Battlefield 3

Its popularity aside, Battlefield 3 may be the most interesting game in our benchmark suite for a single reason: it’s the first AAA DX10+ game. It’s been 5 years since the launch of the first DX10 GPUs, and 3 whole process node shrinks later we’re finally to the point where games are using DX10’s functionality as a baseline rather than an addition. Not surprisingly BF3 is one of the best looking games in our suite, but as with past Battlefield games that beauty comes with a high performance cost.

The reduction in memory bandwidth and ROP throughput coming from the GTX 670 comes with roughly an 11% performance cost here, just about splitting the difference between the best and worst case scenarios.  This is important for the GTX 660 Ti since it means the card doesn’t surrender NVIDIA’s performance advantage in BF3. At 1920 with FXAA that means the GTX 660 Ti has a huge 30% performance lead over the 7950, and even the 7970 falls behind the GTX 660 Ti. The only real disappointment here is that 1920 with MSAA isn’t quite playable – 53fps means that framerates will bottom out in the mid-20s, which isn’t desirable.

Meanwhile the factory overclocked cards continue to up the ante, and ends up being another game that factory overclocks offer a decent improvement. Zotac tops the factory cards at 10%, followed by Gigabyte and EVGA. We’re once again seeing the impact of Zotac’s memory overclock, and how in memory bandwidth limited situations it’s more important than Gigabyte’s higher power target, though Gigabyte does come close.

Portal 2 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim


View All Comments

  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - link

    The defense is quite simple: you're extremely biased towards NVIDIA, and you're going around picking and choosing comparisons that support the way you think it's meant to be played. Mind you, I'm running a GTX 580 personally -- with a 30" 2560x1600 LCD no less -- but that's beside the point

    Your post is laughable because it really boils down to this: you're not as informed as you like to think you are. There are a variety of Korean 27" LCDs selling for ~$400 or less that use the same LG IPS panel. Go search any hardware enthusiast forum (you've linked and mentioned several just in this single post, nevermind the 20 or 30 others you've made on this article shouting down everyone that disagrees with you) and I can guarantee you'll find posts about Catleap, Yamakazi, Auria, and several other brand names. Microcenter (a US company that enthusiasts should be more than familiar with) also carries one of these LCDs for $400:

    So basically, your main premise that no one uses such LCDs is at best the perspective of someone with serious blinders. But you don't stop there. You go on to complain how no one sells 2560x1600 LCDs these days. Apparently, you weren't around for the transition from 16:10 to 16:9 and somehow think everything has to be tested with 16:9 now? That would make you one of the even less informed people that thinks 16:9 LCDs are somehow preferable to 16:10 I suppose. Given Ryan has a 30" LCD, why should he test it at less desirable resolutions?

    But even then, you still have to keep going. Ryan specifically comments throughout the text on 1920 performance and rarely mentions 2560, but you appear to get stuck on the presence of 2560 graphs and seem to think that just because they're there, he's writing for 2% of Steam's readership -- which is already a biased and useless number as Steam hardware surveys are always out of date and frequently not resubmitted by people that have already seen the survey 100 times.

    Short summary: you have ranted for over 15000 words in the comments of this article, all with an extremely heavy NVIDIA bias, and yet you have the gall to accuse someone else of bias. You've shown nothing in your above commentary other than the fact that positioning of the various GPUs right now can vary greatly depending on the clock speeds of the GPUs. (Hint: a heavily overclocked GTX 660 Ti 3GB card -- which totally eliminates the asymmetrical aspect of the other 660 Ti cards -- beating a stock HD 7950 doesn't mean much, considering the pricing is actually slightly in favor of the 7950.)

    What it really comes down to is this: buy the card that will best run the games that you tend to play at the settings and resolutions you play at. Period. If you have a 1920x1200 or 1080p display, just about any current $300+ GPU will handle that resolution with maximum detail settings in most games. If you have a better 2560x1600/1440 display, you'll want to check performance a bit more and make sure you get the right card for the job -- I'd suggest looking at 4GB GPUs if you want something that will last a while, or just plan on upgrading again to the HD 8790/GTX 780 next year (and the HD 9790/GTX 880 after that, and....)

    It basically comes down to opinions and a-holes; everyone has one. You think the 2560x1600 crowd apparently doesn't matter, going so far as to say " I think most buy $600 video cards and $300 monitors, not the other way around." I would say anyone buying $600 in video cards to run a $300 monitor has their priorities severely screwed up.

    I bought an $1100 30" LCD five years back and I'm still using it. During that time I have upgraded my system, CPU, GPU, etc. numerous times, but I still use the same LCD. Buying a high quality LCD is one of the best hardware investments you can make, and you're an idiot to think otherwise. That you can now buy 27" QHD displays for $300-$400 will only serve to increase the number of users who own and use such displays. The only reason not to have a larger display is if you simply don't have the space for it.

    I know three people that have between them purchased five of these Korean LCDs, and they're all quite happy with the results. You might recognize the names: Brian Klug, Chris Heinonen, and Ian Cutress. The only issue I have with the cheap QHD panels is that most of them don't have DisplayPort, and that will become increasingly important going forward. So spend a bit more to find one with DP on it. But to dismiss 2560 displays just because you're too cheap to buy one is extremely biased towards your world-view, just like the rest of your posts have been.

    NVIDIA makes some very good GPUs, but so does AMD; which GPU is better/best really comes down to what you plan on doing with it. CUDA people need NVIDIA, obviously, but someone doing BTC hashing wouldn't be caught dead trying to do it on NVIDIA hardware. It's about using the right tool for the job, not about shouting the loudest every time someone offers a differing opinion.
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, August 23, 2012 - link

    What a joke of a response that was. He proved the reviewer flat out lied repeatedly, and without a doubt, with a huge lying bias for amd.
    That you CAN'T address, and didn't.
    #2. Catleap is around, so show us the catleapers with 660TI or 7870...
    I've been to the forums and thejian is correct, they nearly all have 2x 680's or 2x 7970's or both. Overclock forum thread.
    #3. This is a gamers review, not bitcoin, and no cuda either, your ending paragraph is goofy as a response as well.

    I like and enjoy anand, but it would be a lot more enjoyable if people told the truth, especially in their own reviews. When the obvious bias exists, it should then at least be admitted to. It's pretty tough getting through the massively biased wording in general as well, and I don't care to go pointing it out again and again. If you can't notice it, something is wrong with you, too.

    You didn't prove thejian incorrect, not even close, but he certainly proved your fellow worker incorrect.
    When I complained about the 1920x1200 when it should be 1920x1080 just several card reviews ago, showing how nVidia won by a much larger amount in that much more common resolution, a load of the enthusiasts here claimed they own 1920x1200, there was only 1 that claimed a 2560x. LOL

    What is obvious is most of your readers and commenters don't even have a 1920x1200, and yes they whine about $5...

    So, nice try, it didn't work, and if the amd fans didn't keep lying and responding thejian wouldn't have to either... however overall it's great people DO what Russian and thejian and others do with long comments, it's way better than smart snarking and ignorant one liners and pure stupidity and grammar complaints to the reviewer.

    If people whine so much about warranty and they do, thejian has a very good point on the monitors, as well. Also they are 2560x1440, so this review doesn't address them, because they are too expensive for ANANDTECH ! In fact, we've seen how a $20 killawatt is too expensive for the anandtech site (above reviewer).

    Okay ? I'm not agreeing with you, because the facts don't fit - and the point on the cards pushing the pixels is ALSO correct in thejian's FAVOR, another portion you completely sidestepped.

    Anyway, I know it's hard, and anand is a great site and it's reviewers I'm sure do their best and do a lot of good work, but facts are facts and fans are fans and fanboys should still use the facts to be a fan when making a recommendation.

    Have a good week.
  • TheJian - Friday, August 24, 2012 - link

    Thank you. You read it, and commented as such. I'm not sure he did :)

    Have a good one.
  • TheJian - Friday, August 24, 2012 - link

    You're defending buying no name monitors from what I found first looking at amazon/newegg (zero at newegg) having "just launched" their site. 3 from Korea, one New zealand. You did read the post correct? I don't give my credit card to foreign countries, or buy no name monitors (even locally) with no company websites for the resellers, gmail account for help, no phone to call, blank faq & help pages. Are you serious? If newegg and amazon don't carry it, I'd say it's not too popular no matter what it is in electronics/pc gear.

    YOU do not run your games at that res and hit 30fps very often. There are a LOT of games that will be well below (the witcher, Batman, just to name a few popular ones).

    You're still defending a position that is used by 2% of the population. That's laughable. Nice fanboy comment...The best you got? Tech report did an article on one monitor he Ebay'd (jeez), I read it and he almost had a heart attack waiting for it...Then no OSD at all...LOL. No other monitor adjustments other than bright/contrast and sound up/down. These are not the quality of a dell :) I'm sure you can find the article at He had multiple scares ;) Roll the dice on a non brand if you'd like. I don't see a cheap anything that isn't Korean. HP starts $688, Dell 800.

    LOL to cheap to buy one?...You're wasting my time attacking me & not attacking my data at all. Keep attacking me, it only looks worse. You already stated my point in another comment. These cards are used at 1920x1200 or less and his review beats bandwidth like a dead horse. These are gaming cards, BTC hashing?...I digress...another decimal point of the population.

    You could claim bias all day, it won't help the numbers I pointed out, nor your case. You've wasting a ton of words yourself trying to convince me a few reviewers (related to this site) are in the 98%. You're the 2% or steampowered survey's are just lying eh?

    Never said AMD was crap. Stating the facts and them not going the way you want doesn't make me a fanboy..LOL. Nice try though. His own conclusions make no sense as pointed out. I see nothing above but opinion. Where I gave a book of data :) You really want to argue about their financials...Not bias there either...Just stating financial facts.

    Read it again, it beat the boost. Boost craps out at far less than 1200mhz. Read your own AT article. That post is half of his own words from two articles that make his conclusions incorrect. I can't believe you wasted all that air trying to convince me 2560x1600 and these monitors are the norm. I would expect reviewers to have them, but not to think we all do.

    Many of my posts said good things about AMD...I even said Intel owed them 20bil not 1.5. etc. I even mentioned why they're suffering now (Intel stealing sales, stopping people from buying AMD years ago when I owned a PC business, courts took far too long to decide their case). You really didn't bother to read, but rather went on a monitor rant riddled with personal attacks. Nice.
    BTC hashing...LOL. Nuff said. I discussed the games. You discuss Bitcoin hashing, and defend resolutions YOU already told the other poster isn't used by these...LOL. My world view is 98% of us shouldn't be misled by a 2% opinion. But you just keep thinking that way. ;)
  • TheJian - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link

    "For every Portal 2 you have a Skyrim, it seems. At 1920 the GTX 660 Ti actually does well for itself here, besting the 7900 series, but we know from experience that this is a CPU limited resolution. Cranking things up to 2560 and Ultra quality sends the GTX 660 Ti through the floor in a very bad way, pushing it well below even the 7870, never mind the 7900 series."
    "68fps is more than playable, but hardcore Skyrim players are going to want to stick to cards with more memory bandwidth."

    Based on my previous post regarding the hardware survey at steampowered, hardcore skyrim players don't exist I guess Ryan? Since nobody uses this res (uh oh, the 3 players using this res are about to complain...LOL), why act like it's important? Making the statement hardcore Skyrim players (in your opinion people with 2560x+ I guess?) should avoid this 660 TI, is at best bad journalism. At worst, I'm not sure, an AMD ad? Also, it's 75fps since the Zotac is FAR more accurate compared to what you BUY for $299/309 at newegg. For both prices you can get a card that is 100mhz faster than the one in REF GREEN in your graphs (your ref version). I'd argue 75fps (even 68.5) at a res nobody plays at is really good. Since when is 75fps unplayable? Never mind the fact I think this res is useless and you should be realizing most are using (e.g. most hardcore users) 1920x1200 or below and you're actually better off with Nvidia in this case...ROFL. For the res I think this card is designed for, it's the best out there and your review should clearly reflect that. The 7950 BOOST edition can't be had for less than $350 and barely be had at all. Never mind the watts/heat issues.

    It's arguable that "hardcore players" could get away with anything in the list but the 560ti as they all hit over 83fps in what you've already stated is a cpu bound res. What evidence do you have that show more than 2% of users in the world use a res over 1920x1200? I'd say steampowered stats are a pretty good representation of what gamers are using and 2560x+ is NOT what they're using unless you have evidence to prove otherwise? Use more games in your tests to show variations rather than resolutions none (meaning 98% apparently) are using. Again I'd say a separate article should be written for the highest resolutions and mutli-monitor gaming, but using it as a basis for recommendations in std consumer cards is ridiculous. I'd rather see 15 games tested (easier to make sure you're avoiding the ones everyone Optimizes for and are benchmarked everywhere), for a better look at overall play across what 98% of us are using.

    This brings your whole conclusion into question, which it seems is totally based on running at 2560x+. Raise your hand if you run at this res or above? I see the same 3 people...LOL.

    "Coupled with the tight pricing between all of these cards, this makes it very hard to make any kind of meaningful recommendation here for potential buyers."
    Core Clock: 1019MHz Boost Clock: 1097MHz vs. your ref at 915/980. They are selling a CORE BASE that's above your REF BOOST...for $299. What's a virtual launch when 12 cards are available at, and only 1 7950 Boost at $350?
    Borderlands 2 free with it also, and another at $309 with basically same specs:
    1006base/1084 boost. Again real close to your Zotac Amp for $309. So looking at the AMP basically as a BASE at $299/309 (it's only 14mhz faster in both base/boost clocks, which is nothing - not sure why they even sell it) let's fix your conclusion based on 98% of users res:

    Zotac AMP (only 14mhz faster base/boost than $299/309 cards linked above) vs. 7950 (again more expensive by $20) @ 1920x1200
    Civ5 <5% slower
    Skyrim >7% faster
    Battlefield3 >25% faster (above 40% or so in FXAA High)
    Portal 2 >54% faster (same in 2560x...even though it's useless IMHO)
    Batman Arkham >6% faster
    Shogun 2 >25% faster
    Dirt3 >6% faster
    Metro 2033 =WASH (ztac 51.5 vs. 7950 51...margin of error..LOL)
    Crysis Warhead >19% loss.
    Power@load 315w zotac amp vs. 353 7950 (vs 373w for 7950B)! Not only is the 660TI usually faster by a whopping amount, it's also going to cost you less at the register, and far less at the electric bill (all year for 2-4 years you probably have it - assuming you spend $300-350 for a gaming card to GAME on it). Note the AMP is about as bad as the 660 TI watts/heat/noise can get.

    For $299 or $309 I'll RUN home with the 660 TI over 7950 @ $319. The games where it loses, you won't notice the difference at those frame rates. At todays BOOST prices ($350) there really isn't a comparison to be made. I believe it will be a while before the 7950B is $320, let along $299 of the 660 TI. This card DOMINATES at 1920x1200 & below which according to steampowered hardware survey is what 98% of us use for a resolution. So 98% of you have a no brainer recommendation for this card...There...FIXED.

    I own a Radeon 5850 (and waited 7 months for it like the other 470 amazon buyers on back order as they tried to get us to drop our orders by making a new xfx model#) ...My bad, in my other post I put 8850...ROFL...You can google the amazon complainers if wished or you doubt that I own one... :) Just did-google this, you'll land in the complaints:
    "jian amazon backorder 5850" (without the quotes)
    Top of the listed links will get you to the backorder complaints for the card...LOL. I got a card eventually, so don't go giving me that AMD hate crap. Just the facts :) But you can guess what I'll buy this black Friday :) Because the 660TI is awesome, just like my 5850 for $260 was. Unless you're planning on running above 1920x1200 any time soon, you're retarded buying anything but 660TI at the $300 price range (including the 670+, save your money). Heat, Noise, watts...NO BRAINER. 660TI even at Zotac AMP heat/noise/watts. Perf at the resolutions 98% of us use...NO BRAINER. IF you're dickering over $20 (as ryan is in his recommendation of them all being close together) then you don't have the cash for 3 monitors and triple wide gaming either. IF you DO have 3 monitors (likely a Quadcore also), surely you can afford TWO of these and rock the house no matter what you play. Again, though, that's a 2% user base I'm talking about here. You should rewrite your conclusion Ryan. It's baseless currently. Running your LCD in a res not native? Really? I'm kind of offended Ryan, I think you just called me NOT a hardcore gamer...LOL. :)

    One more note: Mutli monitor resolutions at steampowered @ 2560x1600 and below are less than 7% (add up the list!). So again, Ryan you're not making sense. Most people running this res and above have more than one monitor and probably have more than one card to do it. Note it's a 2% user group any way you cut it, and even less when you consider these mostly have more than one monitor and card. I doubt the people you wrote the conclusion for (it seems) are worried about $20.
  • skgiven - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link

    Although 192bit's is obviously a step down from 256, most games won't be overly impacted even on PCIE2 setups. For those that are, if you go to a PCIE3 setup the 192bit limitation largely disappears; basically PCIE3 bandwidth is twice as fast as PCIE2. So for example, if you have a PCIE3 capable 1155 motherboard and pull an i7-2600 and replace it with an i7-3770 (similar CPU performances) the bandwidth effectively doubles and would be equivalent to 384 at PCIE2. Obviously that would be a fairly pointless upgrade in terms of CPU performance but Intel's 'sly' control is paying off; you have to upgrade your CPU to benefit your GPU. An i7-2600 or similar is still a much sought after CPU, so they are readily salable, making the 'upgrade' reasonably inexpensive. However the LGA1155's are very limited boards, and adding a second card would drop you from x16 to x8 rates for both cards, albeit at PCIE3 performance. So if bandwidth is likely to be a problem for any game now or in the future and your on an LGA1155 just get a bigger card (670/680) rather than going SLI. Adding a second card on a PCIE2 rig could be a really stupid move. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link

    Skgiven, I'm afraid you've been misinformed.

    "the bandwidth effectively doubles and would be equivalent to 384 at PCIE2"

    The speed of the PCIe bus is in no way connected to the width (or overall speed) of the local memory bus on a video card. The local memory bus is an entirely different and otherwise isolated subsystem.

    While PCIe 3.0 may improve a video card's performance - though for single card scenarios we have not found any games that meaningfully benefit from it - any improvement would be due to improved transfer performance between the video card and CPU. If rendering performance was being constrained by memory bandwidth, then it would continue to be so.
  • TheJian - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link

    Just realized this uses Cry engine 2.0 from 2008. So the only real loser for Nvidia here is from 2008. What happens when you run today's CryEngine 3.0 from Crysis 2? As in a game released March 2011 with DirectX 11, and has even had the HIGH RES patch released which adds :DirectX 11 hardware tessellation & Ultra Upgrade adds soft shadows with variable penumbra, improved water rendering, particle motion blur and shadowing, Parallax Occlusion Mapping, full-resolution High Dynamic Range motion blur, & hardware-based occlusion culling.

    "The test run apply is stringent, harsh and really only suited for high-end DX 11 class graphics cards of 2011 and 2012. "
    from Guru3d Radeon 7950 BOOST article vs a ref clocked 660TI (far slower than AMP):
    Umm...even at 2560x1600 the 7950 wins by scoring 35fps vs REF CLOCKED 660 TI 34fps.
    Meaning the 660 TI's in this review would CRUSH it. Update your game instead of calling crysis a thorn in NVidia's side and showing a 20% loss for warhead from 2008. You're question should have been "Can it run Crysis 2 DX11 with updated High res patch with all the goodies turned on?". Answer...Yes, as fast as a 7950 BOOST at 2560x1600 and faster below this res (albeit by the same 1fps margin...LOL...Crysis 2 is a WASH for 7950Boost vs. 660TI REF, but a LOSER for the two cards I linked to before at newegg for $50 less than 7950BOOST). Also note it clearly beats $319 7950 regular at any res already in crysis2. As I read further at guru3d, it's clear you need more games. Lost planet2 at 2560x1600 7950boost loses by 20% (40 to 48 vs. ref clocked TI, not vs AMP or two cards I linked). Aliens vs. Predator shows 7950boost beating 660TI by more than 20% (dx11), again showing why more games should be tested, mind you this is at 1920x1200!...LOL. I'm not afraid to show where NV 660 gets capped...ROFL. 54fps 7950vs 40fps 660TI. No need to show 2560 settings if you pick better dx11 group of games (is anyone playing warhead 4yrs later with crysis 2/hi res out?). It goes on and on, even at tomshardware. You need more games. Note CRYSIS 3 will be using the CryEngine 3 with basically all the goodies released in the Crysis 2 update/hires download patches. So highly relevant.

    Worse, after l keep looking at both, and the specs on 7950's at newegg, you can get a 7950 that seems to put to shame AMD's own new Boost speeds to shame at 900mhz:
    XFX with 900 CORE for $329 (rebated). and another for the same after rebate also:
    Perhaps you should test what is sold and easily had rather than AMD's version? Though I'm not sure they boost any higher than normal in either case. Only the NV cards showed the core & boost speeds. Obviously power draw and heat would be worse than your review though. I'd still rather see these benchmarked than AMD's ref 7950 design. It's clear they clocked it too low when you can pick up a 900mhz version for $330 after rebate (though only two, rest are $350). Then again, maybe they didn't want to show worse in heat/noise/watts dept.

    This still doesn't change my "review" (LOL) of your conclusion though. 2560x1600+ is NOT what people are running, and the 660 TI is still awesome at 1920x1200 and below for $300 and can be had at that price far above your ref card reviewed here (as I just proved, the same can be said for clocks at 900 core on AMD, but $30 is still 10% higher than $300 and all the heat/noise/watts still applied only worse).

    You started your review of the benchmarks with this (though after crysis warhead instead of crysis 2):
    "For a $300 performance card the most important resolution is typically going to be 1920x1080/1200"
    You should have based your conclusion on that statement alone. It's TRUE. I already proved it from Steampowered hardware survey (30% use these two resolutions today! over ALL cards). Throw out crysis warhead for crysis 2 w/updates and your conclusion should have been very easy to make.

    For that extra $30-50 a 7950 boost costs you can make sure you get an Ivy Bridge K chip (both are only $20 more than regulars i5 or i7) and have ultimate overclocking on your cpu when desired. You can overclock either card already for free (amd or nvidia). By the end of the article I think you forgot what the heck you were reviewing. Two cards battling it out at 1920x1200. Your analysis after each benchmark seems to indicate you thinking these are 2560x1600 cards and that's the most important thing to remember here. Nope. It's NOT, by your own words earlier it's really 1920x1200/1080. Along with conclusions being off, and games being too few (and old totally & out of date in Crysis Warhead's case), you should have put in a 900 amd clocked 7950 (you could have easily run the one you had at that speed to show what you can buy for $330). Who would piss away 10%+ clockspeed on AMD's ref version when you can get multiple models after rebate at $10 more? $319 is the lowest 7950 and only at 800mhz, and a 900mhz version can be had for $10 more after rebate in 2 models. While AMD may have wanted it benchmarked this way for heat/noise I think most would buy the 900mhz version. Maybe you should just rethink the whole idea of benching their ref versions altogether when they don't represent a real purchase at ref prices.

    In the end though, this is just a misleading review currently, no matter how I cut it. Further, the 7950 (boost or not) just isn't worth $330 or $350. It's hot and noisy, and uses more watts for a heck of a lot of LOSING in the benchmarks by LARGE margins. You guys are getting like Tomshardware, who blew their review by reducing overclocked cards to ref speeds (they had the $300 MSI 660 TI I linked to at newegg @ core 1019/boost 1097 in their hands and didn't use it...ROFL). Why the heck even mention you have them if you're going to reduce every one of them before benching them (amd or nvidia - they reduced all...LOL)? Where do you go for a GOOD review these days? Consider that if you bounce over to Tomshardware review people. Small print shows they reduce everything to ref in the test setup page...ROFLMAO...jeez. Would you review a Ferrari at 55-65mph because that's the speed limit? Heck no. I wouldn't tape myself driving on the street at 200mph, but I'd sure test it there without taping myself if I was benchmarking cars...LOL. I'd rather see reviews based on cards you can purchase at the best speeds at the best pricing in both brands (amd/NV) when they release a new product. Include their ref speeds, but also include what we'll buy. In AMD's case here, you have to work to buy a 7950@800mhz (the only card at newegg for $319!). You'd have to ignore the same pricing at 850-900mhz next to the rest at $329+. Who does that? Heck most are at 350, with the two I mention at 900mhz being rebated to $330...LOL. What would you buy, assuming you wanted a 7950 disregarding heat/noise/watts used and the performance at it's intended 1920x1200 res (meaning at this point, you'd have to be an AMD fanboy - which I kind of admit I am...LOL)? You'd buy the 900mhz for $330 after rebate. If you want to ignore rebated products, the same would be true of my conclusions. $309 can get you a clock of almost Zotac 660 TI AMP speed as shown already. 1019core/1097boost. For anyone who likes paperwork you'd get the same card for $10 off. Ignoring the rebate it's still a no brainer. I used to have to read 3 reviews to get a good picure of a product, but these days I have to read a good 10 reviews to get a TRUE picture with all the review shenanigans going on.
  • Will Robinson - Sunday, August 19, 2012 - link

    My goodness the NVDA trolls are here in force on this launch.
    That immediately points to Green Team fear that this card just isn't going to cut it against the HD7950.
    Cerise Cogburn(aka)Silicon Doc has been banned from just about every tech site on the Net.
    Back for some more trolling before the ban Doc?
  • claysm - Monday, August 20, 2012 - link

    I absolutely agree. This Cerise Cogburn loser and his friend TheIdiot (oops, TheJian, stupid autocorrect) have been trolling harder than I've seen in a long time. Go home guys, you've contributed nothing. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now