Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 113
  1. #41
    Mutterator
    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cbus Ohio
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry View Post
    Actually, from what I heard, AMD sent the chips to Asus, MSI, and etc early and told them they didnt have to launch with the reference design, that they could pretty much do what they wanted.

    Now wether or not they decide to do this, is up to them, but I dont think you will that many reference designs this release.
    I think you will see the opposite of this actually...

    Normally reference designs hit the store shelves first anyway. Second I think, at least for this launch, quite the opposite happened. Im not sure board partners got much more if any (I also heard one company didnt receive the reference cards until AFTER the select group of reviewers got them) lead time this go around.

    AS far as LATE next year, I would imagine we will see these come out shortly after release. "Late next year" means 3Q to me and thats a but silly to think that is when the first non reference boards will come out. I would expect them in February to March personally.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

  2. #42
    Benching Senior on Siesta
    Premium Member #8


    Brolloks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Land of Long Horns
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by dejo View Post
    I am wondering if anyone has a pair of them to test scaling in xfire. would be very interesting to see what 2 of these brutes would do in some competition benchmarks
    That will yield some pretty hefty benchmarks I'm sure, AMD has really invested a lot of effort in maximizing CF performance from the 6800 series onward, much more than their green competitors with SLI

  3. #43
    Glorious Leader I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Rootstown, OH
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Hardwareheaven did crossfire tests, and it crushed stuff. Good read, and they also have pretty artwork, though it looks like their ad sales department is owned by AMD lol:
    http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html

    We also have more than one at this point if I'm not mistaken, so we may be doing our own results if we can get them in the same location.

    As for PCIe2.0 vs PCIe3.0 - stay tuned for further results in those departments. Some reviews are reporting no benefits, others are reporting benefits - it depends on how its tested, and possibly also on configuration of the test system. Some are saying benefit is only seen in GPU compute situations which are bandwidth heavy, others are saying there was no difference in their tests.
    The OC Forums Way
    We are a team. We are a community. We are a fellowship made strong by mutual respect and shared dedication to the task of enriching all who come here.
    The OC Forums Thank You Thread
    Put your computer to work for our OC Forum Teams!
    Try out our POST TEMPLATES, they save you time answering common questions!

    I spend half my money on CPUs, GPUs, and Liquid Nitrogen. The other half I waste.

  4. Thanks!

    Janus67 (12-23-11)

  5. #44
    mxthunder's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    I think they are a little AMD bias'd. They pride themselves on "bench marking practice" yet they turned on phyx for the Batman testing. What better way to kill framerates on the nvidia side.
    i7 4790K @ 4.8GHz
    Gigabyte G1 Sniper 5
    2x8GB Ripjaws @ 2200 9-11-11 1T
    XSPC res + D5, RS360 + EK 120mm rad
    GeForce GTX780Ti w/custom bios @1300mhz
    EVGA 1000P PSU
    1TB 840EVO / 2TB HDD
    LG 27" 1080p
    Corsair Obsidian 700D

    My GPU collection

  6. #45
    Glorious Leader I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Rootstown, OH
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by mxthunder View Post
    I think they are a little AMD bias'd. They pride themselves on "bench marking practice" yet they turned on phyx for the Batman testing. What better way to kill framerates on the nvidia side.
    Wow, I didn't look at that part. That is pretty bad testing methodology - if they wanted to show those results, they should have also presented the results without physx.
    The OC Forums Way
    We are a team. We are a community. We are a fellowship made strong by mutual respect and shared dedication to the task of enriching all who come here.
    The OC Forums Thank You Thread
    Put your computer to work for our OC Forum Teams!
    Try out our POST TEMPLATES, they save you time answering common questions!

    I spend half my money on CPUs, GPUs, and Liquid Nitrogen. The other half I waste.

