Do AMD's Radeon HD 7000s Trade Image Quality For Performance?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]hanson308[/nom]Even there is nothing to be considered as abnormalities, AMD has to do something to answer THG.Even how ridiculous the accusation that THG's assertions be, AMD has to do something to answer THG.why?Because AMD can't afford the consequences in standing the way of devil.What if AMD found that the so-called problem not needed to be addressed (as we common people argue), but THG had magnified the problem in hundred fold?What choice that AMD have ?[/citation]

We tried to explain it to you, but based on how many times we tried yet you still managed to either be a troll or fail to understand, this is unavoidable: You're an idiot.

AMD had a problem. AMD got called out on it. AMD fixed it. Tom's tells us that it happened. What could possibly be wrong with that? If AMD had a problem, then damn strait they had better fix it or the problem goes public. Those of us with decent eyes can see the slightly reduced quality once the images are blown up and compared with blown up images from other cards (some of us might see the difference without them being blown up, but the chances of anyone seeing it during gameplay are fairly low). That should not happen.

How hard is this to understand? If Nvidia did the same thing, then Tom's would have reacted in the same way. If it turns out that Nvidia made a similar mistake after a similar comparison with the GTX 600 cards then you can bet that Tom's will react in the same way, unless Nvidia is uncooperative, in which case the problem goes public before a fix is made.
 
@hanson308

If you consider Tom's to be devils, then there is something seriously wrong with you, even beyond what seems to be wrong just by reading your other ridiculous comments. Yes, the site that gives us relevant, unbiased information that allows us to keep in touch with technology's advances and to better decide what the best solutions to our problems are through the forums and such is full of devils, isn't it?

I guess that according to you, that would make me a devil, or at least a satanic sympathizer for agreeing with the Tom's staff. The same thing could go for the majority of the other forum goers.
 
Oh yeah I can totally see the difference... I'm NEVER buying AMD again.

I'm not sure if its me, but I can't tell the difference between the "bad quality" and "better quality" textures.
 
Guys how many hardware review editors follow along and answer 11 pages of comments from users about their article ... up to a week later?

Most post their article on the net and run ... but not at toms.

Don (cleeve) thanks mate for going out of your way to clarify the testing you did and answer everyone's questions...


:)
 
[citation][nom]reyNOD[/nom]Don (cleeve) thanks mate for going out of your way to clarify the testing you did and answer everyone's questions...[/citation]

heheh no problem bro.

Actually, I would have been quicker on the draw but I was out of town on assignment when the article went live. :)
 

It's you.
 
[citation][nom]mapesdhs[/nom]Just one minor but obvious point worth making here: the frame rate at which one perceives smoothmotion, beyond which additional fps (crudely put) can't be detected, is different for each individual.After so many years of dealing with professional VR kit, HD displays, etc., I can easily tell the differencebetween 60 and 75 fps/Hz, but that's just me. I probably became more sensitive to this because itwas the field I worked in. I remember old N64/PSX argument threads where some claimed not tobe able to see the difference above 30fps, or even 25fps, while others would claim that'd make thembarf. And of course the use of fields rather than progressive frames in analogue TV standards madethe issue even more complex (most people standing in a shopping store room full of ordinary TVswill see all the units they're not directly looking at as being 'flickery', but not all).SGI had a saying, "60Hz, 30 hurts", ie. they aimed for minimum 60Hz on their vis sim solutionswith IR technology, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who can tell the difference between60 and 75. If you're happy with 60, or even 50, then that's great for you, but it doesn't really saymuch about tech in general because everyone's different. If the other guy needs 75+ to feelcomfortable, then that's his issue to deal with. And of course using vsync (or not) can affect howyour eyes perceive the data hitting them. It's a bit silly really for someone who prefers 50+ Hzto be arguing with someone else who needs 75+ to feel comfortable. One person prefers apaperback, the other prefers an e-Reader... I'm more interested in the story being told. Be happy you're not a bird, they need more like 200+ fps to perceive smooth motion. No Crysisfun for them. Ian.[/citation]
Thanks for being civil.

