MrK6
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2004
- 4,458
- 4
- 81
The clock listing isn't accurate, not the performance.Still accurate. Just doesn't factor in max OC potential for each.
The clock listing isn't accurate, not the performance.Still accurate. Just doesn't factor in max OC potential for each.
The clock listing isn't accurate, not the performance.
So you're just here to troll and cheer for nvidia, gotcha.Neither is for AMD.
It drops when on desktop, and then it overclocks when in games
Let what go? You didn't refute any of my points. Those charts provide example of exactly what I was just stating - they list the clock speeds of the cards, but if nvidia's GPU boost is dynamically overclocking the cards, then that's not accurate, is it?
How is that sad? You actually want people to troll? Interesting.and the sad part is that you are NOT trolling,
you are dead serious about having issues with GPU boost
I think it's rather telling that you go for an ad hominem rather than participate in the discussion.So Intel should disable TurboBoost on all of its CPUs when they test them against Bulldozer?
Look, it's been 4 consecutive generations of you owning an AMD card. This time GTX680 finally beats HD7970 in all metrics from performance/watt, perforamnce/mm^2, performance/transistor, absolute performance, price, and features. There is nothing left.
If you had some bad experiences with NV cards (perhaps some bumpgate with GeForce 8/9), or just want to cheer for the underdog, then just say so.
GTX680 is clearly superior to HD7970. Just admit it and move on.
It would be a heck of a technology if it worked like that. In my mind, I'd like to see GPU's make steps towards efficiently producing the most fluid gameplay possible. I myself run a framerate limiter at 60FPS unless I'm benching - my monitor is 60Hz, and it does nothing for me to waste the power to render more than that.from what i've gathered, GPU boost goes hand in hand with another feature: adaptive vsync. i believe the two technologies allow the card to make extremely rapid changes in clock speed to mitigate the performance loss of standard vsync, as well as adjusting clockspeeds in SLI setups. the net result is less frame skips, tearing, and microstuttering.
Based on the marketing video posted earlier today, it's tough to say. They showed it boosting frames generally over 60FPS, which would only seem to help those in the niche 120Hz monitor category.we'll know soon enough. to me, using GPU boost as a purely raw performance feature is a waste. after all, if it has the headroom to go faster, why not just peg it at that speed?
I think it's rather telling that you go for an ad hominem rather than participate in the discussion.
dirty Nvidia mother^&^&$#@ complicating things, and making life less simple for Kyle [H] (AMD partnership website?)...
Just so they can get more performance(!)
How low can they go?!
Logically, you cannot prove that HD7970 is a better card.
The fact that GTX680 is actually better in pretty much everything and costs less and has a free Turbo Boost? What exactly is there to discuss?
It seems you are dead set on proving that HD7970 is better. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
How bout we wait for you know... a few actual official reviews before starting with the lame attacks.
2 Reviews already and GTX680 has won in both so far. Let's wait for 10 more.
See this is the fallacy of your argument and just shows that you're here to cheer nvidia, regardless of what's in your signature (I'm preemptively denying that appeal). Each company offers products that are diverse in features and performance, yet you're trying to change goal posts or set up pseudo-restraints in order to say "THERE NVIDIA'S BETTER I WIN," which is ridiculous. I've already shut this down in another thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2234044 , and I'll do it again here. Either participate in the discussion or don't post, I'm not derailing this thread further.Logically, you cannot prove that HD7970 is a better card at $550 unless you bring some outlier benchmark or game or some specific case that only applies in a particular situation.
The fact that GTX680 is actually better in pretty much everything and costs less and has a free Turbo Boost? What's not to like? What exactly is there to discuss?
It seems you are dead set on proving that HD7970 is better. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. You've enjoyed your 1340mhz HD7970 and GTX680 isn't going to make that level of performance obsolete. For most consumers looking to buy a $500 GPU starting tomorrow, HD7970 at $550 is irrelevant.
See this is the fallacy of your argument and just shows that you're here to cheer nvidia, regardless of what's in your signature (I'm preemptively denying that appeal). Each company offers products that are diverse in features and performance, yet you're trying to change goal posts or set up pseudo-restraints in order to say "THERE NVIDIA'S BETTER I WIN," which is ridiculous. I've already shut this down in another thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2234044 , and I'll do it again here. Either participate in the discussion or don't post, I'm not derailing this thread further.
from what i've gathered, GPU boost goes hand in hand with another feature: adaptive vsync. i believe the two technologies allow the card to make extremely rapid changes in clock speed to mitigate the performance loss of standard vsync, as well as adjusting clockspeeds in SLI setups. the net result is less frame skips, tearing, and microstuttering.
we'll know soon enough. to me, using GPU boost as a purely raw performance feature is a waste. after all, if it has the headroom to go faster, why not just peg it at that speed?