  7. #46
    Premium Member #5


    bmwbaxter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile Rosetta Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    , anyway, the point they make.. do you need PhysX nowadays when Intel is delivering us CPUs with Alienpower? Finally the result counts and if Nvidia want to crush themself by overusing theyr GPU... well yeah, i guess they just wanted to make a point. My view is, the GPU on next gen graphics got so much rendering to handle, it truly would be happy to hand over the physics job to a CPU, and they truly can do that. Its just not true when Nvidia is telling us that only a GPU can be doing it, i dont believe it. For games a CPU usualy is handling AI and physics, thats what they are here for, in theory. Many years ago (C2D and older) CPUs surely had much higher impact on gaming performance because they had more work to do, nowadays thats pretty much GPU limited (especially on high res).
    an nvidia GPU with physX is way better than a cpu at physics type work. have you played a game that supports PhysX on an nVidia card? it totally blows away anything the cpu can bring. yes it is a load on the gpu but it is also something that AMD does not even offer so having it on while comparing it to and AMD gpu is not fair and IMO takes away credibility for doing so. because if they did that there, where else did they give the card an unfair advantage over sli gtx 580's


    (this is in regards to hardware secrets and is in no way implying anything at all towards the overclockers.com review of the 7970)
    SSD > PCMark 05
    freeagent - Torture is watching all these 2600k's kicking my rig in the mosfets

  8. #47
    Premium Member #5


    bmwbaxter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, Ontario
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile Rosetta Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Havoc should be able to do the same thing, if the CPU goes down the roof it can aswell be used on Havoc, although im truly no expert at those stuff.

    They truly should make something non proprietary and it took a long time till Nvidia only partially gave away theyr proprietary rights to own any single piece of it and therefore make devs unable to implement anything like that on Radeon, as far as i know. However, the statement of AMD/ATI was always pretty clear, that they dont feel the urge need of something like that. So they usualy gave pretty low support to devs tryring to implement something. I remember, Nvidia had aswell other software which is licensed and when MS was moving from a Nvidia to a ATI GPU on Xbox, they had to pay license fee for even being able to run that kind of software on a Radeon. I mean, Nvidia truly was mean with stuff like this, im glad they finally tried to open the matters a bit, giving devs more access to implement stuff on Radeon.

    I aswell dunno what you mean by "blow away" in particullar, you might tell me, im interested. At a game like Shogun Wars with a pretty high physics need (insane amount of units), a CPU still can successfully run it. Now what kind of phyics do you have in mind which is unable to be run on any CPU?
    This will be my last post that has anything to do with this subject so as not to derail the thread to much

    Mafia II the physics (glass breaking, car blowing up, clothes blowing, pretty much everything) in that game with PhysX enabled was IMO so much more realistic than with just the cpu handling physics. I have 2 GTX 580's and only run 1 1920x1080 monitor so fps was not an issue with PhysX enabled so I tried it with PhysX enabled and with just cpu. GPU's blow away any cpu in these type of situations.
    SSD > PCMark 05
    freeagent - Torture is watching all these 2600k's kicking my rig in the mosfets

  9. #48
    Member pwnmachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Havoc should be able to do the same thing, if the CPU goes down the roof it can aswell be used on Havoc, although im truly no expert at those stuff.

    They truly should make something non proprietary and it took a long time till Nvidia only partially gave away theyr proprietary rights to own any single piece of it and therefore make devs unable to implement anything like that on Radeon, as far as i know. However, the statement of AMD/ATI was always pretty clear, that they dont feel the urge need of something like that. So they usualy gave pretty low support to devs tryring to implement something. I remember, Nvidia had aswell other software which is licensed and when MS was moving from a Nvidia to a ATI GPU on Xbox, they had to pay license fee for even being able to run that kind of software on a Radeon. I mean, Nvidia truly was mean with stuff like this, im glad they finally tried to open the matters a bit, giving devs more access to implement stuff on Radeon.

    I aswell dunno what you mean by "blow away" in particullar, you might tell me, im interested. At a game like Shogun Wars with a pretty high physics need (insane amount of units), a CPU still can successfully run it. Now what kind of phyics do you have in mind which is unable to be run on any CPU?

    Finally i do want the better hardware to win, not the one being a wonder of software implementations. Besides, devs are always free to create open source for Radeon, but apparently rarely anyone ever going to do it and dunno why. Maybe because the devs nowadays just want to have everything shoven inside theyr mouth, already warmed up and served on a silver plate, seriously, where is the true dev skill? Are we nowadays totaly ruled and bound by the harsh rules of money and economics? So we aswell start to move away more and more from PCs because consoles simply are more bucks? And so we lose a lot of quality because many of those dont even try to tune a game for good PC hardware anymore..? Well yeah.. who knows.

    Its surely good that Nvidia is trying to drag devs toward theyr side but they truly have to work together with devs and aswell with AMDs Radeon somehow, not only trying to boost themself. Even as a competitor working together in many aspects brings more power regarding software tuning.