I see 120Hz monitors in much the same way as I see SSDs. Stupid and unnecessary from a gaming perspective. Stupidity that is spreading like wildfire. You can judge by the amount of people disliking my comments that they are offended by my honesty.

The fact remains, that it is easier for them to argue in favor of 120Hz monitors, seeing as how they themselves have already shelled out on them. In fact, they must argue in favor of it. The alternative is unthinkable.

It is my firm belief that those who claim they can discern 75fps from 100fps are imagining things. There are also people who claim that God talks to them, who "laugh in the spirit", or who wail at a wall for hours on end. Their experience is very real to them. Understand? Very, very real. And I can assure you that they would thumb down any comments exposing their ignorance with the same ferocity that those on this thread have towards my truths.

The fact is, human beings are very vulnerable and very gullible. And once they invest part of themselves into whatever they claim as truth, whether it be money, emotion, prayer, or what have you, they will defend it with a conviction that is unshakable and very real (to them). They remain totally convinced through their own experiences which they believe vindicates them and places them in the right.

But I know better.
 
[citation][nom]PCgamer81[/nom]... The fact is, human beings are very vulnerable and very gullible. And once they invest part of themselves into whatever they claim as truth, whether it be money, emotion, prayer, or what have you, they will defend it with a conviction that is unshakable and very real (to them). They remain totally convinced through their own experiences which they believe vindicates them and places them in the right. But I know better.[/citation]

You get a thumbs-up from me because that is definitely true. 😀

As silverblue said though, fps vs. Hz confuses the issue, as does interlaced vs. progressive,
phosphor persistence and all sorts of other factors. I had to deal with this a lot when working
with a CAVE system.

Ian.

PS. Quake2 in a CAVE is F.U.N. 8)

 
[citation][nom]PCgamer81[/nom]Thanks for being civil.I see 120Hz monitors in much the same way as I see SSDs. Stupid and unnecessary from a gaming perspective. Stupidity that is spreading like wildfire. You can judge by the amount of people disliking my comments that they are offended by my honesty.The fact remains, that it is easier for them to argue in favor of 120Hz monitors, seeing as how they themselves have already shelled out on them. In fact, they must argue in favor of it. The alternative is unthinkable.It is my firm belief that those who claim they can discern 75fps from 100fps are imagining things. There are also people who claim that God talks to them, who "laugh in the spirit", or who wail at a wall for hours on end. Their experience is very real to them. Understand? Very, very real. And I can assure you that they would thumb down any comments exposing their ignorance with the same ferocity that those on this thread have towards my truths.The fact is, human beings are very vulnerable and very gullible. And once they invest part of themselves into whatever they claim as truth, whether it be money, emotion, prayer, or what have you, they will defend it with a conviction that is unshakable and very real (to them). They remain totally convinced through their own experiences which they believe vindicates them and places them in the right. But I know better.[/citation]

Having an SSD does improve gaming (although only a few games have any improvement in FPS, and even then only a minor one and only in the minimum FPS, because the benefits are mostly not during game play, but more with loading time and responsiveness of the menus and such instead of improving FPS). 120Hz has a noticeable difference from 60Hz (although it depends on the displays; IE some are crap and you won't see the difference because such displays have problems) if the FPS keeps up with the Hz difference.

Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that other people who can tell the difference are crazy. As gullible as many humans may be, another of humanity's problems is assuming that everyone else who is different is insane or substandard. It seems that I am better at seeing the difference between different refresh rates, FPS, and such than you are. That doesn't make me insane, that simply means that I can see the difference whereas you seem to be unable to. In fact, you only assumed that you can't...

You have based your opinion of there being no discernible difference between 60FPS on a 60Hz display and 120FPS on a 120Hz display (both with V-Sync to ensure that those FPS numbers stay constant) on you not being able to tell the difference between a much smaller difference of only 60FPS on a 60Hz display and 75FPS on a 75Hz display. You assume that you know better than I do just because you think that your situation is comparable to mine, despite you having never even seen mine!

Your logic is like saying there is no difference between 1280x800 and 2560x1600 just because you aren't seeing the difference between 1280x800 and 1440x900!

EDIT: I'm also assuming that when you said

In fact, they must argue in favor of it. The alternative is unthinkable.It is my firm belief that those who claim they can discern 75fps from 100fps are imagining things
Click to expand...

that 75fps from 100fps was a typo and you meant to say 120fps where you said 100fps. I assume this because I did not mention 100fps and I don't think that anyone else here mentioned 100fps in these comments.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Having an SSD does improve gaming (although only a few games have any improvement in FPS, and even then only a minor one and only in the minimum FPS, because the benefits are mostly not during game play, but more with loading time and responsiveness of the menus and such instead of improving FPS). 120Hz has a noticeable difference from 60Hz (although it depends on the displays; IE some are crap and you won't see the difference because such displays have problems) if the FPS keeps up with the Hz difference.Just because you can't tell the difference doesn't mean that other people who can tell the difference are crazy. As gullible as many humans may be, another of humanity's problems is assuming that everyone else who is different is insane or substandard. It seems that I am better at seeing the difference between different refresh rates, FPS, and such than you are. That doesn't make me insane, that simply means that I can see the difference whereas you seem to be unable to. In fact, you only assumed that you can't...You have based your opinion of there being no discernible difference between 60FPS on a 60Hz display and 120FPS on a 120Hz display (both with V-Sync to ensure that those FPS numbers stay constant) on you not being able to tell the difference between a much smaller difference of only 60FPS on a 60Hz display and 75FPS on a 75Hz display. You assume that you know better than I do just because you think that your situation is comparable to mine, despite you having never even seen mine!Your logic is like saying there is no difference between 1280x800 and 2560x1600 just because you aren't seeing the difference between 1280x800 and 1440x900!EDIT: I'm also assuming that when you saidthat 75fps from 100fps was a typo and you meant to say 120fps where you said 100fps. I assume this because I did not mention 100fps and I don't think that anyone else here mentioned 100fps in these comments.[/citation]No, I meant to say 100fps. The reason being, it is a lot closer to 75fps and I am reluctant to think one could discern between 75fps and 100fps. There is obviously a lot more disparity between 75fps and 120fps (on a 120Hz monitor of course) than there is between 75fps and 100fps. I would think that if one could tell a difference, not just in his own mind, but truly discern an actual difference, than it would exist between 75fps and 120fps, at least more so than 75fps and 100fps. With that said, I am unconvinced that there exists any discernible difference past 75fps, unless of course it's a disparity that exists only in the mind of the observer.

As for solid state drives and any positive improvement to the actual in-game frame rate, well, unlike the debate about the frame rate itself, this is not subjective. It is simply not the case. The only instance, and I mean the ONLY instance where your assertion would prove correct, would be in an instance of an extreme RAM bottleneck. Otherwise, the only positive effect that SSDs would have on gameplay would be in allowing the game to load faster. Now, in certain games (like Rage) where there is a terrible amount of texture pop-in, an SSD might help some - but even then, in a very limited capacity. In games with a lot of demanding draw (like Skyrim or GTA4), an SSD might improve in-game performance, but to an almost indiscernible capacity. But as to effecting the actual frames per second, never. ever. Unless, again, an extreme RAM bottleneck is present.
 
[citation][nom]mapesdhs[/nom]You get a thumbs-up from me because that is definitely true. As silverblue said though, fps vs. Hz confuses the issue, as does interlaced vs. progressive,phosphor persistence and all sorts of other factors. I had to deal with this a lot when workingwith a CAVE system.Ian.PS. Quake2 in a CAVE is F.U.N. 8)[/citation]
You seem like a guy who knows what he's talking about, I'll give you that. :)
 


Actually, the SSD helps the most when there is a hard drive bottleneck, not just with RAM bottlenecks. Some games read/write a lot of data (first person shooter games especially) on the storage in short periods of time and that slows down the loading greatly and sometimes, the minimum frame rates if the hard drive can't load textures and such fast enough for the games that need textures loaded off of the hard drive during gameplay. Like I said, it's mostly with loading times of the game, not actually gameplay itself and even for games that it does help during gameplay, it's not a big difference (probably less discernible than the jump from 60FPS on a 60Hz to 120FPS on a 120Hz, unless there is a significant bottleneck and the minimum frame rates are below 50FPS as a result).

I can't say for certain with the SSD besides what Tom's has said in some of their articles. Like I said earlier, I'm a low budget guy. Although I have seen my friend's 120Hz monitor, he does not have games loaded on his SSD because it is only a 60GB or 64GB model and is used more for the boot speed and for caching. If I get enough money, I think I might get a non-Sandforce SSD with 120GB or so of storage. Those seem to be the sweet spot for capacity and performance for the money. Non-Sandforce because a lot of my data is not really compressible and the Sandforce drives aren't really known for being the most reliable. With low budgets, you want things to last...

Like I said, at best, it's still only the minimum FPS that the SSD helps and even then, only in storage heavy games. First-person shooters (at least, according to Tom's) seem to read/write several GB per game played and so do a few other games. Tom's did a whole article on this several months ago. Maybe you'd be interested in reading it.

Mostly, the SSD helps for multitasking because it lets you play storage-heavy games while running other storage heavy things such as running a virus scanner or extracting a large archive in the background as you play a game. So yes, it probably isn't really subjective and for the most part it wouldn't make a big difference, but it is not worthless for a gaming computer. SSDs are excellent for multitasking and ensuring that the storage does not bottleneck a storage heavy game.

As for the 100FPS? Well, yes, it's closer to 75FPS than 120FPS (both with respective refresh rates, although I'm not sure if there are 100Hz displays so it might need to be on a 120Hz display), so it would be harder to tell the difference there.

* all processors at stock performance.

Unless you get a good 120Hz display and compare it side by side with a good 60Hz display, both with appropriate graphics so that they have the same picture quality and the only difference would be the 120Hz display and the FPS that matches each display, then you would have a valid opinion on the matter. I'm not trying to be rude by saying that. I just don't think that it's fair of you to say that there is no discernible difference going from 75FPS on a 75Hz to 120FPS on a 120Hz if you haven't seen a setup that gets 120FPS on a 120Hz monitor.

Oh, and for TVs, the 60Hz/120Hz/240Hz/480Hz is a little different even if it's displaying progressive instead of interleaved, so it must be a proper monitor instead of a 120+Hz TV. I just thought that I would put that out there, just in case that is how you compare 60/75Hz to 120Hz if you ever do. I've read several articles explaining the difference, but I don't remember it. I think that I'll look it up later.
 
This is a good article that doesn't really answer the question, but sort of points out that the FPS and refresh rate and such aren't really even the right question...... http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

This should also be taken in to consideration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

It's sort of a ridiculous arguement, like who would win, Batman or Superman. I suspect that the average person touting one screen over another isn't even controlling for all independent variables, like manufacturer, screen resolution, color settings, connection speed at the time of viewing, etc etc. But maybe for whatever reason those that claim one screen is better in fact do see it as better, because of the refresh rate. It's hard to say without controlling for all variables in a laboratory setting. So maybe we can move on from this debate and let people blow their money on whatever cranks their tank.

This does sort of remind me of the 1965 BBC "Smell-O-Vision" prank though. It claimed viewers could smell through their TV and countless folks called in confirming that they could in fact, smell the smells. Not agreeing with either view point, just noting that the human mind is a funny thing and I wouldn't put it past either side of this debate, that either could be right.
 
So can someone tell me if I should install beta 12.4 drivers on my new 7870 I'm installing or keep the current 12.3 drivers from my 4870x2 I'm pulling out. And along those lines, should I uninstall and reinstall the same driver because I'm upgrading cards?
 
[citation][nom]PCgamer81[/nom]You seem like a guy who knows what he's talking about, I'll give you that.[/citation]
And you seem to be an uninformed retard who has never seen a 120hz monitor running a game, are all the glowing reviews floating the net of 120hz monitors wrong or is it just you being an arse?

First I suggest you read this http://www.anandtech.com/show/3842/asus-vg236h-review-our-first-look-at-120hz

Second I suggest you actually SEE one running instead of trying to compare your shitty 75hz screen mode to it's 60hz mode and coming up with your own (incorrect) assumptions.

Thirdly you'll STFU cause you'll then know you were wrong and the reviewers where correct.
 
[citation][nom]rubberjohnson[/nom]And you seem to be an uninformed retard who has never seen a 120hz monitor running a game, are all the glowing reviews floating the net of 120hz monitors wrong or is it just you being an arse?First I suggest you read this Second I suggest you actually SEE one running instead of trying to compare your shitty 75hz screen mode to it's 60hz mode and coming up with your own (incorrect) assumptions.Thirdly you'll STFU cause you'll then know you were wrong and the reviewers where correct.[/citation]I find it highly amusing that someone with a name like rubberjohnson would think his opinion mattered.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Actually, the SSD helps the most when there is a hard drive bottleneck, not just with RAM bottlenecks. Some games read/write a lot of data (first person shooter games especially) on the storage in short periods of time and that slows down the loading greatly and sometimes, the minimum frame rates if the hard drive can't load textures and such fast enough for the games that need textures loaded off of the hard drive during gameplay. Like I said, it's mostly with loading times of the game, not actually gameplay itself and even for games that it does help during gameplay, it's not a big difference (probably less discernible than the jump from 60FPS on a 60Hz to 120FPS on a 120Hz, unless there is a significant bottleneck and the minimum frame rates are below 50FPS as a result).I can't say for certain with the SSD besides what Tom's has said in some of their articles. [/citation]
SSDs have absolutely no effect on the actual frame rate absent a RAM bottleneck.
 
I would like to present a question to anyone who wants to answer.

Here is the 3DMark 11 score for my rig...

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3181251;jsessionid=pczxvt6dg9hda7qwduz2ar4y

This is with an i5 2500k @ 4.7GHz and dual 6970s @ 930/1430. It has an 11517 graphics score - not too shabby.

I can fill my refresh rate (75Hz) with pretty much every game on the market @ max settings + graphics mods.

But, I would be unable to fill a refresh rate of 120Hz, despite the fact that my system is excellent.

Now, what would you propose? What should I do in my situation?

Upgrade my hardware? Or should I play games with their graphics settings toned way down?

What would you recommend?
 

And this coming from someone who thinks SSDs effect frame rate.

I would highly recommend you keep the name calling and insults to a minimum. Tom's mods tolerate difference of opinion but they will not tolerate that kind of behavior.
 
If you're getting a lot of hard drive thrashing, it can have an effect, but usually temporary. Certainly can explain some of the minimum frame rate troughs that people might be seeing (which would explain why running gaming benchmarks multiple times can help).
 
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]If you're getting a lot of hard drive thrashing, it can have an effect, but usually temporary. Certainly can explain some of the minimum frame rate troughs that people might be seeing (which would explain why running gaming benchmarks multiple times can help).[/citation]
No. In that case the fault would be irrespective of drive type.

SSDs do not net more frames per second on average. That notion is absolutely ridiculous and anyone who believes it is completely ignorant. End of story.
 
What? You mean you've never had your game stutter when it's loading character models or environments? I know it's not representative of actual graphics performance (the hard drive is the slowest part of the system), but the frame rate counter certainly takes a dive as a result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom