Legit Reviews

AMD today announced the AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition and AMD Radeon HD 7850 graphics cards! The AMD Radeon HD 7800 series is designed to perform for serious gamers and we try them out on a number of games to see how they perform when put to the test. We also overclock them, test the acoustics, and see how efficient these new cards are!

The AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition ($349) performed better than the AMD Radeon HD 6970 ($364.09) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 ($329.99) and in some cases it was trading blows with the mighty GeForce GTX 580 ($449.99). When this card becomes available on March 19th, 2012 we expect that pricing on other cards on the market will be adjusted. This card was very powerful and in some benchmarks and games we found it being only slightly slower than a stock Radeon HD 7950 3GB card that costs nearly $100 more. The AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz edition card is solid and ideal for those running...

Article Title: AMD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition & 7850 Video Card Review
Article URL: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1863/1/

The upper limit of the FPS axis of your FPS graph has been getting higher with each new video card reviewed ... now 350 FPS. The human eye stops being able to detect improved fluidity of motion beyond a certain FPS and the game makers can only include so much detail in each frame that would require rendering a new frame to see the changed detail.

So, for a video card, it seems as if we are WAY past the point where higher FPS actually improves the detail/fluidity of motion of even the fastest-action games. I have researched the desirability of FPS capability beyond 150 or so FPS and cannot find a reason to pay for it. Is there specific research from the game makers that shows their games are perceptibly better when played with a video card capable of higher than 150 FPS?

brossyg wrote:The upper limit of the FPS axis of your FPS graph has been getting higher with each new video card reviewed ... now 350 FPS. The human eye stops being able to detect improved fluidity of motion beyond a certain FPS and the game makers can only include so much detail in each frame that would require rendering a new frame to see the changed detail.

So, for a video card, it seems as if we are WAY past the point where higher FPS actually improves the detail/fluidity of motion of even the fastest-action games. I have researched the desirability of FPS capability beyond 150 or so FPS and cannot find a reason to pay for it. Is there specific research from the game makers that shows their games are perceptibly better when played with a video card capable of higher than 150 FPS?

yeah, it's time to dust off the 30-inch monitor and up the resolution. I haven't been benchmarking at 25x16 as <1% of gamers have a 30" monitor. You are right that the human brain can't tell the difference between 200FPS and 300FPS, but the only chart that goes up that high is HAWX 2. We have everything enabled and 8x AA turned on, so no way to make that benchmark tougher to run. We can drop that benchmark from future reviews.

I know the charts are getting big, but sadly all the drivers are still golden. It's been a busy few months around here. Hard to believe that I have benchmarked 27 cards on 8 games in just 9 weeks. I just spent my morning running benchmarks on a Radeon HD 7770 right now as well for an AIB, so that makes 28.

28 video cards x 8 games x 3 runs each x 2 resolutions = 1344 benchmarks run and that doesn't include overclocking, noise or temperature testing... lol

The average benchmark run is around 5 minutes, so that is 6720 minutes or 112 hours of benchmarking fun in those charts.

With Kepler right around the corner I need to find the closest bridge and jump!

Apoptosis wrote:With Kepler right around the corner I need to find the closest bridge and jump!

Don't jump!

I hate their pricing setup. It's based around competing with Nvidia's last generation which will be replaced soon enough and it doesn't even make any sense. The 7870 seems like it's competing with the 7950 yet costs $100 less, but the performance is so close I doubt anyone could tell the difference during play. The 7870 actually looks like a good buy at $350, but it still seems like it will see a price drop to compete against Nvidia's 28nm parts. I'd guess they end up with the 7850 at $200, the 7870 at $275, the 7950 at $325 and the 7970 at $375, and possibly next quarter.

So why is AMD setting prices which they know they will have to drop relatively soon and why release a 7950 killer in the 7870 at $100 less.


That said I see myself buying 2 7870s for $500 when a good sale happens this fall.

I still can't believe AMD only gave these cards an 128bit memory bus I thought only the entry level cards of the newer HD6xxx and HD7xxx cards would have been that low also I can see these going for $500+ for the 7870 and 400+ for the 7850 here in new zealand man it suck balls living here

These cards have a 256-bit bus... only the Radeon 7700 series is on the slower bus.

Apoptosis wrote:These cards have a 256-bit bus... only the Radeon 7700 series is on the slower bus.

Not according to AMD website http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/ ... 870.aspx#3

Line 13 :128-bit GDDR5 memory interface

You found a typo and I alerted AMD about it. Rest assured it's a 256-bit bus as both the Radeon HD 7870 and 7850 have a memory bandwidth of 153.6GB/s. If you could get that on their 128-bit bus that would be impressive!

Good eye on that typo catch Athlonite! AMD ought to send you a prize

yeah they should I'd just like an single HD7850 why because I know from experience these cards will be well out of what I could afford here in New Zealand, retailers here are real gougers even with an high exchange rate prices haven't came down much at all

Apoptosis wrote:

brossyg wrote:The upper limit of the FPS axis of your FPS graph has been getting higher with each new video card reviewed ... now 350 FPS. The human eye stops being able to detect improved fluidity of motion beyond a certain FPS and the game makers can only include so much detail in each frame that would require rendering a new frame to see the changed detail.

So, for a video card, it seems as if we are WAY past the point where higher FPS actually improves the detail/fluidity of motion of even the fastest-action games. I have researched the desirability of FPS capability beyond 150 or so FPS and cannot find a reason to pay for it. Is there specific research from the game makers that shows their games are perceptibly better when played with a video card capable of higher than 150 FPS?

yeah, it's time to dust off the 30-inch monitor and up the resolution. I haven't been benchmarking at 25x16 as <1% of gamers have a 30" monitor. You are right that the human brain can't tell the difference between 200FPS and 300FPS, but the only chart that goes up that high is HAWX 2. We have everything enabled and 8x AA turned on, so no way to make that benchmark tougher to run. We can drop that benchmark from future reviews.

I know the charts are getting big, but sadly all the drivers are still golden. It's been a busy few months around here. Hard to believe that I have benchmarked 27 cards on 8 games in just 9 weeks. I just spent my morning running benchmarks on a Radeon HD 7770 right now as well for an AIB, so that makes 28.

28 video cards x 8 games x 3 runs each x 2 resolutions = 1344 benchmarks run and that doesn't include overclocking, noise or temperature testing... lol

The average benchmark run is around 5 minutes, so that is 6720 minutes or 112 hours of benchmarking fun in those charts.

With Kepler right around the corner I need to find the closest bridge and jump!

Sorry ... I guess my point was that once enough cards with similar features get beyond ... let's say 150 fps ... what is the point to buying one for more money if the human eye can't tell the difference (or the refresh rate on the monitor won't support the higher fps)?