# AMD Radeon HD 7950 3 GB



## W1zzard (Jan 28, 2012)

Today AMD released their new Radeon HD 7950, the second card to be based on AMD's GCN shader architecture. Compared to its bigger brother, the HD 7970, the card comes with less shaders and reduced clock speeds. Other features have remained the same, like 3 GB memory, improved power consumption and support for EyeFinity.

*Show full review*


----------



## Cuzza (Jan 31, 2012)

Wow. Out of the dozens of graphics card reviews I have read on TPU over the years (and I always read W1z's reviews first coz they're the best), I have never come away from it saying "faaaaaaaark that card is amazing" like I did from this one. Sure it's pricey, but that OC? holy jebus. do want.


----------



## Maban (Jan 31, 2012)

What is the criteria for "stable" status for an overclock? I figure you use a program that you made, but how high of a load is it producing, is it based on artifact scanning, how long does it run, etc?


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Maban said:


> What is the criteria for "stable" status for an overclock? I figure you use a program that you made, but high of a load is it producing, is it based on artifact scanning, how long does it run, etc?



initial testing for max oc using gputool artifact scanner, then game testing to find the exact limits. if it's stable in game but unstable in the artifact scanner it still counts as unstable. unstable too if it's fine in the artifact scanner but not the game.


----------



## manofthem (Jan 31, 2012)

Great review, not too bad of a card at all, that card probably OC'd better than my 7970.


----------



## reverze (Jan 31, 2012)

with those kind of possible overclock even on stock voltage it makes it hard to shed out another 100 bucks for the 7970. I expect the higher binned OC models with custom cooling to do even better .


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jan 31, 2012)

Great to see a review up, and same exact OC as the 7970, and really surprising, but same exact fps, on the dot... But with such an old game, do you have any other results vs the OC'd 7970 on some games that push the GPU more, I'm curious on the performance difference caused by the shader loss.


----------



## dieterd (Jan 31, 2012)

I like that: "Good performance increase vs. HD 6950" and that is great to mention as advantage, but why in disatvantage there is no something like that: "Huge price increase vs. HD 6950"?


----------



## Hokum (Jan 31, 2012)

I think they are referring to the fact that the performance is next level but the price is above next level. IE poor Price/performance.

Overall I like the new 7900 series (I’ve just picked up a 6950/70 so I’m not too fussed) I think the power saving features is a big move. I’m less worried about performance than efficiency.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 31, 2012)

Does it unlock?


----------



## Recus (Jan 31, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Does it unlock?



No. And stop asking.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Damn_Smooth said:


> Does it unlock?



not the two samples i got. i checked


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> not the two samples i got. i checked



Thanks. It still seems like a pretty solid card though. Especially if Nvidia brings on a price war.


----------



## afw (Jan 31, 2012)

I won't call it fail ... but I expected more ... at least they shudav priced it less ... arnd $400 maybe ... I'm planning to upgrade and was hoping to get this ... but looking at the price ... i wont ... 

EDIT: like to see 1.5GB versions for less than $400. No point having 3GB for single monitor setups ...


----------



## crow1001 (Jan 31, 2012)

Underwhelming cards are underwhelming, really no buzz with these new 28nm AMD cores, their high price and not exactly amazing performance compared to the old Nvidia cards makes for a lackluster release. If Nvidia don't trounce these AMD GPU's with the 28nm kepler then they deserve to go under.


----------



## NAVI_Z (Jan 31, 2012)

awsome review as usual W1z. read both the reg and x-fire review. can't wait to get my hands on two of these puppies. my 5870 is still running strong but i need more mem for eyefinity.
these will  do nicely.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Jan 31, 2012)

sweeeeet. Would get better with drivers as well.. this ownz


----------



## TIGR (Jan 31, 2012)

Great review. Nice efficiency. I appreciate that you test card-only power consumption under multiple load conditions.


----------



## joyman (Jan 31, 2012)

Thanks for the great review again Wizz! 
The card is great, however the price is not. This is because the capitalism requires only profits, so noone will make something breathtaking or amazing breakthrough because of our blue(brown) eyes. They want bigger profit, so if there is nothing that forces them to make cheaper and better product at the same time noone will do it. Simple as that. So if we take this in account the card is just great. Period. Peace.


----------



## ERazer (Jan 31, 2012)

another great review wiz!!  ty sir


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 31, 2012)

Do any of these tests demonstrate OpenGL performance?

Honestly I'm too lazy to look through each test, but they appear to be all DX.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> Do any of these tests demonstrate OpenGL performance?
> 
> Honestly I'm too lazy to look through each test, but they appear to be all DX.



all directx i think. except for rage i couldnt think of an opengl title to use. and rage is fps locked


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> all directx i think. except for rage i couldnt think of an opengl title to use. and rage is fps locked



How about something like Furmark?  Had a colleague asking about how the newer cards work in professional applications (not games).  Assumed OpenGL testing would give some peek.

I do know that the FireGL and others have optimized and specialty drivers for apps like Solidworks, 3D studio, etc... list goes on.  And these typically don't.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Sasqui said:


> How about something like Furmark?  Had a colleague asking about how the newer cards work in professional applications (not games).  Assumed OpenGL testing would give some peek.
> 
> I do know that the FireGL and others have optimized and specialty drivers for apps like Solidworks, 3D studio, etc... list goes on.  And these typically don't.



furmark is not a benchmark.

ask your colleage what applications are interesting, what datasets he uses to fully load his card.


----------



## Am* (Jan 31, 2012)

Good lord, this makes every Nvidia and previous gen AMD card look like crap power hogs. It even stomps my GTX 460 in power consumption and it's the only somewhat energy efficient and half-decent gaming card Nvidia had.

GTX 460, meet your replacement. Just waiting for the drivers to mature and I'll be getting one of these cards.




W1zzard said:


> furmark is not a benchmark.
> 
> ask your colleage what applications are interesting, what datasets he uses to fully load his card.



Just a quick question W1z: could you post the power modes/clock profiles and their clockrates please (2D/Blu-ray/3D)? I couldn't find them in the review, not sure if I missed it.


----------



## devguy (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> all directx i think. except for rage i couldnt think of an opengl title to use. and rage is fps locked



Would you mind throwing on Unigine Heaven in OpenGL mode (or maybe in the future)?  Gives us Linux guys an idea how it'll go, because AMD seems to be slower than usual giving Michael at Phoronix a Tahiti-based card.

BTW, thanks for the review!  Might have to get me one.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Am* said:


> could you post the power modes/clock profiles and their clockrates please (2D/Blu-ray/3D)? I couldn't find them in the review, not sure if I missed it.



end of the overclocking page


----------



## Am* (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> end of the overclocking page



How did you get the profiles? These don't look right, as on your old Fermi reviews, you've missed out one of the power profiles; not sure if it's the case here or not just yet.


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Am* said:


> How did you get the profiles? These don't look right, as on your old Fermi reviews, you've missed out one of the power profiles; not sure if it's the case here or not just yet.



how do they look wrong?

i just measured clocks using gpuz while doing whatever is listed in that row

what did i do wrong in my fermi reviews? i don't like the predefined clock profiles. i list interesting tasks and the actual state of clocks


----------



## Am* (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> how do they look wrong?
> 
> i just measured clocks using gpuz while doing whatever is listed in that row
> 
> what did i do wrong in my fermi reviews? i don't like the predefined clock profiles. i list interesting tasks and the actual state of clocks



On your Fermi reviews, you completely missed the low-power 3D profiles, where the VRAM clocks stay the same, but the core clocks down to about 450MHz. That's how Nvidia skewed the power consumption results for all their newer cards since 200 series, because during loading screens/menus in game or a generally un-dermanding sections in games, they drop clocks to get lower average power consumption, whereas all AMD cards up to 6000 series haven't had this power profile and looked worse, when in reality they were much better for gaming.

I need to know if this series of cards introduced this power profile as well, because they cause a lot of compatibility problems and stability issues for quite a few titles and makes them FUBAR without a BIOS flash.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> furmark is not a benchmark.



Tell ozone3d that! ... they seem to think of it as burn in and benchmark:









W1zzard said:


> ask your colleage what applications are interesting, what datasets he uses to fully load his card.



Right now, Navisworks and Revit (Autodesk products, Navisworks was a relatively recent acqusition).  Can get versions if you are interested.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jan 31, 2012)

Freaking awesome review and card! I really don't see why people keep bashing these cards they are great, who cares about price its the very first day of release.

This makes me want to give up my power hungry CF 4850's they are around 58% of this 7950 and they use roughly 
Idle- CF-76W
Average- CF- 192W
Peak- CF-220W
Maximum- CF-294W


----------



## W1zzard (Jan 31, 2012)

Am* said:


> On your Fermi reviews, you completely missed the low-power 3D profiles, where the VRAM clocks stay the same, but the core clocks down to about 450MHz. That's how Nvidia skewed the power consumption results for all their newer cards since 200 series, because during loading screens/menus in game or a generally un-dermanding sections in games, they drop clocks to get lower average power consumption, whereas all AMD cards up to 6000 series haven't had this power profile and looked worse, when in reality they were much better for gaming.
> 
> I need to know if this series of cards introduced this power profile as well, because they cause a lot of compatibility problems and stability issues for quite a few titles and makes them FUBAR without a BIOS flash.



i see only 3 clock profiles in my gtx 580 bios. you say there are more ?


----------



## nt300 (Jan 31, 2012)

I have question can this card be unlocked into a HD 7970? The results are impressive


----------



## Delta6326 (Jan 31, 2012)

nt300 said:


> I have question can this card be unlocked into a HD 7970? The results are impressive



No. Already been asked.



Damn_Smooth said:


> Does it unlock?





W1zzard said:


> not the two samples i got. i checked


----------



## dj-electric (Jan 31, 2012)

W1zz, when you overclocked did you messed with PowerTune?


----------



## m1dg3t (Jan 31, 2012)

Nice review, very thorough  The performance/efficiency make's me want but the price send's me home, will wait for price drop's 

Good job AMD, looking forward to future release's of 28nm GPU's


----------



## OneCool (Jan 31, 2012)

I have to say for stock clocks im not impressed but with that said AMD has a lot of driver work to do.

The overclock on that card is crazy 

Wonder why AMD clocked them so low out the box?


----------



## SK-1 (Feb 1, 2012)

Thank you for *another *excellent review W1zz!
First price drop...I'm getting 2 (employment provided)


----------



## thematrix606 (Feb 1, 2012)

Awesome review! Decent but overpriced card, good specs though and OC potential.

Thanks!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 1, 2012)

Did you test performance after doing the 7970 bios flash? Someone reported increased performance. The assumption being it's from better vram timings.


----------



## m1dg3t (Feb 1, 2012)

AFAIK these can NOT be flashed, it has been posted in several thread's


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 1, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> AFAIK these can NOT be flashed, it has been posted in several thread's



You mean the shaders can't be unlocked? I know that. If you mean you can't flash a 7970 bios that's the first I've heard, and contradicts earlier results.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 2, 2012)

crow1001 said:


> Underwhelming cards are underwhelming, really no buzz with these new 28nm AMD cores, their high price and not exactly amazing performance compared to the old Nvidia cards makes for a lackluster release. If Nvidia don't trounce these AMD GPU's with the 28nm kepler then they deserve to go under.



$50 cheaper than a GTX 580 and the same performance out of the box, nearly 1/2 the power consumption and overclocks to the hills, really underwhelming  if anything your comment is the only "underwhelming" things about this thread. 

And FYI for the last few generations this is how it has been between ATI and NV, NV always taking the perfomance corwn with ATI playing catch up and just about beating them with their newer cards and NV releases 6 months later to start the whole cycle again. 

I do kind of agree about 1 point and that is the cost, though the cost is solely based to compete with NV on price>performance and now the 580 is no longer the single fastest card the prices will eventually come down and so will the ATI prices.


----------



## Brod (Feb 21, 2012)

Many of your benchmarks are clearly CPU limited. Time to ditch that ancient Nehalem setup and get a 3960X if you want to remain relevant...


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 21, 2012)

First, I cannot speak for W1zz. This is my own personal opinion.



Brod said:


> Many of your benchmarks are clearly CPU limited.



Not really:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/



> Time to ditch that ancient Nehalem setup and get a 3960X if you want to remain relevant...



TPU already has 3960X. It's been used here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/GSkill/F3-17000CL9Q-16GBZH/

and here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/X79-UD5/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/P9X79_Deluxe/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ECS/X79R-AX/


And I have three more reviews incoming using it as well. 


The cost of the X79 platform is prohibitive to most readers, it seems, so it makes more sense to use a platform that accurately portrays what most users that view the site will get. If they get a couple of FPS more, and not less, to me, that's a good thing. It's been several months since the launch, and we have only a few X79 users. If all the users here had X79, I'm sure W1zz would be using the 3960X.

That said, all of my own personal testing seems to show that it's not really CPU limitations, but memory limitations, that affect game performance more often than not. That said, now that IMC's are integrated into the GPU, there are limitations imposed by any platform, and the CPU used, and X79 has it's own set of limitations as well. Popular opinion of review sites says that SKT 1155 is the platform of choice, with the best price/performance ratio, so if anything, I think W1zz would use SKT 1155 before SKT 2011.


----------



## Brod (Feb 24, 2012)

What users can afford is beside the point. The purpose of a GPU review is to show readers what the GPU is capable of, which means any and all non-GPU bottlenecks should be reduced as much as possible. Anything else is an inaccurate representation of the product.



cadaveca said:


> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/



Of the 15 games tested, 10 are shown to not be GPU limited at 1680x1050 with Nehalem. Thanks for reinforcing my point...


----------



## Jdat (Mar 2, 2012)

Has the metal shim the same hight than the gpu core? Will I be able to use my old cooler tr shaman?


----------



## Mistral (Mar 5, 2012)

Brod said:


> Of the 15 games tested, 10 are shown to not be GPU limited at 1680x1050 with Nehalem. Thanks for reinforcing my point...


What, you think people have money to burn on a X79 system but can't afford a decent 1080p+ screen? That'd be some really wrong prioritizing. And even at CPU limited low resolutions you can still see where the cards are relative to one another.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 5, 2012)

Brod said:


> What users can afford is beside the point. The purpose of a GPU review is to show readers what the GPU is capable of, which means any and all non-GPU bottlenecks should be reduced as much as possible. Anything else is an inaccurate representation of the product.



I do not agree, but your point is noted.


----------



## Harlequin_uk (Mar 5, 2012)

if this is the case , where the reviews using AMD systems?


----------

