# HD 7950 May Give Higher Framerates, but GTX 660 Ti Still Smoother: Report



## btarunr (Dec 13, 2012)

The TechReport, which adds latency-based testing in its VGA reviews, concluded in a recent retrospective review taking into account recent driver advancements, that Radeon HD 7950, despite yielding higher frame-rates than GeForce GTX 660 Ti, has higher latencies (time it takes to beam generated frames onto the display), resulting in micro-stutter. In response to the comments-drama that ensued, its reviewer did a side-by-side recording of a scene from "TESV: Skyrim" as rendered by the two graphics cards, and slowed them down with high-speed recording, at 120 FPS, and 240 FPS. In slow-motion, micro-stuttering on the Radeon HD 7950 is more apparent than on the GeForce GTX 660 Ti. 





Find the slow-motion captures after the break.





















*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Nordic (Dec 13, 2012)

Interesting. I have never noticed anything with my 6950 or 7970, but I am not one for fine detail.

The testing system. http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/2

The 7950 was better in sleeping dogs and medal of honor: Warfighter in their tests for latency. So it is not an always situation but in most cases.


----------



## Novulux (Dec 13, 2012)

Considering I already have a Radeon Card, I suppose Radeon Pro will have to suffice...


----------



## Deadlyraver (Dec 13, 2012)

Its just drivers, so quit endorsing and accept the numbers!


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 13, 2012)

Remember also that they've addressed the "Windows 7 v. Windows 8" issue in a follow-up review too...


----------



## Nordic (Dec 13, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> Remember also that they've addressed the "Windows 7 v. Windows 8" issue in a follow-up review too...



Here.


----------



## DaJMasta (Dec 13, 2012)

Honestly, I don't see a dramatic difference in the amount of stutter between the two videos, and as someone who games at 60Hz, I'm never going to see most of what you can see here anyways.


It does sound like driver optimization to me more than anything else, but it could be less a case of "amd is faster but their drivers are worse" and more a case of "amd optimizes more for speed while nv optimizes more for less stutter" or something along those lines.  Maybe there's even some hidden hitch in the CPU code for the drivers that is holding everything back.


Any particular reason why the AMD card drops to zero latency for the last few hundred frames of the chart, but the nV one doesn't?


----------



## BlackOmega (Dec 13, 2012)

btarunr said:


> *its reviewer did a side-by-side recording of a scene from "TESV: Skyrim"*



And therein lies the problem. There are _known_ problems with Skyrim and ATi cards. 

 This is skewed towards Nvidia to make them look better.


----------



## Deadlyraver (Dec 13, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> And therein lies the problem. There are _known_ problems with Skyrim and ATi cards.
> 
> This is skewed towards Nvidia to make them look better.



Again, endorsement.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 13, 2012)

omg, i'm lil disappointed with TPU, why on earth you should post something like this. for me it's embarrassing


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Dec 13, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> And therein lies the problem. There are _known_ problems with Skyrim and ATi cards.
> 
> This is skewed towards Nvidia to make them look better.



With Nvidia Skyrim stutters with it too. Atleast from what I can tell. And My eyes catch any degree of stutter and hickups.


----------



## Protagonist (Dec 13, 2012)

i read this yesterday, and i was like mmm...... now hows about that. And again i was like what does this have to do with anything.... maybe, maybe not something to worry about.  and now i see it in TPU,... this method might be on to something,... what it is might not seat well with consumers at the long run.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 13, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> And therein lies the problem. There are _known_ problems with Skyrim and ATi cards.
> 
> * This is skewed towards Nvidia to make them look better*.



That probably explains why Tech Report had an HD 7770 giveaway three weeks ago, an HD 7870 giveaway two weeks ago, and an HD 7950 giveaway last week. 

And since you're quite insistent that there is an Nvidia bias, why not read this page about Sleeping Dogs, an "AMD Gaming Evolved" title?






AMD IS BETTER!!! NVIDIA SUCKS!!!





Not much difference, it's just a tie...





Oh...THAT'S NVIDIA'S FAULT!!!



SIGSEGV said:


> omg, i'm lil disappointed with TPU, why on earth you should post something like this. for me it's embarrassing



Video card reviews should just focus on framerates? Testing for latency is embarrassing?


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 13, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> :snip:
> AMD IS BETTER!!! NVIDIA SUCKS!!!



meh..



entropy13 said:


> Video card reviews should just focus on framerates? Testing for latency is embarrassing?



i believe you have no experience playing any games even skyrim with amd radeon HD7900 series. This news is kinda fishy for me.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 13, 2012)

would be more interesting to see how a stock non Boost 7950 handles the tests or a 7970 and 7970 GHz edition im willing to bet the clock speed changes which are more frequent on the 7950 boost compared to the 7970GHz edition cause latency issues.

from what i remember a 7950 clocked up is faster than a 7950 boost that hits the same clocks speeds do to 0 clock speed fluctuation. 

There is more going on in the background that isnt being expanded upon and tested. Essentially it seems TR took the 1 AMD gpu thats had the roughest time out of all AMD products then used a model that brings in the boost variable and its potential problems that represents.


----------



## boulard83 (Dec 13, 2012)

HardOCP are speeking about this "smoothness" from Nvidia setup for years now. Mostly when using multiGPU setup, multi monitor being even worse. 

From Hardocp testing, you seem to need more FPS to have the same "smoothness feeling" while gaming VS Nvidia. They spoke about it lots of time on lots of reviews.


----------



## vega22 (Dec 13, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The TechReport, which adds latency-based testing in its VGA reviews, concluded in a recent retrospective review taking into account recent driver advancements, that Radeon HD 7950, despite yielding higher frame-rates than GeForce GTX 660 Ti, has higher latencies (time it takes to beam generated frames onto the display), resulting in micro-stutter. In response to the comments-drama that ensued, its reviewer did a side-by-side recording of a scene from "TESV: Skyrim" as rendered by the two graphics cards, and slowed them down with high-speed recording, at 120 FPS, and 240 FPS. In slow-motion, micro-stuttering on the Radeon HD 7950 is more apparent than on the GeForce GTX 660 Ti.
> 
> [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-12-13/118a_thm.jpg[/URL]
> 
> ...



they both stutter like fuck, whats the big deal?


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Dec 13, 2012)

Fanboys refuse to believe anything no matter how well you try to run your tests. 

I was telling about micro stuttering with SLi/CF years ago but people went mad at me and refused to believe it exists. Same thing with HD5 series broken AF. Etc. etc.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 13, 2012)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> would be more interesting to see how a stock non Boost 7950 handles the tests or a 7970 and 7970 GHz edition im willing to bet the clock speed changes which are more frequent on the 7950 boost compared to the 7970GHz edition cause latency issues.
> from what i remember a 7950 clocked up is faster than a 7950 boost that hits the same clocks speeds do to 0 clock speed fluctuation.


