Hardware AMD Radeon 7970 3GB GHz Edition Review

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/31.html

1185 core

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/17

1150/1200 core

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=12

1150 core

so at the least 150 mhz overcloking on the core.... a bit more than ` 50mhz if your lucky`

 

nice1 AMD!!!! maybe see some bargain basement 680's soon?

 

the entire issue with the GTX680 ia 2GBs of ram. If it has 3GBs those numbers would be different.

 

Sadly they could not make a HD7990 (like the 4890) and have it be clocked much higher. The limits of silicon approaches.

 

How do you figure that?

CPC tested a 2Gb 680 alongside a 4Gb model and saw no appreciable difference between the two.

 

Multi monitor gaming I believe.

 

I think it was more the limited bandwidth than the actual amount of memory.

 

Increasing RAM size would do nothing, it would either take a wider bus or faster RAM.

An increase in RAM size then would only be effective if the games tested used a higher resolution. Hence my multi-monitor gaming remark.

 

680 2gb is not memory restricted outside of multi moniter resolutions. been proven on this forum by alot of different people

7970 uses more memory cause its there to use but games dont require it.

 

For those who want to compare with older cards, there is a website somewhere which lets you compare anything with anything. Unfortunately I lost the link

 

Do you mean this website?: http://www.hwcompare.com/

It's a pretty useful resource, however, unless there are actual game benchmark comparisons for the two cards you are trying to compare, it can be difficult to know how the theoretical differences translate into in-game performance

 

Just repeating what others have said; 4GB versions of the 680 are no faster than 2GB versions, even at 5,760 x 1080 (three-screen surround). It's the bus-size that's the limiting factor, something that using higher density chips do not help.

 

I too think that bandwidth is an issue with the 680. The ratio of compute to bandwidth has dropped HUGELY compared to the GTX 580, for starters.

Also if you look at power consumption on 680 SLI in multimonitor situations Battlefield 3 , despite being the most graphically demanding current title, does not draw the most at the wall. It is also known to be HIGHLY memory bandwidth sensitive.** I would theorise that the higher turbo states do not engage in this game at this resolution due to the GPUs not having enough data on hand to warrant maximum clock speeds.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/8

In this test Deus Ex. records the highest power consumption number I would guess due to it being both the *least* bandwidth sensitive title and best matching it's coding to the architecture of the GTX 680 GPU.


** See Battlefield 3 test results run with the VERY bandwidth limited Gefore GT 640 GDDR3

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5969/zotac-geforce-gt-640-review-/10

 

the 3gb 7970 is the sweet spot, most powerful gpu on the planet!!!

 

Yeah thats the link thanks I bookmarked it now.

 

Some data on how two of these perform on 6048*1080 (because who plays without bezel correction?) vs the 690 would be nice. After all you could get two for the price of a 690.