bit-tech.net

Sapphire Radeon HD 7790 1GB Dual-X Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 28

Reply
Spreadie 22nd March 2013, 09:16 Quote
Quote:
The main dent in the armour of the HD 7790 1GB, however, is the fact that 1GB SKUs of the HD 7850 are still available for under £130. Sadly, we no longer have our sample and haven't been able to retest it, but at 1,920 x 1,080, this SKU performs almost identically to the 2GB one and it also has excellent overclocking potential too, so it's a real bargain.
Am I reading a different review?

Show me where it performs almost identically to the 2GB 7850?

This card is £25 over-priced, and therefore not worth buying.
damien c 22nd March 2013, 09:27 Quote
If the price was lower then this wouldn't be to bad but because it's overpriced it's just not worth thinking about.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd March 2013, 09:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Am I reading a different review? Show me where it performs almost identically to the 2GB 7850?
Re-read what you quoted: it says that the 1GB 7850 SKU performs near-identically to the 2GB 7850 SKU at 1920x1080, not that the 1GB 7790 SKU performs near-identically to the 2GB 7850 SKU.
Spreadie 22nd March 2013, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Re-read what you quoted: it says that the 1GB 7850 SKU performs near-identically to the 2GB 7850 SKU at 1920x1080, not that the 1GB 7790 SKU performs near-identically to the 2GB 7850 SKU.
Thanks Gareth - I clearly mis-read that paragraph.

It doesn't change the fact that, at £130, the 7790 is way too expensive though. ;)
Hustler 22nd March 2013, 09:56 Quote
Many people seem to think that this card is the PC version of the one that's going to be inside the new Xbox.

If so, Sony will be smiling.
Spreadie 22nd March 2013, 10:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Many people seem to think that this card is the PC version of the one that's going to be inside the new Xbox.

If so, Sony will be smiling.
Why?

The review of the GPU is not indicative of it's performance in inside a console unrestrained by PC overheads.
littlepuppi 22nd March 2013, 10:10 Quote
Pointless card @ current price
Baz 22nd March 2013, 10:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Many people seem to think that this card is the PC version of the one that's going to be inside the new Xbox.

If so, Sony will be smiling.
Why?

The review of the GPU is not indicative of it's performance in inside a console unrestrained by PC overheads.

Indeed; where's that article on here written by Ben Hardwidge on the differences of coding for DX and console?

Here it is! http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/3
xaser04 22nd March 2013, 10:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Many people seem to think that this card is the PC version of the one that's going to be inside the new Xbox.

If so, Sony will be smiling.
Why?

The review of the GPU is not indicative of it's performance in inside a console unrestrained by PC overheads.

Whilst true the GPU inside the PS4 is a 18 CU(1152SP) / 32 ROP / 256bit GDDR5 slightly cut down HD7870.

Effectively coding to the metal the PS4 GPU is more powerful (assuming that this 896SP part is what will be found in the next Xbox).

Real world of course the difference will be minimal as most cross platform developers will code to the lowest common denominator (or put little effort into extracting the extra grunt out of the more powerful platform).
Hustler 22nd March 2013, 10:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler

Why?
The review of the GPU is not indicative of it's performance in inside a console unrestrained by PC overheads.

And neither is the one inside the PS4 with a 256bit interface and double the ROPS...it's all relative, if Sony starts from a higher baseline, Xbox wont be able to match the PS4.

Certainly not with a GPU based on a 128bit interface and only 16 ROPS.

Hence the Sony smile.
sakzzz 22nd March 2013, 11:04 Quote
Is there any point in publishing results showing the card do 18fps at ultra settings ? Doesnt really help make decisions when its pretty much unplayable for most cards in that price range.
Hustler 22nd March 2013, 11:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04

Real world of course the difference will be minimal as most cross platform developers will code to the lowest common denominator (or put little effort into extracting the extra grunt out of the more powerful platform).

I certainly agree with that for multi-platform releases, but 1st party games on the PS4 will be unburdened with such lazy developer restrictions, and will truly show just how superior the PS4 GPU is.
Harlequin 22nd March 2013, 11:30 Quote
unless MS pull out the stops and CF what they are actually using (possibly doable)
rollo 22nd March 2013, 13:49 Quote
Crossfire in a console people really are crazy.

