Sapphire 5970 Toxic Review
Test Setup and Overclocking
Published: 5th August 2010 | Source: Sapphire | Price: around £800 |
Test Setup and Overclocking
An ultra high-end, extreme performance twin-GPU graphics card that costs a substantial amount of money. It's pretty clear that the most direct competitor for the Sapphire 5970 Toxic is the aforementioned Asus Ares and so we're going to be putting them head to head in our testing. The only differences between the two setups from when we tested the Ares to the Toxic are that we're using Catalyst 10.7, and the 980X is only overclocked to 3.6GHz.
Corsair Dominator GT @ 1600MHz
ASUS Rampage 3 Extreme
Intel i7 980X @ 3.6GHz
Corsair AX1200w
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 Bit
Noctua NH-D14 with Arctic MX-3
Sapphire HD5970 Toxic
Overclocking
As the Toxic already has a monster overclock we were surprised that we managed to coax a further 99 MHz out of it before it cried enough.
If we were cynical we'd think that 999 MHz is a very convenient number for the card to stop at, especially considering how easily it reached that point. However a 1 GHz 5970 should be more than capable of hammering anything we throw at it, especially considering it is 33% faster than a standard one and the standard 5970 eats games for breakfast.
Time for some benchmarks.
Most Recent Comments
Wow. I'd love one of those for my system! I didn't expect it to overclock THAT well!
By the way, I see the award images have changed? (atleast for the performance award?) I like it, looks nice
By the way, I see the award images have changed? (atleast for the performance award?) I like it, looks nice
Yes indeed the awards have all been updated to match the new OC3D logo. If you think the performance one is lush, wait til we bring the others out.
great review but I really can't understand why in crysis warhead the asus ares kicks the ass of the toxic in the minima and average FPS even in stock clocks - what's going on here guys? 
Couple of things explain that. Firstly the Toxic had a few less CPU clocks to handle the Physx, and the Toxic is a 5970 whereas the Ares is twin 5870s.
So the CPU will account for most of it, and the tiny extra theoretical grunt of the Ares gives us the few extra. If you look back at the Ares XF results you'll see that Crysis is pants no matter how much hardware you have. So really take it with a pinch of salt.
So the CPU will account for most of it, and the tiny extra theoretical grunt of the Ares gives us the few extra. If you look back at the Ares XF results you'll see that Crysis is pants no matter how much hardware you have. So really take it with a pinch of salt.
Hmm. Is it me or does that cooler either -
A. Completely rip off the Arctic Accelero Xtreme
B. Use an Arctic Accelero Xtreme.
'cos from where I am sitting it has to be one or the other.
A. Completely rip off the Arctic Accelero Xtreme
B. Use an Arctic Accelero Xtreme.
'cos from where I am sitting it has to be one or the other.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VonBlade
If you look back at the Ares XF results you'll see that Crysis is pants no matter how much hardware you have. So really take it with a pinch of salt.
|
It's not just OC3D. Every website is "Crysis this, Crysis that". Seriously, the game is old hat now (and I'm not saying that at your or to you, just saying it in general).
Do the manufacturers (in this case Sapphire) suggest that you use Crysis?
We use a range of games, some people might play Crysis and want to know what cards play it best. Metro is heavily green team weighted too. Just the way it is and we will always use what ever is POPULAR
The cooler is an AC unit.
The cooler is an AC unit.
Ah OK cheers Tom. I thought it looked like an AC Not a bad thing, best cooler for large cards ever IMO.
Not a bad thing, best cooler for large cards ever IMO.Am I reading the Crysis bench properly? How comes the Stock out performs the overclock @ Maximum for the toxic?
Also I like to see bench's for Crysis as I find it very easy to compare real performance, I use it like a control of sort, to gauge GPU real world performance, much more useful than synthetic benchies!
Also I like to see bench's for Crysis as I find it very easy to compare real performance, I use it like a control of sort, to gauge GPU real world performance, much more useful than synthetic benchies!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CRiMiNaLNiNJa
Am I reading the Crysis bench properly? How comes the Stock out performs the overclock @ Maximum for the toxic? Also I like to see bench's for Crysis as I find it very easy to compare real performance, I use it like a control of sort, to gauge GPU real world performance, much more useful than synthetic benchies! |
Sometime the results can be a bit strange, just the way it is dude, maybe crysis didnt like the overclock. Without spending hours researching every result we'll never know.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tinytomlogan
Sometime the results can be a bit strange, just the way it is dude, maybe crysis didnt like the overclock. Without spending hours researching every result we'll never know. |
*stop making your replies bold*
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by silenthill
This is just a suggestion I noticed some of the websites and magazines don’t put the maximum FPS they say it doesn’t reflect the true performance of the graphic card because most important in game play is the minimum and average FPS which actually shows you if you can play the game between 30FPS and 60FPS which is considered (very playable) and also the maximum FPS behaviour is very strange when overclocking the GPU so why don’t you scrap the maximum from your benchmarks to avoid these kinds of issues I know the maximum FPS shows the muscles of the GPU but it’s not really true performance. *stop making your replies bold* |
PS - stop bolding your replies.
"The biggest compliment we can pay, and it is a big one, is that if this had arrived before Ares we'd have looked at that differently"
But the Toxic DID arrive before the Ares. You can see the date on this review is April 22nd; over 2 months before the arrival of the Ares.
*LINK REMOVED*
But the Toxic DID arrive before the Ares. You can see the date on this review is April 22nd; over 2 months before the arrival of the Ares.
*LINK REMOVED*
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Telltale
"The biggest compliment we can pay, and it is a big one, is that if this had arrived before Ares we'd have looked at that differently" But the Toxic DID arrive before the Ares. You can see the date on this[/url] review is April 22nd; over 2 months before the arrival of the Ares. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tinytomlogan
With us matey, we had not tested it. |
I still don't 100% get the difference between your everyday 5970 and the ASUS Ares.... looking at the specs on AMD website it looks to me as if the 5970 has just double the specifications of the 5870..
sorry about my ignorance
sorry about my ignorance
holy thread revival batman
a normal 5970 is basicly 2 5870 chips underclocked to 5850 speeds
where was the ares, toxic and so on are full on 5870 chips
a normal 5970 is basicly 2 5870 chips underclocked to 5850 speeds
where was the ares, toxic and so on are full on 5870 chips
CSS Valid
Continue Reading