Well, that didn't take long, PC gets GDDR5 system RAM support

[QUOTE="campzor"]no SANE cow would think the pc wouldnt overtake the ps4 eventually (if not shortly after its release, hell even before)04dcarraher

For CS, ~60ms API latency is not pretty.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Yeah is between a 7850 and a 7870 but is way more efficient that both,and has a ton more of ram that both cards as well,and has the CPU and GPU on the same die,which lower latencytormentos

PS4 is more like a 7850 OC edition than a 7870 GHz edition. There's a 40% gap in raw power between the 7870 GHz edition and the PS4's GPU, and almost the same disparity as Xbox 720 to PS4. You may as well claim 720 is more powerful than PS4 and say it's because of the secret sauce. lulz. "GDDR5 secret sauce cell reincarnation power...activate!"

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

PS4 is more like a 7850 OC edition than a 7870 GHz edition. There's a 40% gap in raw power between the 7870 GHz edition and the PS4's GPU, and almost the same disparity as Xbox 720 to PS4. You may as well claim 720 is more powerful than PS4 and say it's because of the secret sauce. lulz. "GDDR5 secret sauce cell reincarnation power...activate!"

egger7577

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

ronvalencia

I was about get a gtx670, but 680 not even get 30fps+ wtf?

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

aroxx_ab

I was about get a gtx670, but 680 not even get 30fps+ wtf?

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

ronvalencia

I was about get a gtx670, but 680 not even get 30fps+ wtf?

Looks like Amd 7970 is much better value, but then again if you buy a new card you expect much more than 30ish fps :|

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Yeah is between a 7850 and a 7870 but is way more efficient that both,and has a ton more of ram that both cards as well,and has the CPU and GPU on the same die,which lower latencygamecubepad

PS4 is more like a 7850 OC edition than a 7870 GHz edition. There's a 40% gap in raw power between the 7870 GHz edition and the PS4's GPU, and almost the same disparity as Xbox 720 to PS4. You may as well claim 720 is more powerful than PS4 and say it's because of the secret sauce. lulz. "GDDR5 secret sauce cell reincarnation power...activate!"

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

aroxx_ab

I was about get a gtx670, but 680 not even get 30fps+ wtf?

Im surprised how a PS4 annoucment has made so many herms butthurt. 

Im surprised how a PS4 annoucment has made so many herms butthurt. 

AM-Gamer

your self projection is too obvious

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Im surprised how a PS4 annoucment has made so many herms butthurt. 

wis3boi

your self projection is too obvious

Im not the one making threads trying to discredit a console that will probably cost less then $500 .  You guys are so pathetic its embarrassing .

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Im surprised how a PS4 annoucment has made so many herms butthurt. 

AM-Gamer

your self projection is too obvious

Im not the one making threads trying to discredit a console that will probably cost less then $500 .  You guys are so pathetic its embarrassing .

Don't you have school to go to?

Don't you have school to go to?

wis3boi

Didn't know someone had footage of Tameem from high school.

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

ronvalencia

GTX 690 is still the king all-around for a few more months. yeeeaaahhh

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

FashionFreak

GTX 690 is still the king all-around for a few more months. yeeeaaahhh

and GGDDRR20 will release in 2020 ... ur point?

omho88

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Im surprised how a PS4 annoucment has made so many herms butthurt. 

AM-Gamer

your self projection is too obvious

Im not the one making threads trying to discredit a console that will probably cost less then $500 .  You guys are so pathetic its embarrassing .

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="MstaPrimeMnista"]Thats nice, you still cant get the custom made GPU that comes with the PS4, which includes 8CPU cores.MstaPrimeMnista

I only see FN idiots say that, which nside of the line do you fall on?

[QUOTE="MstaPrimeMnista"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]No but why would you want to?

percuvius2

I only see FN idiots say that, which nside of the line do you fall on?

LOL, the cows here are so stupid. We PC guys had the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM since April 2003 when AMD released the K8 architecture. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 . My current system that I built has 16 GB of DDR3 ram and many people I know have at least 8 GB of RAM. Four GB of RAM has been dead a long time ago because 32 bit is not used anymore. If you do simple math of 2^32 then you cows can see that before April 2003 that we were limited to 4 GB. Now it's at 2^64 which puts us at a huge amount of RAM. I almost spat out my coffee when you cows where so amazed to have 8 GB or RAM because of the 64 bit extension that has been a technology in the PC space for 10 years!!! ROFLOL. So I have proposition for cow slaughtering if you cows agree to it. How many cows on here are stupid enough to take my bet of $1,000 that my Intel i7-3820 down clocked to 1.6 GHZ to match the CPU of the PS4, and the fact that my i7-3820 has only 4 cores and uses DDR3 with a 256 bit interface, that you cows believe will outperform my CPU in math benchmarks, Folding@Home, Milkyway@Home, password cracking, Prime95, Sisoft Sandra, or any other CPU intensive tasks? Let's not forget you guys get "to the metal programming" that you are sooooo proud of...... You guys talk smack, but I know a hell of a lot about PC hardware and I know 100% that the 8-core AMD processor does not stand a chance as it is based off the Bobcat core with only a 15% enhancement. A tablet processor is what it is: http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/42645-amd-reveal-low-power-jaguar-x86-core-aimed-tablets/Dennisreece

The Ram in the PS4 already rendered irrelevant.

<3 PC.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

FashionFreak

GTX 690 is still the king all-around for a few more months. yeeeaaahhh

No surprise here since that is SLI vs single gpu

[QUOTE="FashionFreak"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

aroxx_ab

GTX 690 is still the king all-around for a few more months. yeeeaaahhh

No surprise here since that is SLI vs single gpu

[QUOTE="Dennisreece"]LOL, the cows here are so stupid. We PC guys had the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM since April 2003 when AMD released the K8 architecture. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 . My current system that I built has 16 GB of DDR3 ram and many people I know have at least 8 GB of RAM. Four GB of RAM has been dead a long time ago because 32 bit is not used anymore. If you do simple math of 2^32 then you cows can see that before April 2003 that we were limited to 4 GB. Now it's at 2^64 which puts us at a huge amount of RAM. I almost spat out my coffee when you cows where so amazed to have 8 GB or RAM because of the 64 bit extension that has been a technology in the PC space for 10 years!!! ROFLOL. So I have proposition for cow slaughtering if you cows agree to it. How many cows on here are stupid enough to take my bet of $1,000 that my Intel i7-3820 down clocked to 1.6 GHZ to match the CPU of the PS4, and the fact that my i7-3820 has only 4 cores and uses DDR3 with a 256 bit interface, that you cows believe will outperform my CPU in math benchmarks, Folding@Home, Milkyway@Home, password cracking, Prime95, Sisoft Sandra, or any other CPU intensive tasks? Let's not forget you guys get "to the metal programming" that you are sooooo proud of...... You guys talk smack, but I know a hell of a lot about PC hardware and I know 100% that the 8-core AMD processor does not stand a chance as it is based off the Bobcat core with only a 15% enhancement. A tablet processor is what it is: http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/42645-amd-reveal-low-power-jaguar-x86-core-aimed-tablets/Martin_G_N

Don't piss in the cows cornflakes.

 

The peasants don't often get moments to stand tall.

tenaka2

lol :cool:

[QUOTE="tormentos"]No there isn't just 2 less computers units,don't look at peak teraflop performance,because the 7870 is highly inefficient compare to the PS4,in fact the difference between the 7870 and the 7850 is basically nothing.gamecubepad

In BF3, C2, and C3 it's ~13%. Crysis 3 will push it 15-20% depending on the AA variant. We've yet to see what the PS4 is capable of in multiplats. Still see it falling below the 7870 and above the 7850. We'll see in the first wave of games. KZ SF not looking so mindblowing in gunplay segments, could improve before launch? 

You're a PS fanatic, so I'd expect you to be fast to class it with 7970. I'll remain skeptical on the secret sauce until I see it put up against current cards by DF and other tech sites. Either way the 7950 still exists for only $50 more than the card I spec'd and that leaves us at $785 to beat PS4 7-months prior to it's launch. Working the other direction, it takes something as low as a 7850 2GB to match the PS4 in multiplats.

So is a $600-700 complete build with OS around PS4's launch a high-end PC? Does $700 usd beat the £1000 challenge I was addressing?

Please dude i already posted benchmarks 3 miserable frames more on the 7870 than on the 7850tormentos

And as a percentage this works out to ... normally around 20-30% faster for the 7870 compared to the 7850. 

Going from one to two frames per second. Is this a measly improvement of one frame per second or is this a gargantuan doubling of frame rate?

A: Both. But one of these gives us more useful information. 

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

FashionFreak

GTX 690 is still the king all-around for a few more months. yeeeaaahhh

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

your self projection is too obvious

wis3boi

Im not the one making threads trying to discredit a console that will probably cost less then $500 .  You guys are so pathetic its embarrassing .

Don't you have school to go to?

For real tho bro we are supposed to be the gamers that are tech savvy why are some of us pc guys letting trolls get to us. I love console for what it was (NES,PS2) but i love PC for the tech and it has really opened my mind as far as understanding the weak points of consoles and the strong points....Half the GDDR5 post are by PC guys and they truly seem insecure. If your a real PC guy you should know GDDR5 is not gonna kill PC gameing (WE HAVE IT). These new consoles will start to bridge the gap between PC and consoles, graphically and use wise i like this.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Please dude i already posted benchmarks 3 miserable frames more on the 7870 than on the 7850psymon100

And as a percentage this works out to ... normally around 20-30% faster for the 7870 compared to the 7850. 

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Please dude i already posted benchmarks 3 miserable frames more on the 7870 than on the 7850tormentos

And as a percentage this works out to ... normally around 20-30% faster for the 7870 compared to the 7850. 

This is very true companys use percents to make pc players feel they need to buy new gpu's all the time.

Im surprised how a PS4 annoucment has made so many herms butthurt. 

AM-Gamer

People get excited for console hardware because devs see potential give consoles the good games.

No one gives a poo about pc hardware because of how little worth while games it gets, devs don't take the pc platform seriously.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="psymon100"]

And as a percentage this works out to ... normally around 20-30% faster for the 7870 compared to the 7850. 

nihonking

This is very true companys use percents to make pc players feel they need to buy new gpu's all the time.

That's completely untrue. 

So you wouldn't like to be 15% taller? for me that would make me over 2m tall, and would gain almost one foot in height. The analogy to GPUs works well. 

A discerning consumer will look at the percentages as one is able to make an accurate prediction regarding the performance of potential cards relative to their existing ones. 

It would be foolish for a person to upgrade from a 7850 to a 7870, this is true. 

However, if you were upgrading from something lower, like a 4850, it's important to assess the price/performance of potential replacements. If the performance increase were ~20% for the 7870, and the price were ~20% more, then basically it's a question of if you want to spend the extra money to go that percent faster, or not to spend. If you went for either card, neither is a waste of money. You get identical value from card to card.

However a more enthusiast level card might be 60% faster but as you suggest over 100% more money. 

Talking in absolutes like the number of frames increased can be helpful, but looking at the relative performance changes as percentages - I think that's the way to go. 

[QUOTE="nihonking"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] % are made to make number seem bigger than they really are. 3FPS = 15%.? That is nothing...psymon100

This is very true companys use percents to make pc players feel they need to buy new gpu's all the time.

That's completely untrue. 

So you wouldn't like to be 15% taller? for me that would make me over 2m tall, and would gain almost one foot in height. The analogy to GPUs works well. 