Power, heat, noise is 3 reasons not to do it in a box that will be small.

This card is overpriced by aprox £25 maybe more than that. Also not sure i see the point in the tests at ultra settings or 2500 resolution. This card is not designed for either.

In all honesty most people looking at this card will not even have a 1080p monitor to play games on be a 720p tv or worse.

Standardised review setup is great for high end but I think the low end needs work.
loftie 22nd March 2013, 15:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo

In all honesty most people looking at this card will not even have a 1080p monitor to play games on be a 720p tv or worse.

Or they're just looking for a budget card. The scores aren't great, but remember they've tested with nearly everything on max. If this card didnt struggle with those settings then why would we buy the more expensive cards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Standardised review setup is great for high end but I think the low end needs work.

Agreed, instead of testing 1920x1080 and then 2560 x 1600, why not rule out the 2560 x 1600 and do a different test? Maybe 1920 x 1080 and medium? I'd suggest 1600 x 900 but not a clue as to how many people use them.
Spreadie 22nd March 2013, 15:26 Quote
I can see some worth in testing 1680x1050 or 1440x900 with budget GPUs.
mi1ez 22nd March 2013, 15:42 Quote
I hope they don't all have the dead space on the PCB when they could be much smaller...
loftie 22nd March 2013, 17:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spreadie
I can see some worth in testing 1680x1050

Ah, that's the res I was thinking of.
Meanmotion 22nd March 2013, 17:15 Quote
Some fair points regards mid-range testing - we'll have a think about it.

As regards resolution, though, bear in mind that 1080p monitors can now be had for, well, about the same outlay as this card - circa £125.
John_T 22nd March 2013, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
Some fair points regards mid-range testing - we'll have a think about it.

As regards resolution, though, bear in mind that 1080p monitors can now be had for, well, about the same outlay as this card - circa £125.

Actually I think you can pick them up from as little as £80+, but yes, agree with the others - 1680x1050 makes a hell of a lot more sense than 2560x1600 at this end of the market. Can't see many with a £1k+ monitor looking at the sub £150 cards...
loftie 22nd March 2013, 19:19 Quote
I think I'd prefer a 1920x1080 at medium settings, as said 1080p monitors can be found cheaply. I'd wager most people on here probably have a 1080p monitor, regardless of whether it's terrible screen or a good screen. Also having a quick look at scan, pretty much everything is 1080p.
play_boy_2000 22nd March 2013, 20:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Many people seem to think that this card is the PC version of the one that's going to be inside the new Xbox.

If so, Sony will be smiling.

I'm actually surprised that a GPU this good, might actually end up in a console. It's better than my 6870
John_T 23rd March 2013, 00:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
I think I'd prefer a 1920x1080 at medium settings...

That's what I meant to say: I don't know for the life of me why I started making that point then switched halfway though to something else - bit of a brain meltdown there! :)
Paulg1971 23rd March 2013, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
Or they're just looking for a budget card. The scores aren't great, but remember they've tested with nearly everything on max. If this card didnt struggle with those settings then why would we buy the more expensive cards?



Agreed, instead of testing 1920x1080 and then 2560 x 1600, why not rule out the 2560 x 1600 and do a different test? Maybe 1920 x 1080 and medium? I'd suggest 1600 x 900 but not a clue as to how many people use them.




I put a post similar to this a couple of years ago and got slated for suggesting it, as I am still using 1600x 900 and I am quite happy with his size. I said the cards needed to be reviewed at the target audience. People getting a budget card are notgoing to go for high res so why bother with the review ,as other people have said include some lower res tests.
SimonStern 23rd March 2013, 18:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
Also having a quick look at scan, pretty much everything is 1080p.

This saddens me. When I bought the monitor I'm using most were 1920 x 1200 as this is, now everything is 1080. I'll be sad if this monitor dies and I have to get a 1080 or search for and pay a premium for another that's 1200 or higher.

On the card, it is overpriced a bit for it to be a good deal but just in checking prices on the 7850's they have gone up by $20 or so in just the past week so maybe they're making it seem a better deal that way. Sucks for me, I was about to buy one in a couple weeks :|
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums