AMD Radeon HD 7970 Review: 28nm And Graphics Core Next, Together As One
by Ryan Smith on December 22, 2011 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
- AMD
- Radeon
- ATI
- Radeon HD 7000
Crysis: Warhead
Kicking things off as always is Crysis: Warhead. It’s no longer the toughest game in our benchmark suite, but it’s still a technically complex game that has proven to be a very consistent benchmark. Thus even 4 years since the release of the original Crysis, “but can it run Crysis?” is still an important question, and the answer continues to be “no.” While we’re closer than ever, full Enthusiast settings at a 60fps is still beyond the grasp of a single-GPU card.
This year we’ve finally cranked our settings up to full Enthusiast quality for 2560 and 1920, so we can finally see where the bar lies. To that extent the 7970 is closer than any single-GPU card before as we’d imagine, but it’s going to take one more jump (~20%) to finally break 60fps at 1920.
Looking at the 7970 relative to other cards, there are a few specific points to look at; the GTX 580 is of course its closest competitor, but we can also see how it does compared to AMD’s previous leader, the 6970, and how far we’ve come compared to DX10 generation cards.
One thing that’s clear from the start is that the tendency for leads to scale with the resolution tested still stands. At 2560 the 7970 enjoys a 26% lead over the GTX 580, but at 1920 that’s only a 20% lead and it shrinks just a bit more to 19% at 1680. Even compared to the 6970 that trend holds, as a 32% lead is reduced to 28% and then 26%. If the 7970 needs high resolutions to really stretch its legs that will be good news for Eyefinity users, but given that most gamers are still on a single monitor it may leave AMD closer to 40nm products in performance than they’d like.
Speaking of 40nm products, both of our dual-GPU entries, the Radeon HD 6990 and GeForce GTX 590 are enjoying lofty leads over the 7970 even with the advantage of its smaller fabrication process. To catch up to those dual-GPU cards from the 6970 would require a 70%+ increase in performance, and even with a full node difference it’s clear that this is not going to happen. Not that it’s completely out of reach for the 7970 once you start looking at overclocking, but the reduction in power usage when moving from TSMC 40nm to 28nm isn’t nearly large enough to make that happen while maintaining the 6970’s power envelope. Dual-GPU owners will continue to enjoy a comfortable lead over even the 7970 for the time being, but with the 7970 being built on a 28nm process the power/temp tradeoff for those cards is even greater compared to 40nm products.
Meanwhile it’s interesting to note just how much progress we’ve made since the DX10 generation though; at 1920 the 7970 is 130% faster than the GTX 285 and 170% faster than the Radeon HD 4870. Existing users who skip a generation are a huge market for AMD and NVIDIA, and with this kind of performance they’re in a good position to finally convince those users to make the jump to DX11.
Finally it should be noted that Crysis is often a good benchmark for predicting overall performance trends, and as you will see it hasn’t let us down here. How well the 7970 performs relative to its competition will depend on the specific game, but 20-25% isn’t too far off from reality.
Looking at our minimum framerates it’s a bit surprising to see that while the 7970 has a clear lead when it comes to average framerates the minimums are only significantly better at 2560. At that resolution the lowest framerate for the 7970 is 23.5 versus 20 for the GTX 580, but at 1920 that becomes a 2fps, 5% difference. It’s not that the 7970 was any less smooth in playing Crysis, but in those few critical moments it looks to be dipping a bit more than the GTX 580.
Compared to the 6970 on the other hand the minimum framerate difference is much larger and much more consistent. At 2560 the 7970’s minimums are 29% better, and even at lower resolutions it holds at around 25%. Clearly even with AMD’s new architecture their designs still inherit some of the traits of their old designs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
292 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Since 1920x1200 has already been commented on elsewhere I'm just going to jump right to your comment on minimum FPS.I completely agree, and we're trying to add it where it makes sense. A lot of benchmarks are wildly inconsistent about their minimum FPS, largely thanks to the fact that minimum FPS is an instantaneous data point. When your values vary by 20%+ per run (as minimums often do), even averaging repeated trials isn't nearly accurate enough to present meaningful results.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, March 8, 2012 - link
HardOCP shows long in game fps per second charts that show dips and bottom outs are more than one momentary lapse and often are extended time periods of lowest frame rate runs, so I have to respectfully disagree.Perhaps the fault is fraps can show you a single instance of lowest frame rate number, and hence it's the analysis that utterly fails - given the time constraints that were made obvious, it is also clear that the extra work it would take for an easily reasoned and reasonable result that is actually of worthy accuracy is not in the cards here.
thunderising - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Okay. This card has left me thrilled, but wanting for more. Why?Well, for example, every reviewer has hit the CCC Core and Memory Max Limits, which turns into a healthy 10-12% performance boost, all for 10W.
What, legit reviews got it to 1165MHz core and 6550Mhz memory for a 21-24% increase in performance. Now that's HUGE!
I think AMD could have gone for something like this with the final clocks, to squeeze out every last bit of performance from this amazing card:
Core - 1050 MHz
Memory - 1500 MHz (6000MHz QDR)
This was not only easily achievable, but would have placed this card at a 8-10% increase in performance all for a mere <10W rise in Load Power.
Hoping for AIBs like Sapphire to show their magic! HD7970 Toxic, MmmmmmM...
Otherwise, fantastic card I say.
Death666Angel - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link
Maybe they'll do a 4870/4890 thing again? Launch the HD7970 and HD7970X2 and then launch a HD7990 with higher clocks later to counter nVidia.... Who knows. :-)Mishera - Sunday, December 25, 2011 - link
They've been doing it for quite some time now. Their plan has been to release a chip balancing die size, performance, and cost. Then later to compete on high end release a dual-chip card. Anand wrote on this a while ago with the rv770 story (http://www.anandtech.com/show/2679).Even looking at the picture of chip sizes, the 7970 is still a reasonable size. And this really was a brilliant move as though Nvidia has half the marketshare and does make a lot of money from their cards, their design philosophy has been hurting them a lot from a business standpoint.
On a side note, Amd really made a great choice by choosing to wait until now to push for general computing. Though that probably means more people to support development and drivers, which means more hiring which is the opposite way Amd has been going. It will be interesting to see how this dichotomy will develop in the future. But right now kudos to Amd.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, March 8, 2012 - link
Does that mean amd is abandoning gamers as we heard the scream whilst Nvidia was doing thus ?I don't quite get it - now what nvidia did that hurt them, is praise worthy since amd did it, finally.
Forgive me as I scoff at the immense dichotomy...
"Perfect ripeness at the perfect time" - sorry not buying it....
privatosan - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
PRT is a nice feature, but there is an failure in the article:'For AMD’s technology each tile will be 64KB, which for an uncompressed 32bit texture would be enough room for a 4K x 4K chunk.'
The tile would be 128 x 128 texels; 4K x 4K would be quite big for a tile.
futrtrubl - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
I was going to comment on that too. A 4k x 4k x 32bit (4byte) texture chunk would be around 67MB uncompressed. For a 32bit texture you could only fit a 128x128 array in a 64KB chunk. An 8bit/pixel texture could be 4k*4kStonedofmoo - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Thanks for the review. A request though...To the hardware sites doing these reviews, many of us in this day and age run dual monitor or more. It always frustrates in me in these reviews that we get a long write up on the power saving techniques the new cards use, and never any mention of it helps those of us running more than one display.
For those not in the know, if you run more than one display on all the current generations the cards do NOT downclock the GPU and memory nearly as much as they do on single montor configurations. This burns quite a lot more power and obviously kicks out more heat. No site ever mentions this which is odd considering so many of us have more than one display these days.
I would happily buy the card that finally overcomes this and actually finds a way of knocking back the clocks with multi-monitor setups. Is the new Radeon 7xxx series that card?
Galcobar - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
It's in the article, on the page entitled "Meet the Radeon 7970."Ryan also replied to a similar comment by quoting the paragraph addressing multi-monitor setups and power consumption at the top of page of the comments.
That's two mentions, and the answer to your question.