A discerning consumer will look at the percentages as one is able to make an accurate prediction regarding the performance of potential cards relative to their existing ones. 

It would be foolish for a person to upgrade from a 7850 to a 7870, this is true. 

However, if you were upgrading from something lower, like a 4850, it's important to assess the price/performance of potential replacements. If the performance increase were ~20% for the 7870, and the price were ~20% more, then basically it's a question of if you want to spend the extra money to go that percent faster, or not to spend. If you went for either card, neither is a waste of money. You get identical value from card to card.

However a more enthusiast level card might be 60% faster but as you suggest over 100% more money. 

Talking in absolutes like the number of frames increased can be helpful, but looking at the relative performance changes as percentages - I think that's the way to go. 

Well hit on that no I would not want to be 15 percent taller lol Im happy with my current height. Much like if you have a GPU that was highend with in the last 3 years you have no issues with running games. Example my 5870's run everything at great fps in crossfire or single card set up......All your doing is helping create the sterotype that PC games NEED to upgrade every year to stay on the cuttung edge. To be compltely real with you i dont see much need to upgrade from the 5000 series to the 7000 series unless you went low end. But guess AMD will tell you that you need to and show you a bunch of graphs with percents to prove that weak ass point..... BUT so I dont seem like im dismissing what your saying yes there are cases where looking at percents help like the gen jump you mentioned in your above post.

Also Ill be making the leap into the 8000 series of gpu's when they come out. They seem like they will be a worthwhile upgrade.

Also I look at the graphs for benchmarks I dont just look at ave's and percents they never tell the full story and always mislead a noob who is in over his head trying to build.

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

[QUOTE="nihonking"]

 

This is very true companys use percents to make pc players feel they need to buy new gpu's all the time.

nihonking

That's completely untrue. 

So you wouldn't like to be 15% taller? for me that would make me over 2m tall, and would gain almost one foot in height. The analogy to GPUs works well. 

A discerning consumer will look at the percentages as one is able to make an accurate prediction regarding the performance of potential cards relative to their existing ones. 

It would be foolish for a person to upgrade from a 7850 to a 7870, this is true. 

However, if you were upgrading from something lower, like a 4850, it's important to assess the price/performance of potential replacements. If the performance increase were ~20% for the 7870, and the price were ~20% more, then basically it's a question of if you want to spend the extra money to go that percent faster, or not to spend. If you went for either card, neither is a waste of money. You get identical value from card to card.

However a more enthusiast level card might be 60% faster but as you suggest over 100% more money. 

Talking in absolutes like the number of frames increased can be helpful, but looking at the relative performance changes as percentages - I think that's the way to go. 

Well hit on that no I would not want to be 15 percent taller lol Im happy with my current height. Much like if you have a GPU that was highend with in the last 3 years you have no issues with running games. Example my 5870's run everything at great fps in crossfire or single card set up......All your doing is helping create the sterotype that PC games NEED to upgrade every year to stay on the cuttung edge. To be compltely real with you i dont see much need to upgrade from the 5000 series to the 7000 series unless you went low end. But guess AMD will tell you that you need to and show you a bunch of graphs with percents to prove that weak ass point..... BUT so I dont seem like im dismissing what your saying yes there are cases where looking at percents help like the gen jump you mentioned in your above post.

How am I helping to create the stereotype? If anything all I'm doing is describing a method to "make an accurate prediction regarding the performance of potential cards relative to their existing ones". 

Let's play the game together now. Your 5870 is no slouch. 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

We can see that an upgrade from 5870 to the 7850 would not even boost performance by ~10%. From experience, I know that to go to the 7870 would only push that by another 20%. In your case it's not really worth it, these cards are at the top of their game in terms of performance per dollar - I feel we come to the same conclusion. 

Normally, when I'm helping friends or people online, I don't suggest a GPU upgrade unless they're going to get at least a 50% performance increase (I myself prefer closer to 100%, doubling or almost doubling frame rate) at a price point which the prospective purchaser finds attractive. If you like we could do this a bit longer, just for a bit of fun. You could set me a budget for you, and I'll see what could replace the 5870 and whether or not I'd consider it economically sensible, then you could critique me? A thought experiment. 

My last card was a 5770, as mentioned I'm now on the 7850. I'll admit - I didn't have to upgrade from the 5770. The 7850 was hardly expensive and every day now I get to enjoy graphics which I think are pretty excellent. Graphics aren't everything but it is an icing on the cake which I now enjoy all the time. One example of an improvement:

Unigine Heaven - 31.6 --> 54.5 fps, so about ~72% faster, I don't think that's anything to sneeze about. 

Your thoughts and comments?

[QUOTE="nihonking"]

[QUOTE="psymon100"]

That's completely untrue. 

So you wouldn't like to be 15% taller? for me that would make me over 2m tall, and would gain almost one foot in height. The analogy to GPUs works well. 

A discerning consumer will look at the percentages as one is able to make an accurate prediction regarding the performance of potential cards relative to their existing ones. 

It would be foolish for a person to upgrade from a 7850 to a 7870, this is true. 

However, if you were upgrading from something lower, like a 4850, it's important to assess the price/performance of potential replacements. If the performance increase were ~20% for the 7870, and the price were ~20% more, then basically it's a question of if you want to spend the extra money to go that percent faster, or not to spend. If you went for either card, neither is a waste of money. You get identical value from card to card.

However a more enthusiast level card might be 60% faster but as you suggest over 100% more money. 

Talking in absolutes like the number of frames increased can be helpful, but looking at the relative performance changes as percentages - I think that's the way to go. 

psymon100

Well hit on that no I would not want to be 15 percent taller lol Im happy with my current height. Much like if you have a GPU that was highend with in the last 3 years you have no issues with running games. Example my 5870's run everything at great fps in crossfire or single card set up......All your doing is helping create the sterotype that PC games NEED to upgrade every year to stay on the cuttung edge. To be compltely real with you i dont see much need to upgrade from the 5000 series to the 7000 series unless you went low end. But guess AMD will tell you that you need to and show you a bunch of graphs with percents to prove that weak ass point..... BUT so I dont seem like im dismissing what your saying yes there are cases where looking at percents help like the gen jump you mentioned in your above post.

How am I helping to create the stereotype? If anything all I'm doing is describing a method to "make an accurate prediction regarding the performance of potential cards relative to their existing ones". 

Let's play the game together now. Your 5870 is no slouch. 

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

We can see that an upgrade from 5870 to the 7850 would not even boost performance by ~10%. From experience, I know that to go to the 7870 would only push that by another 20%. In your case it's not really worth it, these cards are at the top of their game in terms of performance per dollar - I feel we come to the same conclusion. 

Normally, when I'm helping friends or people online, I don't suggest a GPU upgrade unless they're going to get at least a 50% performance increase (I myself prefer closer to 100%, doubling or almost doubling frame rate) at a price point which the prospective purchaser finds attractive. If you like we could do this a bit longer, just for a bit of fun. You could set me a budget for you, and I'll see what could replace the 5870 and whether or not I'd consider it economically sensible, then you could critique me? A thought experiment. 

My last card was a 5770, as mentioned I'm now on the 7850. I'll admit - I didn't have to upgrade from the 5770. The 7850 was hardly expensive and every day now I get to enjoy graphics which I think are pretty excellent. Graphics aren't everything but it is an icing on the cake which I now enjoy all the time. One example of an improvement:

Unigine Heaven - 31.6 --> 54.5 fps, so about ~72% faster, I don't think that's anything to sneeze about. 

Your thoughts and comments?

AGREED / Debate

I just dont need the less tech inclined to think we NEED these upgrades we choose to get them because it just as fun to have a bad ass gpu as it is to game on it. But i see your point and agree.

AGREED / Debate

I just dont need the less tech inclined to think we NEED these upgrades we choose to get them because it just as fun to have a bad ass gpu as it is to game on it. But i see your point and agree.

nihonking

Good on you soldier. That was good and healthy. I see your points too man, percentages are my favourite metric, but, I would have to be dumb to use them as the only metric. 

Also right now the 7850 and 660 sit on my best cards for the money right now. I dont think any card can rival them in that price range unless you wanna squeeze little more money and get a 7870. By the way the 5770 was an awsome card for its time.

Also right now the 7850 and 660 sit on my best cards for the money right now. I dont think any card can rival them in that price range unless you wanna squeeze little more money and get a 7870. By the way the 5770 was an awsome card for its time.

nihonking

Pretty much agree with everything you say here bro. 

Is the nihon in your name a reference to Japan?

LOL, the cows here are so stupid. We PC guys had the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM since April 2003 when AMD released the K8 architecture. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 . My current system that I built has 16 GB of DDR3 ram and many people I know have at least 8 GB of RAM. Four GB of RAM has been dead a long time ago because 32 bit is not used anymore. If you do simple math of 2^32 then you cows can see that before April 2003 that we were limited to 4 GB. Now it's at 2^64 which puts us at a huge amount of RAM. I almost spat out my coffee when you cows where so amazed to have 8 GB or RAM because of the 64 bit extension that has been a technology in the PC space for 10 years!!! ROFLOL. So I have proposition for cow slaughtering if you cows agree to it. How many cows on here are stupid enough to take my bet of $1,000 that my Intel i7-3820 down clocked to 1.6 GHZ to match the CPU of the PS4, and the fact that my i7-3820 has only 4 cores and uses DDR3 with a 256 bit interface, that you cows believe will outperform my CPU in math benchmarks, Folding@Home, Milkyway@Home, password cracking, Prime95, Sisoft Sandra, or any other CPU intensive tasks? Let's not forget you guys get "to the metal programming" that you are sooooo proud of...... You guys talk smack, but I know a hell of a lot about PC hardware and I know 100% that the 8-core AMD processor does not stand a chance as it is based off the Bobcat core with only a 15% enhancement. A tablet processor is what it is: http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/42645-amd-reveal-low-power-jaguar-x86-core-aimed-tablets/

Dennisreece

http://www.overclock.net/t/1364086/sweclockers-amd-temash-apu-a6-1450-in-cinebench-r11-5

4 threads quad core AMD Temash @ 1.4 Ghz ~= 4 threads duel core Intel Sandybridge @ 1.4 Ghz. Both AMD A6-1450 and Intel Core i3-2367M has a total of 8 x86 instruction issue (retire) per cycle rates.

no SANE cow would think the pc wouldnt overtake the ps4 eventually (if not shortly after its release, hell even before)campzor

[QUOTE="FashionFreak"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

AMD could have exploited "App 2" type strenghts with Tomb Raider 2013's TressFX.

 

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/tomb-raider-test-gpu.html

 

tormentos

GTX 690 is still the king all-around for a few more months. yeeeaaahhh

vet pc gamers stick to sub 200$ range  video cards

Please dude i already posted benchmarks 3 miserable frames more on the 7870 than on the 7850,9 more on BF3 that basically says it all,PC is so inefficient that a 7870 which has a TF count of 2.56 barely beats a GPU on the same line that has 1.76 TF.tormentos

Just 9 more frames means a 25-30% increase. BF3 and Crysis 3 benchmarks don't favor your assertions. 

PS4 is 5% more powerful than a 7850 in theoretical performance. 7870 is 46% more powerful than a 7850 in FLOPS. If the 7870 can achieve a realworld 20-30% advantage over the 7850 in gfx heavy titles like C3 and BF3, a 15-25% advantage over the PS4 in C3 and BF3, or even 5% is still more powerful. I'm sorry, until I see some comparisons I'm not giving the PS4's GPU a free pass to be a 7970 world-beating GPU.