Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Video Cards (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/)
-   -   HD7950 vs GTX660Ti (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/video-cards/58304-hd7950-vs-gtx660ti.html)

great_big_abyss December 5, 2012 08:01 AM

HD7950 vs GTX660Ti
 
Radeon HD 7950 vs. GeForce GTX 660 Ti revisited - The Tech Report

This is an awesome in-depth article comparing the 7950 Boost vs the 660Ti. They use their 'inside the second' testing methods, which helps to illustrate 'choppiness and microstutter', as well as average FPS. They use the most current drivers from both camps (12.11 AMD, 310.54 Nvidia) as well as a crop of the latest games released (from both 'Gaming Evolved' and 'The Way it's mean't to be played').

Anyway, it looks like I'll have to change my recommendation of the 7950 over the 660Ti, even with the game bundles.

EDIT: There is a re-do of this article. Apparently some forum members on TR didn't like the fact that Win8 was used during the initial benchmarks. They thought that Win7 would provide a more fluid experience and a more competitive battleground for the 7950. So, TR does just that.

7950 vs. GeForce GTX660Ti - Flogging a dead horse

From the last paragraph in the article:

Quote:

The question you have to ask is what matters to you. Do you want the graphics card that scores best in the FPS beauty pageant, or do you want that one that gives you the smoothest gaming experience when you fire up a freshly downloaded game this Christmas? If you just want bragging rights, by all means, choose the Radeon HD 7950. If you're looking for the friction-free fluidity that only comes from consistently quick frame delivery, though, our recommendation remains the GeForce GTX 660 Ti.

Bond007 December 5, 2012 02:04 PM

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.

JJThomp December 5, 2012 04:30 PM

No overclocking section :( really what does this review mean if you aren't overclocking these cards? I know plenty of people leave their cards at stock clocks but if you are looking this closely why would you omit that?

Also GW2 is a poor GPU benchmark. My 560ti achieves similar frame rates because it is largely bound by the CPU, also the segment they used is a little bit silly I don't know why they wouldn't go into a personal quest instance to do their testing where the environment is the same every time.

Ed103194 December 5, 2012 06:02 PM

7950 imo is better, I love nvidia but the 600 series just isnt really good, such as the voltage cap so oc is more dificult and the core boost I think is really stupid :/ I loved my 570, switched to 660 but now sold it for a 7970

Bond007 December 5, 2012 06:52 PM

Curious to see if sky has ever noticed this "lag" when testing.

great_big_abyss December 5, 2012 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bond007 (Post 675667)
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.

Silvgearx December 5, 2012 07:14 PM

I find it hard to believe the 7950 is slower than the gtx 660 ti.

BeaverBender December 5, 2012 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silvgearx (Post 675745)
I find it hard to believe the 7950 is slower than the gtx 660 ti.

Why do you have a hard time believing that?

terrybear December 6, 2012 03:19 PM

Ultimately there's no point recomending either card if we go by the leaked roadmap with 8xxx to launch the end of the month ....

8950 with 23xx SP's has me salavating to see the preformance numbers ...

great_big_abyss December 6, 2012 03:37 PM

Well, actually, they are relevent. The 7950/660Ti are currently priced around $300. When I bought my 7950 at launch I paid $470+tax. That's a HUGE disparity, and there is NO reason to think that the new 8xxx cards will not launch at that inflated price. Therefore, I predict that the 7950/660Ti will in fact remain relevant for at least a few monthes after the launch of the new cards (just like people still bought 560Ti's well after the release of the 7950/7870.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:39 AM.