powercolor radeon HD7950 pictured, clock speeds revealed

[Arkadrel]

so this card, overclocked at stock voltage, should be abotu the same or faster than the 580 at much lower price, right? it's the same chip as the 7970, it should overclock like a beast as well.

No it shouldnt be "about" the same as a 580
It ll be ~15% or so faster on avg. at stock.

Overclock it and it should be much faster than the 580.

 

[Quantos]

No it shouldnt be "about" the same as a 580
It ll be ~15% or so faster on avg. at stock.

Overclock it and it should be much faster than the 580.

If that's true, even at $450 it's a great value compared to the 580.

 

[Arkadrel]

It depends on what benchmarks your looking at though...
in some the 7970 is only like 10% faster than a 580, in others its like 30%.

The same will probably hold true for the 7950,... in some the 580 might beat it,
in others the 7950 might beat the 580 by 15% or something.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

If its 580 performance level for like 100 dollars less, nice (Remember the OCing potential too)! Though all Nvidia has to do is drop the prices, though I'm not sure if they're doing that.

 

[Olikan]

some new leaks...

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvga.it168.com%2Fa2012%2F0118%2F1303%2F000001303886_1.shtml

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=auto%7Cen&u=http%3A%2F%2Fvga.it168.com%2Fa2012%2F0118%2F1303%2F000001303886.shtml

 

[Keysplayr]

No it shouldnt be "about" the same as a 580
It ll be ~15% or so faster on avg. at stock.

Overclock it and it should be much faster than the 580.

I don't see that happening when a 7970 is averaging 20% over a GTX580.

I'd give the 7950, depending on how crippled it is, anywhere from equal, to 110% of a GTX580 and will probably sell for the same price as a standard GTX580.

I'm not cherry picking or lowballing either. That's the average.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I don't see that happening when a 7970 is averaging 20% over a GTX580.

I'd give the 7950, depending on how crippled it is, anywhere from equal, to 110% of a GTX580 and will probably sell for the same price as a standard GTX580.

I'm not cherry picking or lowballing either. That's the average.

The stock 7970 is sandbagging big time. It might only be 20-30% faster at stock but 7970's are overclocking monsters. Easily the greatest overclocking cards ever. So comparing a stock 580 to a stock 7970 really isn't an accurate comparison IMO. Every statement about the stock comparisons should have an asterisk next to it.

 

[Quantos]

Well, that's pretty good. Even if the card is the same performance as a 580, assuming an MSRP of $450, that's a good deal. On Newegg at the moment, the 580 starts at $470. The custom cards are about a hundred more than that still. If the 7950 is released with custom models available, they could be sold... a bit over $500?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If that's true, even at $450 it's a great value compared to the 580.

I've noticed a lot of people using this logic... It's no good!

The 580 will be replaced by the 780 more than likely at exactly the same price point the 580 is at now.

580 is last gen, old news. 7 series is the new kid on the block, basing price/performance off the even more overpriced price of the 580 to justify any purchase is doing it wrong.

Think of Nvidia like Intel... The i7-950 is still $270 on newegg. It was still $300 on Newegg when the i7-2600k came out at $315.
Does that make sense? Nvidia is going to offer more performance than the 580 does currently, at the same price point...

Buying a 580 in the past was a tough sell, buying one now without a niche requirement makes even less sense.

Or they should, unless I missed the memo where gpu prices are skyrocketing.

 

[Quantos]

I've noticed a lot of people using this logic... It's no good!

The 580 will be replaced by the 780 more than likely at exactly the same price point the 580 is at now.

580 is last gen, old news. 7 series is the new kid on the block, basing price/performance off the even more overpriced price of the 580 to justify any purchase is doing it wrong.

Think of Nvidia like Intel... The i7-950 is still $270 on newegg. It was still $300 on Newegg when the i7-2600k came out at $315.
Does that make sense? Nvidia is going to offer more performance than the 580 does currently, at the same price point...

Buying a 580 in the last was a tough sell, buying one now without a niche requirement makes even less sense.

Or they should, unless I missed the memo where gpu prices are skyrocketing.

Oh no this again.

The future, rumoured prices of future, rumoured offerings have NO RELEVANCE whatsoever on current products pricing! Right now, the only thing that the 7000 series should be compared to is what is available on the market! Once the 6/700 series comes out, then we'll talk about the 7000 series' pricing again. Until then, this is a moot point.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I've noticed a lot of people using this logic... It's no good!

The 580 will be replaced by the 780 more than likely at exactly the same price point the 580 is at now.

580 is last gen, old news. 7 series is the new kid on the block, basing price/performance off the even more overpriced price of the 580 to justify any purchase is doing it wrong.

Think of Nvidia like Intel... The i7-950 is still $270 on newegg. It was still $300 on Newegg when the i7-2600k came out at $315.
Does that make sense? Nvidia is going to offer more performance than the 580 does currently, at the same price point...

Buying a 580 in the past was a tough sell, buying one now without a niche requirement makes even less sense.

Or they should, unless I missed the memo where gpu prices are skyrocketing.

I thought this way for the longest time. Problem is amd/nvidia don't go by any set in stone rules. The cards price is determined by the buyers and what they are willing to pay. AMD thinks the 7970 is worth $550. The majority of enthusiasts agree. 7970's are sold out pretty much everywhere. Personally I don't find them to be worth the premium but they are selling and AMD is making a huge profit so they could really care less what I think.

 

[thilanliyan]

580 is last gen, old news. 7 series is the new kid on the block, basing price/performance off the even more overpriced price of the 580 to justify any purchase is doing it wrong.

Great!! Where can I buy one?!

Oh...right.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I thought this way for the longest time.

You don't think that way anymore?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

so this card, overclocked at stock voltage, should be abotu the same or faster than the 580 at much lower price, right? it's the same chip as the 7970, it should overclock like a beast as well.

Looking at the specs I'm getting that it'll be about 5% faster than a GTX 580 stock. If you compare overclocking headroom that grows to about 10-15%.

 

[Grooveriding]

Looking at the specs I'm getting that it'll be about 5% faster than a GTX 580 stock. If you compare overclocking headroom that grows to about 10-15%.

I think this is going to depend on how much difference shaders make in AMD's new architecture. If it's like 6950/6970, the shaders made a miniscule difference and what mattered was clock speeds. I think shaders are going to make more of a difference with GCN though and will affect performance more than they did with Cayman.

The real question about the 7950 is can you unlock the disabled shaders on the core and do the 7950 cores clock like a 7970 when you overclock it. If it's like the 7970 where you see so many people hitting 1200-1300 on the core with some voltage, the card will be awesome. 7970 at 1200core is 50-80% faster than a GTX580. If people can overclock a 7950 to similar numbers and get 35-65% the performance of a GTX580 for the same price, they will be golden.

If you can unlock the cores/overclock like people did with the 6950, the card will be a hot seller. We need reviews on these, sites like [H]ard and techpowerup will definitely be trying to unlock and overclock their cards to 7970 levels.

 

[96Firebird]

So comparing a stock 580 to a stock 7970 really isn't an accurate comparison IMO.

Wait... what?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I think this is going to depend on how much difference shaders make in AMD's new architecture. If it's like 6950/6970, the shaders made a miniscule difference and what mattered was clock speeds. I think shaders are going to make more of a difference with GCN though and will affect performance more than they did with Cayman.

The real question about the 7950 is can you unlock the disabled shaders on the core and do the 7950 cores clock like a 7970 when you overclock it. If it's like the 7970 where you see so many people hitting 1200-1300 on the core with some voltage, the card will be awesome. 7970 at 1200core is 50-80% faster than a GTX580. If people can overclock a 7950 to similar numbers and get 35-65% the performance of a GTX580 for the same price, they will be golden.

If you can unlock the cores/overclock like people did with the 6950, the card will be a hot seller. We need reviews on these, sites like [H]ard and techpowerup will definitely be trying to unlock and overclock their cards to 7970 levels.

The reason why I don't think it'll make a big difference is that it shouldn't be limited when it comes to shading power. Comparing VLIW4 and GCN clock-for-clock, GCN obviously has far superior power. Even taking that into account, you see a minuscule 2-3% difference with 10% more shaders comparing the HD 6950 to the 6970. I'd expect that difference to be even smaller now; GCN has far more shading power clock-for-clock, meaning games won't be shader-limited.

I don't think it'll unlock. AMD is looking for higher margins, which will probably mean the 7950's shaders will be laser cut. There's also the loss of some texture units and memory bandwidth; it'll probably have lower speed rated memory. All in all, I expect the difference clock-for-clock between the 7970 and 7950 will be 10% and no more. Overclocking headroom will obviously be similar between both, obviously.

 

[Quantos]

Wait... what?

It's weird, I must say. Technically the comparison is sound, but also the 7970 is so easy to overclock, that it almost doesn't count. If everyone with a 7970 is able to jam the bars to the rights in CCC and get 1125 without further modifications, then it's a bit weird to be comparing the 7970 at stock speeds. After all, who's going to be buying one just to leave it at stock clocks?

Perhaps what could be a better comparison is to see what's the difference between the two cards when both receive an "easy overclock", that is, one that everyone could do?

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok. Sounds pretty good. If 28nm o/c's this well, then I'm sure nobody would mind any SKU comparison when o/c'd later on.

 

[BassBomb]

I just bought a 6950 2GB for $250, hoping it flashes to 6970...

Did I make the wrong move? (Game at 1920x1200)

Maybe I should go get another 6950 flashed and CF it

 

[blckgrffn]

It's weird, I must say. Technically the comparison is sound, but also the 7970 is so easy to overclock, that it almost doesn't count. If everyone with a 7970 is able to jam the bars to the rights in CCC and get 1125 without further modifications, then it's a bit weird to be comparing the 7970 at stock speeds. After all, who's going to be buying one just to leave it at stock clocks?

Perhaps what could be a better comparison is to see what's the difference between the two cards when both receive an "easy overclock", that is, one that everyone could do?

I feel about this the same I felt about the GTX 460 from nvidia when every argument was "hey, but if you OC it..."

My stance then was if nvidia wants the GTX 460 to have that level of performance, they should clock it accordingly or have a different SKU (560, evidently.)

If AMD has a 7970 Black Edition that runs at those clock speeds out of the gate, then great, let's take it into account.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of people for whom buying an add in video card and getting the drivers installed and working is the achievement. Perhaps this is more true in the south of the $200 segment than in the stratosphere where the 7970 currently resides, but I think the point is still valid. The only guaranteed clocks for the 7970 are the ones it ships with. Replace "7970" with any card you want and I'll stand by it.

That's just my 2c.

 

[superjim]

I just bought a 6950 2GB for $250, hoping it flashes to 6970...

Did I make the wrong move? (Game at 1920x1200)

Maybe I should go get another 6950 flashed and CF it

I've been holding off doing just this since mid-December. 2GB 6950 with aftermarket cooler for $210 AR from Newegg. I figure I should wait to see 7870/7850 numbers and OCs. Worst case, if they suck, I'll pick up a 6950 for no more than it is already.

 

[Quantos]

I feel about this the same I felt about the GTX 460 from nvidia when every argument was "hey, but if you OC it..."

My stance then was if nvidia wants the GTX 460 to have that level of performance, they should clock it accordingly or have a different SKU (560, evidently.)

If AMD has a 7970 Black Edition that runs at those clock speeds out of the gate, then great, let's take it into account.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of people for whom buying an add in video card and getting the drivers installed and working is the achievement. Perhaps this is more true in the south of the $200 segment than in the stratosphere where the 7970 currently resides, but I think the point is still valid. The only guaranteed clocks for the 7970 are the ones it ships with. Replace "7970" with any card you want and I'll stand by it.

That's just my 2c.

Ok. Sounds pretty good. If 28nm o/c's this well, then I'm sure nobody would mind any SKU comparison when o/c'd later on.

I understand your point, guys. The 7970 sold as it is, has 925MHz clocks, yes. A person shouldn't have to look only at benchmarks with overclocked cards and be forced to overclock the card to get such results.

Let me evolve my argument.

Let's ignore the 7970 itself for the moment, and talk graphic cards in general. Let's consider the fact that what we're trying to do here, is have a valid idea of how all of these products compare to each other.

The generally accepted stance is that graphics card should only be compared at stock clocks, or overclocked to overclocked. You're right in saying that comparing an overclocked card to one that is not is wrong, and I see where I went wrong here. My point instead is that the ease of overclock should have a much greater value. This is where the 7970 comparison to the 580 comes in. Because the ease of overclock that the 7970 is showing is uncanny at best, and unseen at most, it should be not only considered, but also valued. That is why comparing both of these cards at stock clocks is a moot point to me. Yes, it might not be the case for the user who just wants to buy the card and use it as is right away, but to me and many others, the fact that the 7970 can be overclocked so easily and so much has an obvious monetary value.

Thus, the question is: who are benchmarks made for? A typical reference vs reference benchmark would be made for users who don't necessarily want to overclock, and therefore the performance/$ shown is valid. However, for people who will surely overclock whatever product they buy, it's not necessarily valid. This is especially true in the case of the 580 vs 7970, as there is a huge discrepency in the overclocking ability of the cards. The difference between the two cards at stock clocks is less than the difference between the two overclocked.

Therefore, to me (and others I'm sure), a stock to stock comparison is meaningless. True enough, that doesn't mean that the overclocked 7970 should be compared to the stock 580. However, what it does mean that in itself, it's a useless comparison, as for overclockers, it doesn't represent true values.

(If I'm going wrong somewhere, tell me )

 

[SirPauly]

Stock to stock is the foundation and apples-to-apples considering over-clocking there are no guarantees one can reach higher levels. Some may reach extreme higher over-clocks and some may not. If it was so easy for all -- AMD would of clocked them higher.

It does seem that, like Fermi, the 7970's over-clock well and more importantly scale well. Bodes well for current and future products based on the GNC architecture. It's a selling point and important to over-clockers.

I see no problem with offering default performance and OC performance.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I live and die by overclocking, as such I put no stock in stock clock performance.

So I guess if you overclock you should value overclocking performance (on average) and if you don't you can simply ignore it and make choses purely on stock performance.

I personally would never have bought 470s if I didn't know I could get at least 30% overclocks out of them, getting 57% or more is just lulz at this point. Free performance boosts ftw!