facebook rss twitter

Review: Sapphire's monster HD 7970 TOXIC 6GB on three screens

by Tarinder Sandhu on 18 July 2012, 14:27

Tags: Sapphire

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qabjsr

Add to My Vault: x

Is a 6GB framebuffer just overkill?

Our original look at the Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 TOXIC 6GB video card determined that, on balance, it is the fastest single-GPU card we've tested. Equipped with the highest frequencies yet seen on a Radeon HD 7970, made possible by the 'Lethal Boost' button and GHz Edition GPU heritage, Sapphire also takes the opportunity of laying down 6GB of GDDR5 memory on the beast.

Huge rendering power and a silly-sized memory framebuffer sound like a perfect fit for users looking to game on three full-HD screens under AMD's Eyefinity multi-monitor technology. Sapphire sensibly includes the requisite adapter - active miniDP-to-DVI - for easy-as-pie connectivity, too. Armed with six games, three screens, and top-end image-quality settings, the TOXIC remains the best of our high-end trio, though even it doesn't have the pixel chutzpah to run the latest titles at silky-smooth framerates.

Examination of the per-second and per-frame times indicates that the TOXIC's performance lead over a Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition is more down to elevated clocks than jumbo framebuffer considerations, and we feel that gaming situations would need to be artificially manufactured to show the real-world worth of an extra 3GB of card memory; heck, the GeForce GTX 680 does well enough with 'only' 2GB.

Sapphire's decision to use 6GB of video memory for the TOXIC is more of a marketing initiative than real-world benefit. But the TOXIC isn't about being sensible and conservative, because it's designed as the ultimate expression of Radeon HD 7970 GPU's goodness. As good as this monster card is, we'd recommend Sapphire look to release a complementing version with a 3GB framebuffer and 'Flex' output connectors, thereby dropping the price by a good £100, to a more-palatable £400.



HEXUS Forums :: 12 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Nice review! I like the extra review parameters you have added!
Yep always welcome to have more information. I thought 6GB was overkill and it appears to show it. I think you'd have to throw in MSAA on the cards, or maybe go 3x2560 screens in order to crash the other cards fps total due to lack of framebuffer.
BF3? AC? Radeon beats GeForce? confused!
Excellent stuff guys, appreciate the extra effort that went into producing all these figures and its alot more indepth than normal, great to see!.

Must ask though, doesnt the gtx680 implement that triple screen thing where the first monitor has the highest fps and then the other two get halfed ? I remember reading that Nvidia launched that rather odd features, not sure if you could disable it or not.

Any chance of power consumption? be interested to see how much of an effect on power running triple monitors on these bad boys! :D.
The correct test for this card would have been 1440p x3 (even 1600px3) or heavy SSAA at 1080px3 then you may have seen a radical difference on tested 4-6GB cards. or Hexus could cough up for a 4k screen?

Card would have to be in Sli or CF for that sort of res but people who cough up for 3x £400-900+ screens or a single £7k screen are not too scared of a £1k GPU bill.

You could have pushed another 3GB 7970 to same clocks as 6GB model to test the sub 33MS output even at 1080p.