View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old December 5, 2012, 07:02 PM
great_big_abyss's Avatar
great_big_abyss great_big_abyss is offline
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,272

My System Specs


Originally Posted by Bond007 View Post
While I do like the idea behind these type of reviews I can't help but wonder if the results are actually noticeable when playing. Can the human eye actually detect this? If there were multiple reviews of people saying they noticed the 7950 felt choppy, etc, I would hands down agree. That isn't the case, and until then I have a hard time with this review. Its still interesting, but for the time being I still say the 7950 is a better value.
I definitely noticed something when I had my 7950. And, I'm only running 1920x1200, so the 7950 should have been more than enough card for the job. And yet, somehow, it just didn't seem right. Nothing that you could put your finger on.

Then I got my 680, and immediately noticed a difference. It was just so much smoother. Now, I know it's not Apples to Apples. A 7950 vs a 680 is NOT a fair comparison. BUT, I'm saying that the 7950 should have been enough card to provide perfectly smooth framerates at the resolution that I'm running. The GTX680 should not have provided any noticeable difference. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 50fps and 70fps (especially on a 60HZ monitor, lol). However, MicroStutter could possibly provide some sort of unwanted visual feedback. The 680 just feels smoother, overall.

Now, I'm not saying the 7950 provided a bad experience, not by any stretch of the imagination. It's just that the 6xx series card seems to provide a much better one.

HTPC: Z77A-G45; 3770K; Zalman FX70; 2x4GB Kingston HyperX 1600Mhz; MSI GTX960; 2x 128GB Crucial M4 SSD; 4TB WD Red, 2x 2TB WD Green; Corsair RM650I; Corsair Carbide 600C;
Son's Rig: M5A97; FX8350; CNPS20LQ; 2x4GB Corsair Vengeance 1600Mhz; Powercolor 7950; 250GB Crucial MX200; 320GB WD Black HDD; SPI 700W; Bitfenix Shinobi;
Reply With Quote