Doesn't make a helluva lot of difference imo. TR are only claiming the discrepancy regarding the 7950 Boost, they aren't extrapolating the results and saying it affects all models.
Having said that, given the standing that Scott has in the community, I'd say that someone will test the 7970, 7970GE etc. It wouldn't surprise me if AMD were optimizing for outright speed at all- that is the primary metric used in the majority of reviews, and a major bullet point in PR slides.


crazyeyesreaper said:


> Essentially it seems TR took the 1 AMD gpu thats had the roughest time out of all AMD products then used a model that brings in the boost variable and its potential problems that represents.


AMD had no problem reaping the rewards of reviews using the all new 7950 Boost...are you saying that TR should gloss over any potential problem because the bulk of the other models are _possibly_ OK ? HardOCP and Tom's Hardware amongst others are also reporting various issues in single/multi card configs- at what point do you say its worth reporting?


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 13, 2012)

Ooh another hate fest kicking up.

I get micro stutter on Fry Cry 3 with my crossfire 7970 set up, very noticeable when it should be butter smooth.  But my friend with a GTX 680 also has graphical issues.  

Micro stutter itself is a bit subjective.  I've played games with fare worse with micro-stutter on AMD cards (according to Hard OCP) but haven't noticed any effect unlike FC 3 where it is considerably more apparent.

Meh, choose your card and see how you like it.  Dishonored played beautifully on my cards.  Such an awesomely well planned and coded game.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 13, 2012)

I wonder if it's driver or hardware related?

I moved away from ATI after the issues I had with my 4870X2. I'd really like to see them fix these small issues. Then I'd consider buying them again.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 13, 2012)

Uh... Vsync anyone?


----------



## Frick (Dec 13, 2012)

This is why we should all have low end rigs. When you think 40FPS is awesome you don't notice these things. 

But I thought all of those videos looked weird. Especially the 240FPS ones looked plain wrong. At 120FPS Nvidia looked smoother, but still flaky.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 13, 2012)

SIGSEGV said:


> i believe you have no experience playing any games even skyrim with amd radeon HD7900 series. This news is kinda fishy for me.



A high-speed camera is biased, unlike a human being like you? 


They should have done the gameplay video comparison with Sleeping Dogs and not Skyrim, so that there won't be any "BUT WE ALL KNOW THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH AMD IN THE GAME!!!" because right off the bat a big "AMD Gaming Evolved" logo will appear once you run the game. And if they still insist that Sleeping Dogs is "skewed towards Nvidia" then that also implies that "AMD Gaming Evolved" was pointless, unless they then say that United Front Games intentionally made AMD perform worse in their game...


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 13, 2012)

I actually just watched the videos and I'm thinking "God that is pretty bad!"  I was looking at the one on  the right - the 660.  lol

Actually yeah, this is very subjective.  The AMD card craps out as the video goes on and the foliage gets closer to the camera view but to me the 660 starts out with more noticeable jerkiness between frames.

Having watched this, I don't think it's micro stutter I've got on FC3.  Something more buggy methinks.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Dec 13, 2012)

AphexDreamer said:


> Uh... Vsync anyone?



When do you people realize that, first, vsync doesn't completely remove micro stuttering and second it causes massive other problems. Especially with input lag related mouse delay.

It is like cutting your hand off when it hurts.


----------



## Relayer (Dec 13, 2012)

Very surprised that TechpowerUp would post this without any checking on their own.


----------



## rpsgc (Dec 13, 2012)

TPU just went down a notch in my opinion for reposting this crap.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 13, 2012)

I have to back up AMD on this one, because only pro gamers will notice such minor differences what you we can see in the these videos, but pro gamers always knew that you go with an Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU for serious gaming, so it's doesn't really matter for the rest, they don't even see it. I buy Nvidia cards for myself, but I recommended many AMD cards for casual players, and never had complains, even if I was not satisfied personally with the build they enjoyed without problems.



BlackOmega said:


> And therein lies the problem. There are _known_ problems with Skyrim and ATi cards.
> 
> This is skewed towards Nvidia to make them look better.


AMD cards do the same with any opengl engine as well, so Nvidia is actually indeed better in this aspect .


----------



## Wile E (Dec 13, 2012)

I don't understand the hate against TPU for posting this. I have personally experienced microstutter on various AMD gpu setups. It's a real thing. It is not made up. Some people get it, some don't.


----------



## RejZoR (Dec 13, 2012)

I guess i must be blind because i can't see any freakin difference and my eyes tend to be very sensitive to graphical anomalies (like stuttering, lagging and so forth).


----------



## rpsgc (Dec 13, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I don't understand the hate against TPU for posting this. I have personally experienced microstutter on various AMD gpu setups. It's a real thing. It is not made up. Some people get it, some don't.



If you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.


It's right there in the writing for all to see.


That type of bad "journalism" shouldn't be ENCOURAGED. And reposting this is doing exactly that.


----------



## Eagleye (Dec 13, 2012)

> In each of those screen recordings, the Radeon HD 7950 was consistently on the left side of the screen. Taking the Youtube compression into account, the left side of the screen is always more choppy. Nice try, but please remake those videos with GeForce GTX 660 Ti on the left side next time and I guarantee the results will be different.



Interesting quote


----------



## SetsunaFZero (Dec 13, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I don't understand the hate against TPU for posting this. I have personally experienced microstutter on various AMD gpu setups. It's a real thing. It is not made up. Some people get it, some don't.



exactly, i have owned some AMD and NV cards too, by fare now the NV cards where more smooth.
AMD cards are kind ok but when it comes to multi GPUs (crossfire), AMD sucks damn high . I'll newer build a CF rig again.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 13, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> If you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.
> 
> 
> It's right there in the writing for all to see.
> ...





Same site, just different cards:
GTX 650 Ti or HD 7850 = recommends 7850 
ZOMG AN AMD FANBOY!!!

GTX 660 Ti or HD 7950 = recommends 660 Ti
ZOMG A NVIDIA FANBOY!!!


----------



## rpsgc (Dec 13, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> Same author, just different cards:
> GTX 650 Ti or HD 7850 = he recommends 7850
> ZOMG HE'S AN AMD FANBOY!!!
> 
> ...



Did you actually read the review? Or do you ignore the words and just look at the pretty graphs?



Grow up


----------



## Vancha (Dec 13, 2012)

For people having issue seeing the problem in the videos: Look at the floor. The AMD jumps every now and then, like it's catching up. The Nvidia doesn't do it nearly as much.


----------



## jigar2speed (Dec 13, 2012)

*


			
				Fudzilla said:
			
		


			AMD spokesman Antal Tungler is on the ball and said that the review had "raised some alarms" internally at the company. AMD is investigating and hoped to have some answers for us "before the holiday." It appears that AMD also expects the 7950 to perform well in FPS-based benchmarks and give the GeForce GTX 660 Ti a good kicking too.
		
Click to expand...

*
News Link

Looks like this issue is legit, AMD is looking into this.


----------



## Frick (Dec 13, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> Did you actually read the review? Or do you ignore the words and just look at the pretty graphs?
> 
> Grow up



Did we read the same thing, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I've watched the videos a couple of times now and I think they are about the same actually. Looking at the ground is unfair to both because it leaps at you with both cards. The "leaps" are bigger with Radeon, but it looks like they happen more often on the Geforce. Like tiny tiny jums that happen all the time. I guess this is a thing you have to experience yourself.

Which also is unfair because I honestly think most people who has it wouldn't notice.

And see how it becomes quite evident when you focus on one spot? You don't play games like that. You look around constantly, your eyes never settle. In the end I don't think the tests are worth it. All this is IMO of course.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 13, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> If you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.
> 
> 
> It's right there in the writing for all to see.
> ...



Having read all three I'm more inclined to question your bias.

AMD and micro stutter isn't new. My friend finally ditched AMD for a 670 after many years and was thrilled with the lack of stutter in GTA/skyrim/WOW.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 13, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> If you had actually read their "review" (not this) you'd know it was full of bile, bias and petty attacks at AMD.
> 
> 
> It's right there in the writing for all to see.
> ...



I did read it. I don't see any bias. Since when is criticizing a poor performance in a test considered biased? Are they supposed to shower AMD with praise for doing poorly in the tests?

I see comments about AMD's performance being "not too shabby", but then they compare it to the nVidia performance, and realized that the AMD "isn't doing so well"

That is not an attack, bias or bile. It's a comparison. Nor did I find any real examples of any of that in the original review.

Just because you don't agree with the article, doesn't make it bad journalism. And just because a review is negative, doesn't mean it's biased. It means AMD actually lost in the tests. It wouldn't be much of a comparison if they just ignored that fact.


----------



## Xenturion (Dec 13, 2012)

I don't know why everyone is all up-in-arms about TPU posting this information. It is a very beneficial thing for us, the consumers, to have news providers looking into things like this. AMD and Nvidia are perfectly capable of using driver optimizations that inflate their results. I remember a few months back AMD got called out on the visual quality of textures with its 6900 series cards. The release of the "Never Settle" drivers confused me as well. Sure, there are gains to be made in optimizing drivers for specific software titles, but the performance gains they advertised sounded a little suspect without something else (visual fidelity, smoothness) taking a back seat. Even before that, I read somewhere that around the time of Quake 3, ATI (well before the time of the AMD buyout) made some changes to its drivers, that while, boosted performance, dramatically affected visual quality. Some reviewers changed the executable's name to Quack 3.exe and the performance magically disappeared. http://techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-optimize-quake-iii

This isn't an argument about which Manufacturer is better or which offers a better value. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's about keeping them honest and ensuring the best end user experience for everyone.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 13, 2012)

Looks like alot of you got your panties in a wad this morning. rpsgc Its news get over it. If you think you could do a better job by all means PM wiz and ask for a editorial position but if not please do not down BTA.


----------



## Ikaruga (Dec 13, 2012)

Xenturion said:


> I don't know why everyone is all up-in-arms about TPU posting this information. It is a very beneficial thing for us, the consumers, to have news providers looking into things like this. AMD and Nvidia are perfectly capable of using driver optimizations that inflate their results. I remember a few months back AMD got called out on the visual quality of textures with its 6900 series cards. The release of the "Never Settle" drivers confused me as well. Sure, there are gains to be made in optimizing drivers for specific software titles, but the performance gains they advertised sounded a little suspect without something else (visual fidelity, smoothness) taking a back seat. Even before that, I read somewhere that around the time of Quake 3, ATI (well before the time of the AMD buyout) made some changes to its drivers, that while, boosted performance, dramatically affected visual quality. Some reviewers changed the executable's name to Quack 3.exe and the performance magically disappeared. http://techreport.com/review/3089/how-ati-drivers-optimize-quake-iii
> 
> This isn't an argument about which Manufacturer is better or which offers a better value. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. It's about keeping them honest and ensuring the best end user experience for everyone.



I also remember that Matrox had a turbo-mini-opengl driver which accelerated some OpenGL games like Quake3, but that one was actually pretty good both quality and performance wise, nothing like the crap what ATI did with their filtering hacks. ATI/AMD (sadly) never had good opengl drivers, and the speed inconsistency shown in the videos was always there in idtech games from Quake1 to RAGE, and this is not something new what's happening with the current drivers only. 
Let's hope it's only software and they can fix it this time for good, the more the competition, the better for us


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Dec 13, 2012)

rpsgc said:


> TPU just went down a notch in my opinion for reposting this crap.



Ignorance is a bliss, right? TPU just went up a mile for having balls to start a conversation about this very flammable fanboy topic.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 13, 2012)

The balls? Heh, I think the motivation was getting paid to post articles, not to discuss this subject. LOL


----------



## Socram13 (Dec 13, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I did read it. I don't see any bias. Since when is criticizing a poor performance in a test considered biased? Are they supposed to shower AMD with praise for doing poorly in the tests?
> 
> I see comments about AMD's performance being "not too shabby", but then they compare it to the nVidia performance, and realized that the AMD "isn't doing so well"
> 
> ...



Agree.
TPU thanks for alerting us for this Techreport review.
If test declares itself that AMD 7950 offers better gaming experience, AMD fan  boys would come here to show AMD "superiority", but when scenario changes, they call the review a Nvidia biased review bla bla...
Even with higher average fps, HD 7950 deliveres a less smooth performance in many games, besides flicker, artifacts, black screens, freeze, reported my many HD 7000 users.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Dec 13, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> The balls? Heh, I think the motivation was getting paid to post articles, not to discuss this subject. LOL



I see ton of sites never touching topics like this only some stupid product launches. Btw I don't think anyone got paid for posting that thing here?


----------



## silkstone (Dec 13, 2012)

I watched the video and some a few bigger "jumps" on the AMD card, but the Nvidia card does not look as smooth overall. There is very little difference between the two, in all honesty and i doubt 99% of users would notice it at regular frame rates. It would be good if they could post a real frame rate video for us to compare, i doubt anyone would notice much of anything.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 13, 2012)

I think they both look the same.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Dec 13, 2012)

It's not stuttering, just showing AMD faster than nVidia that's all, so the video blinking cuz can't see the fastest of AMD hahahaha...

btw, does they said it run the game up to 120fps or 240fps..or they said they record with highspeed camera 120fps or 240fps?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 13, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> I see ton of sites never touching topics like this only some stupid product launches. Btw I don't think anyone got paid for posting that thing here?


Think again... these chaps, last I understood, that post news get a couple $ an article (rightfully so for their efforts!).


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 13, 2012)

Why the hate against TPU for quoting and linking to a review? There are lots of reviews linked. And there are LOTS OF TERRIBLE NEWS PR POSTINGS.  I found the article and benchmark take on the issue interesting and thought provoking. Conclusion... this merits further investigation. There seem to be a lot of peeps here that don't like objective analysis. If the data can be criticised, or the method biased due to looking at just one game, then that can be improved... but the strategy of research is not wrong.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 13, 2012)

I just checked, and those arguing for a particular side matches what is in their 'system specs'.

A few of you have also spoken *against* tpu for posting something like this.  This is a great topic to make sure that you aren't speaking in a biased tongue before clicking 'post reply'.

