanding, older GPU architectures such as VLIW-4 (6970) or Fermi (580) couldn't keep up and the gap between newer and older architectures widened.

June 22, 2012

HD7970Ghz is 53% faster than an HD6970 and 34% faster than the 580

May 2, 2015

R9 280X is 84% faster than HD6970 and 71% faster than a GTX580

Bonus:

Today:

$89 R7 260X is 92% as fast as a $499 MSRP GTX580
$130 R9 270X is 30% faster than the GTX580
$240 R9 290 is 2.05X faster than the GTX580
$320 GTX970 is 2.26X faster than the GTX580

Fun times!

I think this is a good reminder why buying a high-end card and keeping it 4-5 years is generally a very bad idea! In 4.5 years since GTX580 launched, one can basically buy that level of performance in a $90 card.

Just some food for thought for those of you who are so worried about future-proofing for next gen games by buying flagship $700-1000 cards.

The best way to future-proof imho is to buy newer architectures and upgrade more often.

For example, someone who bought a $250 HD6950/GTX560Ti and then a $250 R9 290 is way better off than the gamer who bought a $500 GTX580 and held on to it for 4.5 years. I just wanted to put the data to this idea and indeed it holds true!

So, if you are sitting there and contemplating buying a $700+ flagship card to "future-proof" yourself for 3-5 years and beyond, you should strongly consider the above strategy of buying 2nd or even 3rd tier cards and upgrading them every 2-3 years instead.

 

[Silverforce11]

Also interesting is prior to GCN, AMD was always behind NV's flagship (5870 v 480, 6970 v 580). But with GCN, AMD has taken the lead (7970 v 680, 280X v 770, 290/X v 780/Ti).

Looking forward to the launch from AMD, where they will finally have the GCN competitor to Maxwell.

Edit: I upgrade ~2-3 years for GPUs and about 5 years for CPU (I still have a 2500K that is rock solid @ 4.6Ghz). GPUs obsolete a lot faster so holding onto them for 5 years is out of the question unless you don't like to game with high quality settings.

 

[RussianSensation]

Edit: I upgrade ~2-3 years for GPUs and about 5 years for CPU (I still have a 2500K that is rock solid @ 4.6Ghz). GPUs obsolete a lot faster so holding onto them for 5 years is out of the question unless you don't like to game with high quality settings.

Ya, with CPU upgrades, things are totally different. In that case the rules above don't apply. In other words, buying a $130 i3 and then another $130 i3 in 2.5 years would be way worse than buying a $240 i5 right away.

What's interesting is if you look at the GPU data for R9 290/290X/970/980, they all look like they will become "obsolete" at more or less the same time. The performance deltas between them are not enough for any of those 4 cards to handle next gen games much better than any of the other cards in their group. 980 OC is just 25% faster than R9 290 OC. It might help in GW games, but otherwise, I don't think it'll help that much in 2-3 years unless games start to heavily favour Maxwell over GCN 1.1.

There is a good article from Computerbase that also shows that 15-20% differences between cards of similar architectures/generations do not matter for future-proofness. GTX470/570 and 670/770 become obsolete at the same time relative to one another.

http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/geforce-gtx-470-570-670-770-970-vergleich/2/

 

[SPBHM]

Also interesting is prior to GCN, AMD was always behind NV's flagship (5870 v 480, 6970 v 580). But with GCN, AMD has taken the lead (7970 v 680, 280X v 770, 290/X v 780/Ti).

if you compare the size of the GPUs, the 5870 was a lot smaller than the 480 (same as a 460), the 7970 is bigger than the 680/770...

 

[Silverforce11]

if you compare the size of the GPUs, the 5870 was a lot smaller than the 480 (same as a 460), the 7970 is bigger than the 680/770...

Yes that is true.

The R290/X is smaller than 780/Ti though, so AMD is steadily improving each generation vs NV.

This is why I have high hopes for AMD's next flagship, rumored to be >500mm2, its their biggest and potentially the closest in die size compared to NV's flagship ever.

Given the GK110 > GM200 jump compared to Hawaii > Fiji jump, it's AMD's best chance so far to take the clear lead on performance. It's also why I think in their time of crisis, if they cannot take the performance crown with a big die, they are in for a world of hurt.

 

[Serandur]

What I'm seeing is the lucky people who got Tahiti back in 2012 and kept it got a hell of a deal. GK104... eh, not so much.

 

[Silverforce11]

What I'm seeing is the lucky people who got Tahiti back in 2012 and kept it got a hell of a deal. GK104... eh, not so much.

I got my 7950 PCS+ close to launch for ~$330 AUD which is a damn bargain. It OC to 1.2ghz (50% OC! ) and matched OC 680s (~$700 AUD!). One of the best card I've owned, ever, and I owned 9700, 800XT,and a few 8800GTs.

 

[escrow4]

If you want future proof buy a $700-$1K card every year. Which is more or less what I do. Last year was the 780 Ti, this year will be the likely 980 Ti. Except the stupid GPU is coming out after the Witcher III. Grrrrrrrrr.

 

[RussianSensation]

I got my 7950 PCS+ close to launch for ~$330 AUD which is a damn bargain. It OC to 1.2ghz (50% OC! ) and matched OC 680s (~$700 AUD!). One of the best card I've owned, ever, and I owned 9700, 800XT,and a few 8800GTs.

If it wasn't for mining, I would have grabbed HD7950s. Man were those sweet cards. I remember when MSI TwinFrozr or that 7950 PCS+ you had were going for $280 USD / 300 CDN while GTX680 2GB was $450 USD. No lie too.

HD7950 OC was a monster but largely ignored by NV fans. HD7950 OC was a perfect "stop-gap" between HD7000/680 and Maxwell/R9 290 series imo.
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...z_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,13.html

If you want future proof buy a $700-$1K card every year. Which is more or less what I do. Last year was the 780 Ti, this year will be the likely 980 Ti. Except the stupid GPU is coming out after the Witcher III. Grrrrrrrrr.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: That's a good strategy too. If you can afford the fastest single flagships every generation, I can't disapprove of that tactic.

It seems NV and AMD are playing a game of cat and mouse. Rumours have it though that 980Ti could drop in late May. Alternatively, NV could wait until R9 390X drops; and if it beats the Titan X, boom 1250mhz 980TI!

 

[Majcric]

Really OP, I think most who buy a flagship of anything knows the value doesn't last. They probably bought it for their needs at the time. Not tomorrow, after all were talking about computer hardware.

 

[Riceninja]

best deal is always buying midrange ~$300 every 2-3 years when it comes to gpus. i thought everyone knew this. not everyone, however, is looking for purely the best deal.

if a 390x 8gb/980ti 6gb is 40%+ faster than my 970 and ~$700, basically paying 2.2x for 1.4x performance, i'll still buy it because i want to make the most out of my limited gaming time and can afford the premium.

not the best deal considering they'll be tied by a card half the price in 16 months, but thats 16 months of no-compromises gaming. $350 depreciation is about $22 a month. that's a trip to the movies or about a quarter of my cellphone bill. in the grand scheme of things gaming is a really cheap hobby.

I got my 7950 PCS+ close to launch for ~$330 AUD which is a damn bargain. It OC to 1.2ghz (50% OC! ) and matched OC 680s (~$700 AUD!). One of the best card I've owned, ever, and I owned 9700, 800XT,and a few 8800GTs.

i still have my sapphire 7950 and it is a true OC beast. having a hard time letting it go tbh.

 

[RussianSensation]

Really OP, I think most who buy a flagship of anything knows the value doesn't last. They probably bought it for their needs at the time. Not tomorrow, after all were talking about computer hardware.

I know but if you read a lot of the comments in the R9 390X threads, there is a new trend now that spending hundreds of dollars more is worth it for future-proofing. For example, Riceninja is dead honest about his goal -- he wants to buy the top card to have no compromise performance for 16 months. He isn't buying a $700 card so that it's going to last longer over 3-4 years because he knows it won't happen and he would be better off upgrading sooner.

I can't wait for various versions of GM200/R9 390 cards to roll-out. If history is any indication, AMD tends to deliver a mind-blowing value in its 2nd tier card once you overclock it!

Right now it seems the entire forum is just basking in the hype of R9 390X and GM200 6GB, and ignoring that R9 390 nonX could be a sleeper OCing beast in the same manner the 7950 was.

 

[Erenhardt]

my 7950 OCed from 850 to 1100 only ;/
30% OC is such a fail for tahiti.
Ohh. Bought it for about $150 (EU) refurb.

 

[RussianSensation]

my 7950 OCed from 850 to 1100 only ;/
30% OC is such a fail for tahiti.
Ohh. Bought it for about $150 (EU) refurb.

Was that on stock voltage though? I say for 150 Euro that was a smoking deal.

I got my 7950 PCS+ close to launch for ~$330 AUD which is a damn bargain. It OC to 1.2ghz (50% OC! ) and matched OC 680s (~$700 AUD!). One of the best card I've owned, ever, and I owned 9700, 800XT,and a few 8800GTs.

Silver, is your thinking of going GM200 6GB or R9 390X and ignoring the standard 390 because you feel 390 will only have 4GB of VRAM? Just curious because you know 2nd tier AMD cards turn into performance and value kings with your ghetto AIO CLC mods!

 

[Silverforce11]

@RS
I need to go 4K for productivity priorities and I don't think 390 or even Titan X is enough for that. I am hoping the 390X is Titan X + ~15% faster. That with an OC, would be enough for 4K without MSAA (or at most, 2x MSAA, or heck I can inject SMAA with Radeon Pro!). 4GB vram on such a setup won't have longevity up to 2 years out IMO.

 

[RussianSensation]

@RS
I need to go 4K for productivity priorities and I don't think 390 or even Titan X is enough for that. I am hoping the 390X is Titan X + ~15% faster. That with an OC, would be enough for 4K without MSAA (or at most, 2x MSAA, or heck I can inject SMAA with Radeon Pro!). 4GB vram on such a setup won't have longevity up to 2 years out IMO.

Side questions.

Is 28-32" 4K for producitivity better than 34" 3440x1440 though? 4K is probabl going to be hard on your eyes on a small screen with Windows DPI scaling.

Or do you need to edit/view 4K video content?

As far as your performance choice goes, I think you'd be better off with dual R9 390s than a single R9 390X/GM200 6GB. I'd rather lower some AA and have 50%+ more performance.

Imagine the comparison of HD7970Ghz vs. a pair of HD7950s OC at 2560x1600 back in the days? No chance for the single flagship card!

 

[antihelten]

Really OP, I think most who buy a flagship of anything knows the value doesn't last. They probably bought it for their needs at the time. Not tomorrow, after all were talking about computer hardware.

Obviously I can't say for certain, but I actually think you're dead wrong here.

When a new generation of GPUs come out, the tier 2 cards (i.e. 7950/670 level and there about) can usually handle whatever games are available at that point in time just fine. So the majority of people who buy the flagship cards are probably doing it with an expectation of more demanding games in the future.

Obviously there are some people out there with multi-monitor setups or running 4k, who would arguably need the fastest cards out there to get optimal performance. However I believe that they are very much in the minority, even if you only count the owners of flagship GPUs.

 

[raghu78]

Good information. 2-3 years is the sweet spot for GPU upgrades. GPU technology obsoletes much faster than CPU. Nvidia have definitely updated their flagship big die every 2-3 yrs. AMD have also updated their flagship every 2 years. AMD flagships have also increased in die size / performance to come now on par with Nvidia (R9 390x)

GTX 480 - Apr 2010
GTX 580 - Nov 2010
GTX Titan - Feb 2013
GTX Titan-X - March 2015
GP100 - most likely Q3 2017.

 

[Black Octagon]

Interesting thread, Russian. Thanks. But what about folks like me who bought the 7970 at launch for approx. $500? That was "buying flagship". Are you saying I would have been better off buying a 6950 at the time, then upgrading in mid-2014 to something like a 280?

 

[Silverforce11]

Interesting thread, Russian. Thanks. But what about folks like me who bought the 7970 at launch for approx. $500? That was "buying flagship". Are you saying I would have been better off buying a 6950 at the time, then upgrading in mid-2014 to something like a 280?

You would be better off buying the 7950, OC and enjoy 7970 Ghz performance from the get go for cheap. 3gb vram on both models, performance is within 5% at the same clocks. No brainer to save a lot of $.

Same for the R290 vs R290X. AMD's 2nd tier is always great bang for buck and always exceed the top tier with an OC.

I think they would be wise to limit the 390 to 4GB this time, and only have 8GB on the 390X, more incentive for gamers to grab the X.

 

[poofyhairguy]

What I'm seeing is the lucky people who got Tahiti back in 2012 and kept it got a hell of a deal.

Yeah that GPU seemed to age better than any since the legendary 8800. I wonder if the console wins had something to do with that.

 

[boozzer]

You would be better off buying the 7950, OC and enjoy 7970 Ghz performance from the get go for cheap. 3gb vram on both models, performance is within 5% at the same clocks. No brainer to save a lot of $.

Same for the R290 vs R290X. AMD's 2nd tier is always great bang for buck and always exceed the top tier with an OC.

I think they would be wise to limit the 390 to 4GB this time, and only have 8GB on the 390X, more incentive for gamers to grab the X.

Doubt alot of us needs anything higher than 4gb. what is the percentage of 4k gamers vs the rest?

if 390x got 8gb, it would be smart of amd to include 4gb models for less, for 1080p gamers like me. hell why not 4gb n 8gb models for both 390/x. that would make alot of sense. price the vram models 100$ apart, voila, no more gap in their line up.