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
Portal 2
Portal 2 continues the long and proud tradition of Valve’s in-house Source engine. While Source continues to be a DX9 engine, Valve has continued to upgrade it over the years to improve its quality, and combined with their choice of style you’d have a hard time telling it’s over 7 years old at this point. Consequently Portal 2’s performance does get rather high on high-end cards, but we have ways of fixing that…
Given Portal 2’s wide range of performance it’s possible to at least somewhat bog it down on the GPU side without any special tricks thanks to its heavier use of shaders than in past Valve titles. Given a fast enough card I believe we could hit the 300fps internal Source framerate cap on our testbed, but thankfully at 2560 we’re nowhere close. In any case at 2560 the 7970 is well into the stratosphere, delivering 128.9fps, which is 18% better than the GTX 580. Meanwhile at 1920 as with so many other benchmarks that lead shrinks, this time down to 11%. Meanwhile the 7970 enjoys a smaller lead over the 6970, beating it by only around 30% at either resolution.
The great thing about the Source engine is that it’s well studied, and by utilizing DirectX9 it’s open to a few more image quality enhancements than DX10+ games. We’ve always wanted to have a standard benchmark with more anti-aliasing than just MSAA, and Portal is the perfect candidate. So for the second part of this test, we’ve turned on Super Sample Anti-Aliasing (SSAA) through NVIDIA and AMD’s driver control panels. With SSAA the entire scene gets anti-aliased, going beyond just removing the jaggies at polygon edges and removing all signs of shader aliasing too, making Portal 2 a very good looking game.
As expected, SSAA makes the performance of everything tank. At 2560 the 7970 is well below 60fps, and every other single-GPU card is slower yet. Once we get down to 1920 performance finally reaches a point where it’s playable, as the 7970 reaches 72.2fps.
Compared to its competition, it’s interesting to note that we appear to have hit an entirely different set of bottlenecks by using SSAA. The 7970 leads the GTX 580 by 9% at both resolutions while it leads the 6970 by 25% under the same conditions. We believe that at this point we’re seeing the limitations of ROP performance, which would explain why the 7970’s lead diminishes versus both the GTX 580 and 6970. The additional bandwidth the 7970’s design affords the ROPs can only go so far until it once again becomes a matter of pixel pushing power.
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.