That being said, this review should have taken into account more than one game if they are going to go public, as it is unintentionally slandering a company, and is pretty serious in a business sense.  While I haven't noticed it on CF 5750s or my 7950, the videos do show that there is a real problem in Skyrim, nothing more, so take it as that.  I trust that AMD is looking into this, and if they see it as a serious issue, they will take measures to fix this.


----------



## acerace (Dec 13, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> Why the hate against TPU for quoting and linking to a review? There are lots of reviews linked. And there are LOTS OF TERRIBLE NEWS PR POSTINGS.  I found the article and benchmark take on the issue interesting and thought provoking. Conclusion... this merits further investigation. There seem to be a lot of peeps here that don't like objective analysis. If the data can be criticised, or the method biased due to looking at just one game, then that can be improved... but the strategy of research is not wrong.



Because the haters are stupid and blinded by fanboyism. As Logan from TS said, fanboys must die.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 13, 2012)

lemonadesoda said:


> Why the hate against TPU for quoting and linking to a review? There are lots of reviews linked. And there are LOTS OF TERRIBLE NEWS PR POSTINGS.  I found the article and benchmark take on the issue interesting and thought provoking. Conclusion... this merits further investigation. There seem to be a lot of peeps here that don't like objective analysis. If the data can be criticised, or the method biased due to looking at just one game, then that can be improved... but the strategy of research is not wrong.



There is just as much argument against as it is for posting this, that I will agree.

Due to the review not being very comprehensive in its findings, I must say that I disagree with them posting this on TPU, but without them having posted it, I may not have heard it because this is the only tech news site that I go to.

Maybe it would have been better if it were not front page news, but if AMD fixes this issue, then TPU helped fix this problem by perpetuating this news.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 13, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> I just checked, and those arguing for a particular side matches what is in their 'system specs'.


Do you think this has more to do with experience in using a card versus fanboyism? I mean hwo could one speak to their experiences if they didnt use the card in question...  

Correlation does not imply causation!


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 13, 2012)

Micro-stutter does exist. Period. How much it bothers some people more or less than others is going to differ. I notice it, but it doesn't bother me. Granted the lower frame-rates you get the more you notice it. I'm a little more curious with the settings that they're using as well as the hardware that was used to test it.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 13, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Do you think this has more to do with experience in using a card versus fanboyism? I mean hwo could one speak to their experiences if they didnt use the card in question...
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation!



You.  And anyone else who would use a slap smiley.  It is the one smile, along with shadeshu, that I don't use because it is offensive.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 13, 2012)

"You" what? I didnt ask a who question in the first place...? And notice the big smiley at the end... yeah, that is there to let you know that slap smiley was in fun. Find some hackles kiddo, you shouldnt be getting offended by smilies replying to an off the mark comment.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 13, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> "You" what? I didnt ask a who question in the first place...? And notice the big smiley at the end... yeah, that is there to let you know that slap smiley was in fun. Find some hackles kiddo, you shouldnt be getting offended by smilies replying to an off the mark comment.





> I mean hwo could one speak to their experiences if they didnt use the card in question...



Do you even know what you write?

I see now, you meant how and not who.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 13, 2012)

> Do you even know what you write?



HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW... WHO wouldnt make sense there...say the sentence out loud with HOW and WHO.


----------



## badtaylorx (Dec 13, 2012)

to all upset about this.....

im sorry but this is true....

i have 2 rigs   one with 2x6970 cfx and one with 670 sli......there is a feel of smoothness on the sli setup that is not there with the cfx setup.....both on intel 1155 2700k-amd 3570-nv

and before you  start crapping all over me saying SEVEN950 not SIX.....i built my cousins rig just last month using a 7970dcii......similar results.......


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 13, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW... WHO wouldnt make sense there...say the sentence out loud with HOW and WHO.



You have been on forums long enough to know exactly how many people speak without knowledge of a subject.

And remember, I am not the one that made the spelling mistake.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 13, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> You have been on forums long enough to know exactly how many people speak without knowledge of a subject.
> 
> And remember, I am not the one that made the spelling mistake.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So with that said, doesnt that make your original comment a bit odd? Who can speak to it more than people that own it, yet your post infers they are biased in their opinion (at least that is how I took it). Totally confused, perhaps we both need some coffee. 


That would be a simple typo, sir.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 13, 2012)

My thoughts:





Of course, in order to accurately judge the provided information, there should be a listing of the system used.


I love how everyone just jumps into the AMD vs NVidia thing, but none looks to system faults as the cause.....except for AMD themselves, who said they would look into it.


As to why TPU posted this, it's knowledge sharing. We MUST cover both the good and the bad...you gotta have the bad to know what good is...or you only have half the perspective.


----------



## Kaynar (Dec 13, 2012)

I do get some noticeable stutters on my single 7970 wether overclocked or not. But this happens once per hour or so and only in selected games. This lead me to believe that it is the card's fault and not AMD's (esp since my flatmate with his 7950 doesnt get any stutters).

The game called Path of Exile has an option to view Frame Latency in addition to FPS and my 7970 has a stable 16-17ms there with some random, rare (every 5-10mins) spikes going to 25-30ms and really rarely having a 50+ms spike which is easily noticeable (Its like the screen slightly "jumps" up and down for a sec). Again, since it is so rare, I think it is my card's issue.

EDIT: I definately NEVER noticed spikes in Skyrim after having played so many hours but I have noticed it in few other titles such as Far Cry 3 (recent example)


----------



## Frick (Dec 13, 2012)

Read the original review and I think he weighs it down too much. Again I don't think most people would notice this anyway, and he's basicly telling them the AMD solution sucks right now if you want a smooth gaming experience (which you want) while there are tons of AMD users who say they don't have this issue. To my horror it's posted on Ars Technica as well.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Dec 13, 2012)

I enjoy reading new video card reviews, especially here at TPU.  Interpreting the charts it seems clear that ATI/AMD's current cards pump out raw fps with high/low cap optimizations? and Nvidia's cards are geared specifically for a "smoother" or more "refined" fps experience.  

Both methods are distinguishable and people will just prefer one or the other.


----------



## Pehla (Dec 13, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> That being said, this review should have taken into account more than one game if they are going to go public, as it is unintentionally slandering a company, and is pretty serious in a business sense



i totaly agree!! micro stuter in one game?? well i can live with that??think we all do..


----------



## SuperSonic X 316 (Dec 13, 2012)

boulard83 said:


> HardOCP are speeking about this "smoothness" from Nvidia setup for years now. Mostly when using multiGPU setup, multi monitor being even worse.
> 
> From Hardocp testing, you seem to need more FPS to have the same "smoothness feeling" while gaming VS Nvidia. They spoke about it lots of time on lots of reviews.



Yeah, I remember seeing a few articles before that showed this issue with AMD cards. It seems that it's mostly dealing with how fast the cards load up textures and from what I've read, the Radeon cards have always been slower (I've owned Radeon cards myself for years.) I'm actually considering Nvidia cards this time around for this reason (was before the article showed up) but I really liked using ATI Tray Tools.


----------



## m1dg3t (Dec 13, 2012)

Curious if monitor interface affects overall latency? Prolly another reason to stick with DVI/DVI-DL


----------



## xorbe (Dec 13, 2012)

Oooh free 3D, shrink the window a little, stare at the side-by-side cross-eyed, and hit play!


----------



## Eagleye (Dec 13, 2012)

well i returned by gtx670 after stutter after stutter in games. This smoothness thing that people keep mentioning is all in the head bcoz i couldn't find it  I will try the amd 7 series and see if that helps with higher frame rates, if not i will return that also and wait for next gen


----------



## Fluffmeister (Dec 13, 2012)

Eagleye said:


> well i returned by gtx670 after stutter after stutter in games. This smoothness thing that people keep mentioning is all in the head bcoz i couldn't find it  I will try the amd 7 series and see if that helps with higher frame rates, if not i will return that also and wait for next gen



So to clarify, you returned a GTX 670 because it stuttered apparently, but it didn't really because as you say it's all in your head.

Regardless your now gonna buy an AMD 7 series card because as this thread proves, higher framerates don't automatically mean it's smoother/better.

Good job.


----------



## ThunderStorm (Dec 13, 2012)

I just hope AMD optimizes its drivers nicely, especially in CFX configuration. Micro-shuttering for me is just meh, not a big deal at all since I have experienced this phenomenon on both AMD and nVIDIA cards.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 13, 2012)

Wow, just WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

*I mean the end of the world is upon us and this is all you can think to argue about, priorities people!!! *

OT 

I couldn't be any happier with the performance of my 7950 coming from a 570 and don't notice any microstuttering in any of my games, not saying it's not there I just think it's probably a moot point to 90% of people, the other 10% of people are probably those who claim they can see and perform better in games running at over 120FPS


----------



## esrever (Dec 13, 2012)

I would really wish some other site were able to confirm or deny these findings. I stopped reading TTR after reading their stupid article about AMD censoring material and the original 660 ti review due to their blatant bias. They use a different method to test cards/cpus which is good but their numbers are often times inconsistent with everyone else. The review themselves are just written as best of they can to down play any AMD cards and even to exclude any test that would showed AMD winning. 

I wouldn't actually be surprised if TTR just randomly made up the graphs at this point because of how they insist on doing the same articles to make nvidia look better at this point and using data that not only is selected based on favoritism but also inconsistent with other sites, they only hide behind their testing method at this point. 

First it was the original 660ti review where they included TWIMTBP games where AMD suffered in the final conclusion but removed gaming evolved titles where nvidia suffered. Then the update which they hid behind windows 8 drivers and a selection of games that were different, Removing BF3 and other AMD favored titles and adding a few of TWIMTBP titles. The conclusion was stupid and the testing was stupid so when they were called out, The made the follow up review which at this point I am not even inclined to believe the numbers. 

The whole year of review from the tech report has been praising nvidia. Thats not so bad but when they often skew the price of AMD and nvidia cards in the conclusion and not including AMD favored results. It starts to be something.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Dec 13, 2012)

Eagleye said:


> well i returned by gtx670 after stutter after stutter in games. This smoothness thing that people keep mentioning is all in the head bcoz i couldn't find it  I will try the amd 7 series and see if that helps with higher frame rates, if not i will return that also and wait for next gen



Did you happen to have a launch gtx 670 ASUS or EVGA?  Many people did RMA and it fixed the problem quick.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 13, 2012)

I know this is about Skyrim stutter but i previously mentioned graphical stutter in FC3.  Just played the co-op version and it was silky smooth.  Even the SP is now smoother after a sizable download for the game (mysterious 350mb file).

I'd put it down to drivers. Fixable.  And it's not an issue to me so I'm happy.

But it is a bit shameful the ferocity of the arguments in this thread.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 13, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> I just checked, and those arguing for a particular side matches what is in their 'system specs'.
> 
> A few of you have also spoken *against* tpu for posting something like this.  This is a great topic to make sure that you aren't speaking in a biased tongue before clicking 'post reply'.
> 
> That being said, this review should have taken into account more than one game if they are going to go public, as it is unintentionally slandering a company, and is pretty serious in a business sense.  While I haven't noticed it on CF 5750s or my 7950, the videos do show that there is a real problem in Skyrim, nothing more, so take it as that.  I trust that AMD is looking into this, and if they see it as a serious issue, they will take measures to fix this.



I guess you missed the 2 articles before this. It's not just Skyrim. And you're damn right there's a system spec correlation. I've dealt with enough AMD bugs to know I should steer clear. Even if this microstutter is a newer driver problem, which I don't see how it could be as I've seen this issue since the 7950s launch, it would still just be the most recent in a long line of critical bugs. People can cry to their hearts content that anyone so harsh on the brand they blew money on must be a fanboy, but it's not really about that. It's about experience.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 14, 2012)

I could care less eitherway i just want more testing done

7950 vs 7950 boost does the clock speed fluctuations cause the problem to be more pronounced

how bad is the issue on say the 7970 and 7970 GHz edition does clock speed on the GPU lower overall latency giving higher clocked cards any kind of benefit or does it further cause problems

does the 7870 experience the same issues 

Its an interesting glimpse but 1 GPU 1 Driver revision is not enought to say theres a huge problem here.  more data would be appreciated in this case to get a clearer view.



HumanSmoke said:


> Doesn't make a helluva lot of difference imo. TR are only claiming the discrepancy regarding the 7950 Boost, they aren't extrapolating the results and saying it affects all models.
> Having said that, given the standing that Scott has in the community, I'd say that someone will test the 7970, 7970GE etc. It wouldn't surprise me if AMD were optimizing for outright speed at all- that is the primary metric used in the majority of reviews, and a major bullet point in PR slides.
> 
> AMD had no problem reaping the rewards of reviews using the all new 7950 Boost...are you saying that TR should gloss over any potential problem because the bulk of the other models are _possibly_ OK ? HardOCP and Tom's Hardware amongst others are also reporting various issues in single/multi card configs- at what point do you say its worth reporting?



first i didnt say TR did im saying essentially i want more testing done before saying somethings wrong drivers / auto boost clocks going up and down etc can all have an impact on stuttering  7970 stock vs 7970 ghz edition and 7950 stock would be welcome tests on the same driver to see if boost clocks are causing some issues. Seems your taking my post and trying to paint it in a light that makes your post more meaningful, i simply want more testing done nothing more, Altho why people are up in arms over skyrim surprises me AMD has had issues with the Gamebryo engine for hell 9-10 years now Morrowind / Oblivion / Fallout 3 / Fallout New Vegas / Skyrim all exhibit this issue. an easy way to fix it is 1 mod the game a great deal and 2 lock it to 59Hz.  That said stuttering can be issue ive seen it many times. not saying TR is wrong but what im saying is their can be easy solutions that fix the problem.

I do have to say this brings back memories of my 4870x2 and the stuttering in Oblivion due to crossfire.


----------



## slatanek (Dec 14, 2012)

*How about shadow flicker?*

Micro-stutter being one, but what are your guys experiences with shadow flickering? I have a HD7850 and as there is movement in a scene (i.e. camera panning) the shadows are a mess! I get this in every game I play. Another issue - corrupted frames. Every now and then a frame is fucked up, like there are solid, black triangles, untextured objects etc. I mean it happens from time to time and at first I thought  "oooh, its just nothing". Now the longer I'm being exposed to it the more irritating it is. 
The problem is these issues are small at first, but after you've seen something once it begins to bother you more and more with time. And I really don't care if its software or hardware - what matters is the user experience. Next time I'll give nVidia a try.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Dec 14, 2012)

slatanek said:


> Micro-stutter being one, but what are your guys experiences with shadow flickering? I have a HD7850 and as there is movement in a scene (i.e. camera panning) the shadows are a mess! I get this in every game I play. Another issue - corrupted frames. Every now and then a frame is fucked up, like there are solid, black triangles, untextured objects etc. I mean it happens from time to time and at first I thought  "oooh, its just nothing". Now the longer I'm being exposed to it the more irritating it is.



what kind of driver version have you used?
in case you have already used 12.11 beta driver then you should submit your problem here instead posting off topic here



slatanek said:


> Next time I'll give nVidia a try.



that's your own choice whether you'll gear up your rig with radeon or nvidia, end of story


----------



## slatanek (Dec 14, 2012)

*WHQL driver 12.10*

I'm using the latest WHQL driver, which is 12.10, so I won't post here  :shadedshu


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 14, 2012)

....i went from single ati to xfired 6870's to single gtx 670..., nvidia is a different beast all together.  As much as i love, recommend and buy amd gpus in my  experience /opinion. Green teams got em beat.  Amd is purpose designed and built as the value alternative....


----------



## sergionography (Dec 14, 2012)

i wonder if the screen being 60hz has to do with anything, because if anything i dont see how higher fps can be constantly less smooth, in this case its either the graphic card is rendering multiples of the same frame, or due to the 60hz which can only handle 60fps? is skipping anything over 60
or idk i guess i just dont understand this whole latency thing, it just sounds fishy to me that more frames are taking longer times in between to display
another thing would be the mechanism in which the frames are transmitted, its clear on the amd the frame overlaps the other, where for nvidia maybe each frame fades while the other displays?

im very ignorant on this matter. but can anyone clarify?


----------



## jihadjoe (Dec 14, 2012)

sergionography said:


> i wonder if the screen being 60hz has to do with anything, because if anything i dont see how higher fps can be constantly less smooth, in this case its either the graphic card is rendering multiples of the same frame, or due to the 60hz which can only handle 60fps? is skipping anything over 60
> or idk i guess i just dont understand this whole latency thing, it just sounds fishy to me that more frames are taking longer times in between to display
> another thing would be the mechanism in which the frames are transmitted, its clear on the amd the frame overlaps the other, where for nvidia maybe each frame fades while the other displays?
> 
> im very ignorant on this matter. but can anyone clarify?



The average frame rate is higher, but when the Radeon encounters a specifically difficult frame it tends to lag, hence the stutters.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2012)

Some one should start a Poll? see what us the people that use these cards both nvidia and AMD to see if yes i can see this problem or no i dont see it at all on either cards?


----------



## DOM (Dec 14, 2012)

Imo is just BS since amd has a faster card 

If someone wants to give me a 680 I can do a comparison


----------



## sergionography (Dec 14, 2012)

jihadjoe said:


> The average frame rate is higher, but when the Radeon encounters a specifically difficult frame it tends to lag, hence the stutters.



but in the video at 240hz camera shot the amd consistently appears to have less frames as u can almost tell every frame thats changing, so what i was saying how could more fps be more apperant
yes i get your point but that is when for example an intensive scene comes up and it stutters for a bit or in some cases fps takes a dip thats why some reviews have min fps in their graphs, but i didnt notice that in the videos here, its just consistent frame by frame change is what i notice


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Dec 14, 2012)

Lets hope, The Smoothest FPS appear on next catagories on HWBot, and The Fastest Card on 3D Mark dissappear...LoL 

Since Radeon 7000, and now HD7000... I didn't find that trouble, in my opinion we are just too lazy to do some tweak and wait the new fix, and I believe everybody on this forum can do it.


----------



## Frick (Dec 14, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> It's about experience.



Which is what makes it so weird to me. TR has hard data, you can't really argue with that, but why are there people with experiance and know-how saying they don't have it at all? Is there other things at play here, or is it just a case of people simply not seeing it?



crazyeyesreaper said:


> i just want more testing done



Indeed so.



Melvis said:


> Some one should start a Poll? see what us the people that use these cards both nvidia and AMD to see if yes i can see this problem or no i dont see it at all on either cards?



I was thinking about that as well, but I don't think a poll would cover it.


----------



## m1dg3t (Dec 14, 2012)

Frick said:


> I was thinking about that as well, but I don't think a poll would cover it.



Don't worry, my BS will cover it


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 14, 2012)

Huang paying double salary to Nvidia's Trolling Division


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 14, 2012)

I have had stuttering on both AMD and NVidia cards now that I remember (they are talking about the long pauses you see every once in a while, not the ones happening every few frames that are consistent in the videos).

I thought it was because my CPU was doing something, and since I couldn't pinpoint what it was exactly, I would just restart and not see the problem again for a very long time.  This has happened maybe a half dozen times in the last five years.

I just now thought of this after looking at the video again.  The first time I remember it happening was on the 9800GX2, then on a 4870.


----------



## kristimetal (Dec 14, 2012)

*That stuttering*

After reading the review amd all the comments (both on TPU and techreport), I had the preconception that 660ti is stutter-free.
Well, i watched the videos (both 120hz and 240hz videos) and i ended up with the conclusion (as i said, thinking that 660ti has more "magic" to it  and no stuttering) that both GPUs stutter like hell, of course, the effect was amplified by recording the game at 240hz, where the actual frame rate was ~80fps, so the choppiness.
In the areas where 7950 stutter, like where you start going up the small hil after you pass that road (i think), but also the 660ti stutter, just as an example.
Unfortunatelly, video cards have stuttering, and Skyrim is a bad example to exhibit, cause Skyrim is poorly optimize, remember SkyBoost.
We should see more games tested, maybe TPU will conduct a test like this.


----------



## tacosRcool (Dec 14, 2012)

smooth as butter


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2012)

Frick said:


> I was thinking about that as well, but I don't think a poll would cover it.



Yea im not sure either, but you will get BS from both sides so it should even out in the end?


----------



## Frick (Dec 14, 2012)

Melvis said:


> Yea im not sure either, but you will get BS from both sides so it should even out in the end?



I meant that you'd have to gather a lot of specs, so a normal poll wouldn't cut it. Driver versions, OS versions, what systems they were using, what games etc.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 14, 2012)

Frick said:


> I meant that you'd have to gather a lot of specs, so a normal poll wouldn't cut it. Driver versions, OS versions, what systems they were using, what games etc.



Good point, but im not to sure if it would matter? as this so called issue has been around awhile? but to cut it down maybe go with the latest drivers from this yr and covering all windows OS's XP/Vista/7/8 as there the main ones people use for gaming on, and the stuttering they cliam is regardless of  OS?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 15, 2012)

It's not a "so called" issue. It's true in some setups. My 4870x2 stuttered. When I went to replace it, I initially went with a 5870, much less stuttering (was still there in some games though), but not enough performance. Basically a cross-grade for me. 

So I tried 2 x 5850. Nice performance boost, but stuttering was back in full effect. 

So I decided to try nVidia. My 580 gets roughly the same frame rates as the 5850 Crossfire combo in the things I tested, but is noticeably smoother. Stuttering is a rare occurrence on my 580. It does happen on some occasions though. Much less frequent however.

Of course, ymmv. I'm sure there's more to it than just AMD and their drivers. But on my setup, I get a better experience with nVidia.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 15, 2012)

Wile E said:


> It's not a "so called" issue. It's true in some setups. My 4870x2 stuttered. When I went to replace it, I initially went with a 5870, much less stuttering (was still there in some games though), but not enough performance. Basically a cross-grade for me.
> 
> So I tried 2 x 5850. Nice performance boost, but stuttering was back in full effect.
> 
> ...



See this is what i mean, i ran a single 4870X2 then went to 2x 4870X2 and never saw this stuttering issue. I think it depends more on software installed on each individual machine and hardware then all down to just what there claiming. 

And lets face it if its THAT BAD then no one would be buying AMD cards period, but we both know that isnt true?


----------



## mediasorcerer (Dec 15, 2012)

I saw this over at ars yesterday, i'm very happy with mine, as if the human eye can see microstuttering anyway lol, cinema is 24 frames per second and nobodies complained about that for the last 100 years have they?

We are talking milliseconds, anyone out there can honestly tell me they can see in milliseconds lol?


Give me the bus width and extra vid ram anyday, much more futureproof.


They are a great card for the money, plain and simple


----------



## Wile E (Dec 15, 2012)

Melvis said:


> See this is what i mean, i ran a single 4870X2 then went to 2x 4870X2 and never saw this stuttering issue. I think it depends more on software installed on each individual machine and hardware then all down to just what there claiming.
> 
> And lets face it if its THAT BAD then no one would be buying AMD cards period, but we both know that isnt true?



I think it's more a combination of setup, software, and also a individual's natural ability to see it or not. Though on my setup, AMD was much more guilty of it. Hard to say why that is for sure, but notice I said *my* setup. Again, ymmv.



mediasorcerer said:


> I saw this over at ars yesterday, i'm very happy with mine, as if the human eye can see microstuttering anyway lol, cinema is 24 frames per second and nobodies complained about that for the last 100 years have they?
> 
> We are talking milliseconds, anyone out there can honestly tell me they can see in milliseconds lol?
> 
> ...



Movies and games are recorded and rendered differently. Movies have blurring which effect the perceived smoothness. The blurring is caused by the camera at capture time. Games generate the images, not capture them, and therefore are not blurred, but perfect frame by frame. The human eye DOES perceive the difference. Blurring fools the human eye and brain into seeing smooth movement.

The few games that do have some sort of blurring option, generally run much smoother at much lower framerates. Just look at Crysis 1 as an example. With blurring, it rendered smoothly on most setups all the way down in the 30's, whereas other games require a much higher framerate to achieve the same level of smoothness.

Besides, you do not have to be able to see each individual frame to recognize when something isn't looking smooth. Most people I let see these issues first hand can't put a finger on what's wrong, but they see microstuttering as something that's just a little off, and doesn't feel quite right.


EDIT: Found what I was looking for to prove my point. Even at 60fps, some settings show a noticeable difference. It's even more pronounced if you view on a high quality CRT.
http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/


----------



## rvalencia (Dec 15, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> That probably explains why Tech Report had an HD 7770 giveaway three weeks ago, an HD 7870 giveaway two weeks ago, and an HD 7950 giveaway last week.
> 
> And since you're quite insistent that there is an Nvidia bias, why not read this page about Sleeping Dogs, an "AMD Gaming Evolved" title?
> 
> ...


http://techreport.com/review/23150/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/6







http://techreport.com/review/23150/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/7





Might as well return to XFX 7950 Black with 900Mhz and no turbo boost.

For AIB overclock vs AIB overclock product, Techreport should have used Sapphire 100352VXSR i.e. 7950 @ 950Mhz with no turboboost.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Dec 15, 2012)

Wile E said:


> I think it's more a combination of setup, software, and also a individual's natural ability to see it or not. Though on my setup, AMD was much more guilty of it. Hard to say why that is for sure, but notice I said *my* setup. Again, ymmv.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you say so, you may well be right, i don't get that with my card, and it's just a stock 7950 too, i'm not using boost bios though. Thanks for the reply and info.


----------



## jihadjoe (Dec 15, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> I saw this over at ars yesterday, i'm very happy with mine, as if the human eye can see microstuttering anyway lol, cinema is 24 frames per second and nobodies complained about that for the last 100 years have they?
> 
> We are talking milliseconds, anyone out there can honestly tell me they can see in milliseconds lol?



There's actually an interesting paper from Utah University about that:
http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/temporal-resolution/

And xbitlabs also had a look at how display technology affects perceived response times:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/lcd-parameters_3.html

Anyways they something like the eye (thanks to the brain) is actually able to perceive changes up to 5ms. That's 200 frames per second.

Cinema is smooth at 24fps because those frames are delivered consistently. 

i.e., if you plot time vs frames, then 
at 0ms you get frame 1,
at 41.6ms you get frame 2,
at 83.3ms you get frame 3 and so on. 

The frames always arrive right on time, and your brain combines them into an illusion of fluid motion. Of course it kinda helps that every frame in a movie is already done and rendered, so you dont have to worry about and render delays.

On a computer, the case might be like:

at 0 ms you get frame 1
at 16.7ms you get frame 2
at 40ms you get frame 3 (now this frame should have arrived at 33.3ms)
at 50ms you get frame 4

Frame 3 was delayed by 8ms. Going by a consistent 60fps it should have arrived at 33.3ms, but processing delays meant it rolls off the GPU late. Your in-game fps counter or benchmark tool wont notice it at all because it still arrived before 50ms (or when frame 4 was due), but your eye, sensitive to delays of up to 5ms notices this as a slight stutter.


----------



## Pehla (Dec 15, 2012)

Melvis said:


> And lets face it if its THAT BAD then no one would be buying AMD cards period, but we both know that isnt true?



i agree...
i think ppl who bought nvidia must say negative coments about amd becouse...well lets face it they can't do nothing else..they have nvidia!!and since im not fan of any of those
i can say the sam about amd fans!i just go price performance and now.. that is amd!!!
i would even go with amd cpu setup just becouse they are cheaper..but that dont give pcie gen3 suport so i give it up!!


----------



## Wile E (Dec 15, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> If you say so, you may well be right, i don't get that with my card, and it's just a stock 7950 too, i'm not using boost bios though. Thanks for the reply and info.



Oh, that doesn't mean it's going to effect everyone. That's not the argument I'm trying to make. I'm just saying that it is real, and does effect some.

If you have a great experience with your card, by all means, keep using it. I'm not here to tell you otherwise. After all, what works best for one, doesn't always work best for another. I'm not here to tell you AMD is bad for you. If it works great in your setup, there's no reason for you to worry about it at all.

The cards just don't seem to work their best in my particular setup. I can't speak for everyone though.

On the topic of this particular article and related reviews, however, I do like the latency based approach to testing. It seems to fall into line with how my system behaves with these cards.


----------



## okidna (Dec 15, 2012)

rvalencia said:


> http://techreport.com/review/23150/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/6
> 
> http://techreport.com/r.x/radeon-hd-7970-ghz/dirt-beyond-50.gif
> 
> ...



 Old driver is OLD.

With newer BETA driver :

http://techreport.com/review/23527/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-graphics-card/5





http://techreport.com/review/23527/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-graphics-card/8


----------



## rvalencia (Dec 15, 2012)

okidna said:


> Old driver is OLD.
> 
> With newer BETA driver :
> 
> ...



My point was for 7950 type GPUs not for NVIDIA GPUs.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 15, 2012)

It  is a shame we cannot compare such tests on Linux or MacOS... at least for now... but AMD still lags behind nvidia driver binary blobs tough there...

Anyway I see this as necessary evil. This will shaken up AMD driver team at least.


----------



## seronx (Dec 16, 2012)

http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1157&lid=1&pid=1547&leg=0

950 MHz for ALUs/TMUs/ROPs(1792/112/32)
= 3404.8 GFlops/106.4 GTexels/30.4 GPixels
5 GHz 384-bit GDDR5
= 240 GB/s

http://www.zotac.com/index.php?page...6&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=100313&lang=en

1111 MHz for ALUs/TMUs/ROPs(1344/112/24)
= 2986.368 GFlops/124.432 GTexels/26.664 GPixels
6.608 GHz 192-bit GDDR5
= 158.592 GB/s

---
In my conclusion it would appear that the 660 Ti has faster timings(Renders the scene faster) and does more efficient texel work(Can map the textures faster).

--> Higher clocks = faster rendering. <--
Games don't use the ALUs, the ROPs, and the RAM efficiently on the PC, so more Hz means more power even if you have significantly less units.

Games(+HPC with CUDA): Nvidia <--unless AMD is cheaper for the same performance.
High Performance Computing(Not with CUDA): AMD


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 16, 2012)

seronx said:


> http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1157&lid=1&pid=1547&leg=0
> 
> 950 MHz for ALUs/TMUs/ROPs(1792/112/32)
> = 3404.8 GFlops/106.4 GTexels/30.4 GPixels
> ...



To prove it is right... we need to downclock the 660ti even through output numbers and then do the benches... then we'll see it those are kernel/driver problems or hardware limitation by itself... although yes skyrim is a mess even so... project stutter.


----------



## jihadjoe (Dec 16, 2012)

Edit: Ah fk it I just realized I'm DAYS late to the party...

Just a little tweet from Anand Shimpi:
https://twitter.com/anandshimpi/status/279440323208417282


> I've known @scottwasson for a while and I've never known him to be biased in his GPU coverage.



I'm pretty confident btarunr wouldn't have linked the article here either if he felt it was biased.


----------



## entropy13 (Dec 17, 2012)

LOL yeah, and talking about "bias"...I'm also a regular in the comments section at Tech Report, and it's Cyril Kowalski that's more frequently called an "Nvidia fanboy" even though he recommended the 7850/7870 over its Nvidia counterparts because of the prices at the time of the reviews.


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 17, 2012)

Having read more into it there is no bias.  Any issue with the latency is on a game to game, driver to driver basis.  Here are the older latency graphs for Skyrim.  The only card to suffer is the GTX 570.






Yes, older drivers (12.7 beta) but the entire point is, no bias and no AMD crap out.  Also, for each latency blip to be identifed as a non-glitch requires continual rerunning of the same scene and seeing how the latencies play out.

And yes, to repeat, the graph above are older drivers but the point is still valid - there are no inherent issues with the AMD cards.  Nvidia's Vsync may well be doing it's intended job here to minimise latency (effectively reducing it by throwing resources - speed - at those more difficult scenes.)


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 17, 2012)

Nvidia has a bit of an edge when it comes to stutter free game play what people don't realize is NVIDIA using some of those transistors in the GPU for that very purpose while AMD not so much, essentially NVIDIA is using GPU die space to improve smoothness of gameplay to an extent how well it works well thats up to ppl with their GPUs to decide its. In the end both companies can provide fantastic performance and stutter free gameplay apparently for AMD it just requires driver switching lol.


----------



## kristimetal (Dec 19, 2012)

*Sad*

I'm sad now, i have a 7950 Windforce. 
In Skyrim with 12.8, it had sometimes a small stuttering, i have updated to 12.10 and the stuttering increased in outside areas (not in the cities, in the cities it runs smoothly, but in some caves the stuttering appears, weird).

I boughted it in july, there was a special offer, paid 310 euros, it was a deal back then.
Now i think i should have gone with a 670gtx, but the damn thing even now is around 360 euros (the cheapest with standard cooling), Asus DCU or Gigabyte windforce beeing at 380-390 euros.

Hope AMD improves their drivers fast.


----------



## sergionography (Dec 23, 2012)

whatever the case turbo for gpus never made sense to me
it sounds like it could skew average fps due to super high fps in easy to render scenes that allow thermal headroom but not so much to the intensive ones that allow no thermal headroom which is were you need the power
if anyone knows of any good reviews that compare minimum fps between boast and non boast it would be greatly appreciated


----------



## okidna (Dec 23, 2012)

sergionography said:


> if anyone knows of any good reviews that compare minimum fps between boast and non boast it would be greatly appreciated



7950 Boost reviews but you can also find 7950 non-boost version minimum FPS (and average) as a comparison : 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/08/16/amd-radeon-hd-7950-3gb-with-boost/1
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7950-3GB-PowerTune-Boost-Review
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...owercolor-hd-7950-3gb-boost-state-review.html


----------



## sergionography (Dec 23, 2012)

okidna said:


> 7950 Boost reviews but you can also find 7950 non-boost version minimum FPS (and average) as a comparison :
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/08/16/amd-radeon-hd-7950-3gb-with-boost/1
> http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7950-3GB-PowerTune-Boost-Review
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...owercolor-hd-7950-3gb-boost-state-review.html



see just like i thought
http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2012-08-13/bf3-1680-bar.jpg
here the minimum fps is the same

http://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/review/2012-08-13/bac-1920-bar.jpg
and here the boast has lower minimum for some reason

so yeah it appears the whole boast on graphic cards isnt as reliable, it only affects average fps due to higher max fps, which is useless if you ask me because anything higher than 60fps isnt noticable, while going below 60 in some competitive games might be a big problem


----------

