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
Metro: 2033
Paired with Crysis as our second behemoth FPS is Metro: 2033. Metro gives up Crysis’ lush tropics and frozen wastelands for an underground experience, but even underground it can be quite brutal on GPUs, which is why it’s also our new benchmark of choice for looking at power/temperature/noise during a game. If its sequel due this year is anywhere near as GPU intensive then a single GPU may not be enough to run the game with every quality feature turned up.
As often as we concern ourselves with Crysis and 60fps, with Metro it’s a struggle just to break 30fps. The 7970 becomes the first video card that can accomplish this at 2560 though it’s going to need quite a bit more performance to run Metro fluidly from start to end.
Compared to the GTX 580 the 7970’s lead in Metro is similar, but the scaling with resolution is even more pronounced. At 2560 it’s ahead by 30%, while at 1920 this drops to 21%, and finally at 1680 it’s only 16%. Meanwhile compared to the 6970 the response is much flatter; 33% at 2560, 28% at 1920, and 27% at 1680. From this data it’s becoming increasingly evident that the value proposition of the 7970 is going to hinge on not only what you consider its competitors to be, but what resolutions you would use it at.
While we’re on the subject of Metro, this is a good time to bring up the performance of the 5870, the forerunner of the DX11 generation. The performance of the 7970 may only be 20-30% higher than its immediate predecessors, but that’s not to say that performance hasn’t increased a great deal more over the full 2 year period of the 40nm cycle. The 7970 leads the 5870 by 50-60% here and in a number of other games, and while this isn’t as great as some past leaps it’s clear that there’s still plenty of growth in GPU performance occurring.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
292 Comments
View All Comments
GenSozo - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Style? Another possibility is that he has no life, a heavily worn F5 key, and lots of angst.Blaster1618 - Monday, December 26, 2011 - link
One request when diving into acronyms (from the “quick refresher”), first one is followed by (definition in parenthesis) or hyperlink. Your site does the best on the web at delving into and explaining the technical evolution of computing. You maybe even able to tech the trolls and shills a thing or to they can regurgitate at there post X-mas break circle jerk. Never underestimate the importance or reach of your work.lordken - Friday, January 6, 2017 - link
mmh quite far from disappointing, still running on 7950 as of today [5 years later] :)Concillian - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Page 1Power Consumption Comparison: Columns: AMD / Price / NVIDIA
Presumably mislabeled.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Fixed, thank you!Take care,
Anand
Penti - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Will the new video decode engine either add software accelerated gpu or fixed function hardware WebM/VP8 video decode? ARM SoC's basically already has those capabilities with rock-chip including hw-decoding, TI OMAP IVA3 DSP-video processor supporting VP8/WebM, Broadcom supporting it in their video processor and others to come. Would be odd to be able to do smooth troublefree 1080p WebM on a phone or tablet, but not a desktop and laptop computer without taxing the cpu and buses like crazy. It's already there hardware-wise in popular devices to do if they add software/driver support for it.Nice to see a new generation card any how.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
It's UVD3, the same decoder that was on Cayman. So if Cayman can't do it, Tahiti can't either.MadMan007 - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Pretty sure the chart on the first page should be labeled Price Comparison not Power Consumption Comparison.Unless perhaps this was a sly way of saying money is power :)
descendency - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
You list the HD 6870 as 240 on the first page ("AMD GPU Specification Comparison" chart) but then list it as around 160 in the "Winter 2011 GPU Pricing Comparison" chart. 80 dollars is quite a difference.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link
Fixed, sorry those were older numbers.Take care,
Anand