    That was un-called-for, don't you think? -hokie



    I can't wait to see some tri/quad-fire benchmarks.
    Last edited by hokiealumnus; 12-23-11 at 11:35 PM.

  10. #49
    Member pwnmachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by bmwbaxter View Post

    Mafia II the physics (glass breaking, car blowing up, clothes blowing, pretty much everything) in that game with PhysX enabled was IMO so much more realistic than with just the cpu handling physics. I have 2 GTX 580's and only run 1 1920x1080 monitor so fps was not an issue with PhysX enabled so I tried it with PhysX enabled and with just cpu. GPU's blow away any cpu in these type of situations.
    I agree 100%, PhysX when used to its full potential is quite amazing. The only reason it is not used to it full capacity is simply the fact that there is no install base. Therefore developers see no benefit of adding the extra effort to implement it in any meaningful way.

    Look at Cryostasis; imo one of the best survival horror games released this generation. Amazing tech flawless physx implementation however its sales were poor. That is all that really matters to developers.
    i5 2500k @ 4.8 gHz. 1.3v..................Q9650 @ 4.0 gHz.
    GSkill 8GB 1866Mhz..........................XMS3 1600mHz 4gb
    Asus P8P67 Pro B3...........................790i Ultra FTW
    MSI 980TI Armor 2X.........................XFX 5970 BE + XFX 5850
    CM Hyper 212..................................Scythe Mugen II
    CM Cosmos S Modified......................NZXT H2
    Custom Maple Gaming Case

  11. #50
    Glorious Leader I.M.O.G.'s Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Rootstown, OH
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    hardwareheaven (not hardwaresecrets) said they ran Batman with physics on because everyone with a nvidia card would run the game with physics on, so it was more of a real life result.

    I disagree with their approach and presentation, however they did make it clear how the test was run and that is important.

  12. #51
    Overclockers Team Content Editor
    Shelnutt2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    /home/
    Folding Profile
    Hoki, I just wanted to drop in and say thanks for thinking about fah again!! I know you didn't have time to run it in the short lead but you thought about it, and I really think if we become known for always throwing in some fah benches on hardware we might just get a few extra page views. So here is to looking forward to the results (and hoping AMD is catching up to nvidia in fah!)
    Build!.Borg!.Recruit!.Folding.for.Team.32!
    Gigabyte P35-DS3R, E6300, 2x512MB Team Group DDR2 667, EVGA 7800GT Heat

    Want to run the folding@home gpu client in linux?
    www.linuxfah.info

    Your teacher is a dumbass. The equation is exact. ~Frodo Baggins
    Damn....It's 12:00 AM and I thought my 805 would be a magic pumkin and turn into a conroe.........boy was I fooled:) ~Stilletto
    This is what I get for not only being a newb, but also disregarding instructions! ~ShadowPho
    I hate women... but im not gay lol. ~MrCrowley
    Love can fade but knowledge stays forever (unless you develop alzheimers). ~Constantinos

  13. #52
    Senior Member


    Bobnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile Rosetta Profile
    The thing is, turning physx off doesn't show you the max the CPU can do, it shows you the max Nvidia allowed the game designer to run on the CPU.
    A modern top end CPU can run a far better physics model than they get credit for, because nvidia seems to demand that all the "physx" type eye candy be disabled if physx is turned off, even the stuff that could run happily on the CPU.
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." -- Einstein (maybe)

    Thinking about an Asus motherboard? Think again.

    How to check your PSU with a multimeter.

    17bXw5t51rEBXGavJFMJsC8g7HQgThUGc7

  14. #53
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead Editor
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelnutt2 View Post
    Hoki, I just wanted to drop in and say thanks for thinking about fah again!! I know you didn't have time to run it in the short lead but you thought about it, and I really think if we become known for always throwing in some fah benches on hardware we might just get a few extra page views. So here is to looking forward to the results (and hoping AMD is catching up to nvidia in fah!)
    Just sorry I couldn't run it in time. I haven't run a gpu client for years since an 8800GTX. If there are any tips or tricks, definitely pm them. I'll try to get some numbers in the coming week for you.

  15. #54
    Senior Member
    MIAHALLEN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Belize
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    I know, I know....I'm slow

    Good read Jeremy, nice work taking down my scores....those were leading the team for far too long

  16. Thanks!

    hokiealumnus (12-27-11)

  17. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last edited by mikeyw; 12-29-11 at 08:48 AM.
    i7-2600k @ 4.7GHz @ 1.380 V| AsRock Extreme4 Gen3 | 8GB 1600MHz 9-9-9-24 1T
    EVGA GTX 570 @ 840MHz/2000MHz | 120GB Samsung 830 | 1TB Spinpoint F3

  18. #56
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead Editor
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    Awesome. Look at those memory clocks too. Over the next-highest result, that is a 400 MHz core clock improvement over a GTX580 (1180 vs. the next-hightest 580 at 1560). These things are DX11 beasts!

    Enjoy benchmarks? Join the benching team!
    New to water cooling? Read the Beginner's Guide to Water Cooling Your PC.
    I.M.O.G. - "Night benching is the answer. Start sleeping every other day. Other than an occassional narcoleptic episode, its been wor"
    \m/ OverClockers mATX L33T Club \m/ - Join Now! - My mITX Build

  19. #57

    Über Sad Face

    I would love to own a card like this, money isnt the issue, i can save up for it np. However, i would need to remake my entire computer to handle the dang thing. Stats: Phenom II 1055T 2.8GHz X6
    ASRock N68 VS3 UCC MOBO
    AMD HD 6670 1GB Graphics Card
    2x 4GB DDR3 1333MHz RAM
    450W Power Supply
    Nvidia Geforce 7025/630a Chipset

    Yea, im good on RAM, maybe i need some with better MHz? Need a better case. and power supply. PS!!! Hint: its alot harder to switch out parts in a gaming comp as to just building your own from case up.

  20. #58
    Water Cooled Moderator
    Overclockers.com Lead Editor
    hokiealumnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Author Profile Benching Profile Heatware Profile
    If you're serious that money isn't an issue, you might want to just sell the whole prebuilt unit as a whole and do just that, building from the case up.

    Enjoy benchmarks? Join the benching team!
    New to water cooling? Read the Beginner's Guide to Water Cooling Your PC.
    I.M.O.G. - "Night benching is the answer. Start sleeping every other day. Other than an occassional narcoleptic episode, its been wor"
    \m/ OverClockers mATX L33T Club \m/ - Join Now! - My mITX Build

  21. #59
    Benching Team Leader
    Buckeye Moderator
    Janus67's Avatar
    10 Year Badge
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Columbus
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    To sad phils processor didnt clock higher, else it would be completly devastating on DX11. 1610 memory clock, ok not world record but extremely high and the 7970 with its new 384 bit bus can make big use of it. I mean that thing is on stock cooling, the processor/memory can still go up!

    Short time after release, only a few 7970 ever tested yet, and the superclocked 7970 beats it by a large margin, im impressed. Also, the Radeon seems to work on quad fire it seems? The highest is currently 6970 on quad. However, that will be beaten soon.

    Although the Unigine Heaven is a pretty demanding engine which makes high use of the tesselation. But i still didnt expect to have the 580 GTX beating that soon at those superclocked ones. We still only had a bundle of 7970 tested ever.

    Quote:
    No more competition with HD 7970... the GTX 580 era finished...
    To be fair, when people with ATI cards run Heaven they disable Tesselation in their drivers to get a much higher score.
    Haswell Benching and Gaming: ASRock Z87 OC Formula : Intel i7 4770k w/ Phanteks PH-TC14 : 16GB 4x4GB G.Skill TridentX DDR3-2666 : MSI GTX 1080 Gaming Z
    Other Components: Samsung 850 Evo 500GB SSD : 2TB Hitachi 7200rpm : Seasonic Platinum 1000W : 3x1440p: Asus MG279q, Auria EQ276W, Crossover P27Q


    Folding User Stats

  22. #60
    Mutterator
    Overclockers.com Editor
    First Responders

    EarthDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Cbus Ohio
    Author Profile Benching Profile Folding Profile Heatware Profile
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus67 View Post
    To be fair, when people with ATI cards run Heaven they disable Tesselation in their drivers to get a much higher score.


    Absolutely. Thats a HUGE difference since you can adjust the level of tessellation in the benchmark.

    "We have more information and more ways of accessing it than ever, yet seem increasingly less inclined to do so."- Michael Wilbon

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •