Sapphire 5970 Toxic Review
3D Mark Vantage
Published: 5th August 2010 | Source: Sapphire | Price: around £800 |
3D Mark Vantage
Performance
Starting with the performance benchmark we see that Sapphire have really made the 5970 into the card we all expected it to be when we first heard about it from ATI. It handily keeps up with the much more expensive, and theoretically faster, Ares and in pure GPU score actually beats it. The Ares overclock was much higher than the Toxic so it's really an impressive result for the Sapphire.
High
Moving onto the more realistic settings that the High benchmark offers, we see the results nearly mirror those above, although at stock the Toxic is starting to drop just by a hair to the bottom of the graph. Nonetheless it's still a mighty showing.
Extreme
At Extreme, which is the settings we'd expect anyone with this card to run, the Toxic still keeps eating through the frames. In overclocked trim it actually just beats the Ares and therefore is the fastest graphics card we've ever tested.
A fabulous result for Sapphire and one we're incredibly impressed by. Even more so considering it's giving up a little oomph in the CPU department.
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