![]() ![]() There’s no denying the poor core clocks of the standard 7950, though. This is a dire figure, and AMD does much to fix this in the current generation of cards – the R9 280X, for instance, offers 128GT/sec. The standard 7950, stuck with a low normal speed, and absolutely no Boost, finds itself drowning on a figure of 56GT/sec. Even at its factory settings, the 760 can stretch to a texture fill rate of 99.2GT/sec. The 7950 does have that advantage in terms of texture units (112 to the GTX 760’s complement of 96), but it’s that dominant core clock speed that gives the GTX 760 an unassailable lead here. The figures are slightly deceptive, as AMD’s designs have always tended to slant more towards weight of stream processors than the nVidia scalar architecture.Įven with GCN, that bias remains in place, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the AMD framework will provide more realworld performance. That holds up in terms of raw figures, too, with the 7950’s 1,792 stream processors and 112 texture units placing it significantly ahead of the 1,152 stream processors and 96 texture units of the GTX 760. Theoretically, the 7950 is closer to the max – its 28 CUs being just a 12.5% drop from the max, as opposed to the 25% fall in the case of the GTX 760. Similarly, the 7950 can be compared to its bigger brother, the 7970, which has all of the 32 CUs (computing units) turned on, whereas the 7950 makes do with just 28 of them being enabled. The 760 takes that GK104 design, and enables just six of the eight SMXes (Streaming Multiprocessors) – the higher-end GK104 alternative, the GTX 770, has all eight switched on, giving it 33% more in terms of texture units and stream processors. The 760 is also seen mostly in a 2GB version, whereas the 7950 plumps squarely for a healthy 3GB.īoth GPUs are, in their way, cut down models, though. The Radeon has the greater number of transistors, for instance, with 4.31 billion – the 760 has just 3.5 billion. Given its relative vintage, it’s unsurprising to see the GTX 760 lag behind the 7950 in terms of technology. However, the range of applications which a GPU typically has to handle, has widened considerably in recent years, with the high-end high-intensity Compute instructions only the visible tip of a broad mountain. This was a fairly blunt weapon designed to roll out large quantities of 3D graphics. The company had achieved considerable success with its VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) vector architecture. When the 7950 was launched, back in 2012, it was at the vanguard of a new rethinking of AMD’s strategy. GTX 760 vs GTX 770 graphics card comparison review.) nVidia GTX 760 v Radeon HD 7950: different technologies differing concepts ![]() Which of these cards offers the best financial deal, and will either do the job sufficiently, or are you better off saving up an extra £50 and buying a higher-end card? We’ll hope to answer these questions and more, so let us guide you through the value-pocked landscape trodden by these two mid-price cards. The nVidia GTX 760 and Radeon HD 7950 are modestly priced graphics cards that lack the £300+ price tag of, for instance, the Radeon R9 280X range. But the 760 will be looking distinctly jaded by then, so you’re better off trying to spend a sum just above £200 on a 760, and then looking to upgrade it in a couple of years time. ![]() By 2016, it might be that graphics cards need the extra memory to properly handle the latest games. You’re not going to use the 760 for the sort of demanding game setups that require 4GB. There’s simply no need for the extra memory. We would, though, warn against the 4GB version. The 760 is also pretty quiet, and very low on power, making it a very good choice for modest systems. If you’re looking to upgrade, we would recommend spending a little more on the 770, but the 760 will do the job. The 760 gives you a very solid leap forwards. That means the 7950 would have to be available for around the £160/£170 mark in order to be competitive. It’s not usually a very big one, but 10 – 15% is typical, especially at lower resolutions. The 760 turns an advantage in most tests. Even if the 7950 is available for around £200, it’s an inferior product when it comes to gaming. That’s probably intentional on AMD’s part, as the company knows that the 7950 really can’t compete with the 760. I compiled on a single table the values I found from various articles and reviews over the web.The 7950 isn’t a very easy card to find at the moment. Here is the GFLOPS comparative table of recent AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce GPUs in FP32 (single precision floating point) and FP64 (double precision floating point). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |