What's HD 7950 Performance Like?

Discussion in 'General Technical Support' started by ConsPark, Nov 29, 2012.

  1. So I'm considering an upgrade from my measly GTX560 to an HD 7950, doing some overclocking to push it to 7970 numbers. Do any of you out there run a 7950, OC'd or not, and if so what's your performance like? For reference, my other primary specs are i5 2500k @ 3.3GHz and 8GB DDR3 1333.
  2. This game is mostly CPU, 560 is easily enough to pump out max in this game.
  3. To the above user: NO, it is NOT. Even my 7950 is using 100% GPU usage. I'm using RadeonPro to enhance the graphics quality beyond the UserOptions.ini settings of ultra, graphics are very nice.

    I have an AMD FX-8120 @4Ghz with 16GB 1800MHz DDR3 and my 7950 is overclocked to 1200Mhz core and 1575MHz memory, which is up 50% from its' reference clocks. All settings are on the hidden ultra setting, and renderdistance is set to 750, framerates are very awesome, but they would be better if I had two 7950s.

    Without RadeonPro, and using the hidden ultra mode in UserOptions. I get 50FPS minimum, 70FPS average, 90FPS max. With RadeonPro which can make the driver produce much higher quality textures via TextureLOD and mipmap quality (Ive set to maximum), (it can also enable triple buffering D3D and vsync for extremely fluid framerates), FPS is 30 minimum, 50 average, 70FPS max.

    This is also with a 7950 that has been flashed to the AMD Boost BIOS, at these frequencies, it's well beyond GTX 680 level of performance.
  4. You're an idiot. This game is CPU dependent. You're using an unoptimized graphical settings. This game is not GPU dependant at all, my GTX 550 ti is never GPU bound at .ini Ultra.
  5. That's not convincing at all, and calling me an idiot only makes you look like a fool. You must not have experience in the technical field, which I have degrees and certifications in. If your GPU is running at 100%, it's definitely GPU limited. Afterburner reports 100% usage with the game running. Maybe you should buy a better CPU. The game needs a lot of memory bandwidth as well, so if your GPU has sucky memory, that will hurt your framerates a lot. If you have low grade 1333Mhz RAM you will also see a hit to performance.
  6. Did you not read my post? My card runs absolutely fine. Alt+F and my own diagnostics show that I am CPU bound. And this isn't about my computer, it's about OPs, and I was telling him his GPU is fine and he needs a new CPU. You must not have experience in the technical field.
  7. Also, "degrees and certifications" means you know how to slap a ghost build onto a broken machine, maybe fix some registry errors. maybe a term you should use next time is "experience".
    • Up x 1
  8. I don't think the personal attacks are warranted, Auditore. Calling someone an idiot because they disagree with or correct you is both petty and childish. I don't understand why we can't have a civil discussion about whether the thread-starter will see a big boost going from one video card to another or even if the game is using GPUs to their fullest extent or if a GPU upgrade will make no difference since it is so CPU-intensive.
  9. Saying that I'm wrong and then going on while he's using unoptimized graphical settings and also using driver software to force his card to work more is pretty moronic.

    He's saying that his GPU is working 100% and that I'm completely and utterly wrong (which is hilarious when the devs said themselves that the game is CPU dependent), while providing hilariously inaccurate anecdotes.

    For him to have ground to stand on, he would have to provide his GPU load percentage (which is still hilarious) while running under UI-allowed settings (instead of using options that only one of which actually work (textures)), and not be using drivers to force his card harder.
    • Up x 1
  10. "This is also with a 7950 that has been flashed to the AMD Boost BIOS, at these frequencies, it's well beyond GTX 680 level of performance."

    errmm no, not if you mean 925mhz (boost bios), technically the boost is from 800 to 850, but it allows up to 925 when applications demand it.

    The 7000 series saw a major increase in performance with the 12.11 drivers, but with the exception of "Alien vs Predator" and "Sleeping Dog" the HD7950 is slower than the GTX680 in every game tested by techspot. The 7970Ghz edition however does outperfrom the GTX680 by 11%, the standard 7970 outperforms it by 2%. Which means that you must OC your HD7950 beyond the boost settings and go a bit further than the standard HD7970 in order to outperform a GTX680.

    Source: http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/

    Price/performance wise the HD7950 wins heavily though :)

    @ OP:
    The HD7950 is by far the best option price/performance wise if you can afford it and it produced 40-50% more fps than the GTX560 in the games tested by techspot. It may of course not apply for PS2 as it was not included in the test.

    PS2 is also known to be rather CPU hungry, some claim it is because it is poorly optimized for multiple cores thus not being able to utilize the power available and thereby making it necessary to have a lot more CPU compared to other game titles.

    In general a 2500K should suffice for ANY game today, if you suspect that it is the bottleneck you can try to overclock it. Since you have the unlocked K version this should be achievable without much effort. If your performance increased then you are CPU bottlenecked, if it doesn't increase then you are GPU bottlenecked. I sincerely doubt that a 2500K can bottleneck your GTX560 though and anyone claiming so should read more hardware reviews. If it does bottleneck you it is undoubtedly because of poorly utilization and not because of the chip itself.

    In any case, in terms of general increase in gaming performance for your computer your GPU is the "weakest" link and is bottlenecking your fps output. As you increase the resolution to 1920x1080 and beyond, almost every game title available becomes heavily GPU bound. If you google some hardware reviews you will find that most CPU's score within 1-10 fps of each other at high resolution game play.
    Source: http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/15973-amd-fx-8350-vishera/12#pagehead - this page is in swedish, but you should be able to make out the meaning of the graphs.

    So regardless of PS2, if you also play other titles or plan to do so, I would recommend you spend your money on a HD7950 before you think about swapping CPU's.
  11. A 560 TI can play this game on all high settings with massive explosions etc. The game is CPU Bound. Buying a 7950 just for this game is a waste. Might as well buy a decent cpu cooler and enable turbo boost to 4 Ghz on core 0 and 1 and leave 2 and 3 on 3.6 Ghz.

    Your best upgrade right now is a decent cpu cooler and i recommend the Coolermaster Hyper 212 EVO. Its cheap and it does the job well.
  12. You do realise that the performance difference in games between a 2500K, the 3570K, the 3770K or for that matter the 3960X is somewhere between 0-10%? The fact is that the only real advantage the newer 3770K or 3960X hold is performance in heavy multi-threaded tasks which in general does not include gaming.

    source:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/5
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/7
    http://techreport.com/review/22835/review-intel-core-i7-3770k-ivy-bridge-processor/9
    http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

    (the sources linked to is mostly the page for BF3 which is more GPU bound, check out the CIV 5 with "no render" for a heavy CPU bound test, read the whole test for more on other titles/applications).
  13. All i stated was that he should buy a cpu cooler for $35. And enable plus adjust turbo boost settings in the bios. Its a good investment anyway.
  14. A cpu running cooler is always an improvement, but before spending money on it I suggest the OP tries a fair OC that should push performance without increasing temperatures by too much. As long as you do not need to increase the voltage for stability, you should be within a safe range. Monitor the temp at all times though.
  15. Got a Palit GTX680 here, whenever my FPS drops, it's due to CPU power not being sufficient, playing settings on high.
  16. I didn't know about that hidden setting. I'll have to check that out after the upgrade. Regarding your overclock, though, what sort of cooling system are you running? I use a HAF 932 case so I've got plenty of ventilation, but overclocking that hard (even for a card that's known for being a great overclocker) has got to generate stupendous amounts of heat. I'm interested in OCing a 7950 for sure, but I'm not certain I could push it that hard.

    I don't plan on getting a new CPU til I do a full system rebuild; even then I might not since the 2500K is such a strong CPU all around. And I do play plenty of other games besides PS2. This upgrade isn't specifically for PS2 but PS2's performance is one of the biggest reasons why I want an upgrade right now. That said, PS2 is the most intensive thing I play regularly, the others being Battlefield 3, Minecraft, EVE Online, WoW, TF2, and various others. In addition, I've got my eyes on Star Citizen (go check it out!) two years down the road, so possibly going Crossfire at some point is another consideration. Crossfire numbers for the 7950s are quite impressive.
  17. I'm running an i7 2600k oc'd to 4ghz with an MSI 7950 twin frz oc'd slightly over the default overclock. I get roughly 60 to 70 fps with dips down to 40ish in heavy battles (running custom settings, combination of mid + high). The game pretty much goes back and forth between CPU and GPU on the little thingy at the bottom left (alt f or whatever it is)
  18. For BF3 you will see a definitive increase in fps pretty much linear with the increase in GPU performance, your CPU plays little role in that game title. WoW is actually greatly affected by CPU, intel has a stronghold here but there is no reason to upgrade from your 2500K. The three other titles mentioned I have no experience with.

    In the end PS2 is the only game I can think about that requires more CPU power, the only problem is that with a 2500K you are already close to the pinnacle. Simply put, if you upgrade to 3770K or 3960X you get more threads and more cores, but PS2 will not use them, or use them very little. You should also have no trouble overclocking your 2500K to performance levels of a 2600K / 3570K.

    Regarding the HD7950 I suggest you get a custom cooled one, Sapphire, Asus direct CU and Gigabyte Windforce 3 are all good options that should allow you to reach at least 1100mhz+ with ease. I pushed my card to 1150mhz/1375mhz last night with a max core voltage at 1,125V and 5% power increase which is barely more than the stock 1,090v - at the most I saw temperatures at about 76 celcius.

    At 1150/1375 the card became audible, but not what you would call loud. Personally I prefer a silent computer and I managed that with a 1050mhz core clock and the stock memory clock (which I dont remember at the time, think its 1250mhz)

    I used MSI afterburn for the overclock which builds on RivaTuner, by far the best tool compared to Sapphire's Trixx or Gigabyte's own OC guru. The main pro is that you can change core voltage without having to go to BIOS (adjusting voltage must be enabled in options).

Share This Page