• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

7970 or GTX 680

I find it strange how nvidias new chip is so poor at gpu compute, considering they have always trumpeted cuda etc. It seems kepler is almost purely for gaming (good in my eyes) whereas the 7970 is also strong at compute, making the kepler look more efficient in gaming than the 7970. Kepler is more like a pitcairn than a tahiti IMO. If AMD scaled up pitcairn to 300mm^2 and clocked it like the keplers im sure it would be competitive with the 680.

I also wonder about the multiscreen benches we have seen. Is the FPS for the 680 just measured on the middle screen or an average of both? AFAIK the kepler concentrates more on the middle screen rather than spreading the load evenly across all screeens like the 7970.
 
I find it strange how nvidias new chip is so poor at gpu compute, considering they have always trumpeted cuda etc. It seems kepler is almost purely for gaming (good in my eyes) whereas the 7970 is also strong at compute, making the kepler look more efficient in gaming than the 7970. Kepler is more like a pitcairn than a tahiti IMO. If AMD scaled up pitcairn to 300mm^2 and clocked it like the keplers im sure it would be competitive with the 680.

I also wonder about the multiscreen benches we have seen. Is the FPS for the 680 just measured on the middle screen or an average of both? AFAIK the kepler concentrates more on the middle screen rather than spreading the load evenly across all screeens like the 7970.

It's poor at directcompute because it's just not there. It's a mid ranged part.

They haven't thrown the kitchen sink at it yet. That is coming later apparently. Well, if they can stop slagging off the people who make the cores for them.

All of those extra functions need more power. The end result is more heat, inefficiency and so on. As I explained, Fermi 480 was 7970. Because of all of the stuff Nvidia packed into that huge die it loved eating power and got very hot.

Now obviously Tahiti is cooler and uses less power, but that's only because it's 28nm.
 
So if the big kepler ever arrives its likely to be hot and very hungry?

A lot hotter and more power hungry than 104, yes.

That may have been why they did 104 first? From what I can recall they planned to put 104 into laptops. Laptop parts and mid ranged cards. Then the big boys later in the year.

104 is only a GTX 680 because they were able to crank it hard and get it up there with the 7970. If (and it is a big one) AMD can revise Tahiti or turn it into Tenerife or what not then it could leave Nvidia with a lot of explaining to do.

Simply because they have backtracked and done a U-turn, claming there is no high end and this is it.

They are trying to move onto 22nm, but apparently are saying it's pointless as they can't even get 28nm in big enough quantities.

Mid range makes perfect sense. They came up with a quote when Tahiti was released and said it was "underwhelming".

Well, if 104 is your high end card then that is more underwhelming. They had three months nearly to make it faster, yet it sits blow for blow with the 7970.

But even Nvidia are not that good at lying. One look over the spec (memory bandwidth, amount of memory ETC) says it all.
 
Yes i must admit i am underwhelmed by 680. I think nvidia have done a very good job though cranking it up so it beats 7970 out of the box, so all reviews say it is the faster card. For an overclocker like me it is pretty even with 7970. I like the architecture of kepler with no gpu compute to worry about, wish amd would make a card lime it for high end. As a gtx 570 owner i am looking to upgrade next month, at the moment my money is pointed towards a 7950.
 
Yes i must admit i am underwhelmed by 680. I think nvidia have done a very good job though cranking it up so it beats 7970 out of the box, so all reviews say it is the faster card. For an overclocker like me it is pretty even with 7970. I like the architecture of kepler with no gpu compute to worry about, wish amd would make a card lime it for high end. As a gtx 570 owner i am looking to upgrade next month, at the moment my money is pointed towards a 7950.

Yes, 7950 is the best of a bad bunch it seems.
 
It's poor at directcompute because it's just not there. It's a mid ranged part.

They haven't thrown the kitchen sink at it yet. That is coming later apparently. Well, if they can stop slagging off the people who make the cores for them.

All of those extra functions need more power. The end result is more heat, inefficiency and so on. As I explained, Fermi 480 was 7970. Because of all of the stuff Nvidia packed into that huge die it loved eating power and got very hot.

Now obviously Tahiti is cooler and uses less power, but that's only because it's 28nm.

By christ 7970 is nothing like Fermi?.. It's uses a few more watts than its competitor, but it's powering an extra 1GB of high speed ram.
 
OK so I am going to be the peace maker.

Right now it seems to be ups and downs from AMD. One minute the 680 beats it in certain games, the next AMD release a new driver and the 7970 pulls ahead. I did take the time to look at those BF3 scores, BTW.

As some people have said, let's look at the cold hard facts.

The 680 is quieter. I won't say it's cooler because in some reviews I've seen it actually get hotter than the 7970. However, all reviews say it is quieter.

The 680 uses less power. Not enough to save you a significant amount of money, but it does use less power.

The 680 as of right now has better drivers. Personally I think the entire thing is so close that it comes down to drivers, and the 680 has the better ones. I've not used them, but I have used the AMD ones and they suck donkey balls.

The 680 can do clever tricks to improve framerates which is cool, it will help with games that it isn't man enough for, especially in surround.

Those are the good points. Now the bad.

It's a complete con. If you have the electronics experience I do then you can clearly understand it is a cheap card to make. It has 1/3 less the inductors that the 7970 has. Now I don't care what way you try and shake that, it's just fact.

You can come at me and say (and you would be sort of right) that the GPU core simply does not need the power stages that the 7970 core does. That is somewhat right. However, cheaper to make should = cheaper to sell. And as of right now the 680 costs more than the 7970.

The 680 has no voltage control, meaning overclocks are severely limited. However, this is quietened by the "out of the box" performance. However, it is a down side IMO.

The 680 will (sooner rather than later) become crippled by its vram. If it did not run surround? I would be far less worried about its future potential to do so. However as we know all it takes is one game and a card can be rendered useless.

So basically if you are paying for a 680 then the only thing it has going for it is the gaming performance which is very good. Now let's move onto the 7970.

The 7970 is a far more expensive card to make. The cooler is bigger (the metal part) and it has far more power components aboard than the 680. The reason for this is simple. It was designed as a high end card and not rebadged as one. It is a true high end card.

Eyefinity from my own experiences with Surround is better. Surround can be very hit and miss, and really relies on drivers. I found that I needed different drivers for each of the games I wanted to play. However, the 680 is a single card, so it may be better.


The 7970 has 3gb of vram because it was the more expensive card to make. If you look away from gaming performance the 7970 dominates the 680 in absolutely every way. Specs for example on paper are far higher and richer than the 680.

7970 when overclocked to 1125 which every card I have seen will do is either just behind the 680 or just in front.

7970 is a few quid cheaper. I've seen them for £386 or so.

Now the bad.

Drivers. They suck balls. They are awful IMO. So awful that a mate of mine bought a 7950 and sent it back the next day. He spent all night wrestling with them and just wasn't happy with it at all.

The card underperforms. IE - with a spec list as long as your arm this card should be battering the 680. On paper the 7970 absolutely obliterates it. Yet, this is not the case. 7970 is apparently AMD's Fermi. They have bolted on loads of new stuff and features yet can't quite refine it into performance at a user level.

Each driver AMD have released has improved one thing, then broken another. Until they get their act together we can't say for sure which card is the faster card. I have no doubt that the 7970 will continue to improve. The problem is AMD rushed it to market to get some sales before Nvidia knew what was happening. And this shows in a big way when it comes to the drivers. They are quite frankly bloody rotten.

So, hopefully there are both sides to the story there, without just posting a one line post to declare one the better. If that is how you feel then you are rather narrow minded, because as always it is a lot more complicated than that.
That is the best non sided description I have read in these silly wars between the so called green and red side facts not OPINIONS.
Still can't believe some people are trying to argue it it makes sense!
For the record I don't care which card is better and I don't care what company make my card as long as it suits my gaming/price range
 
Last edited:
looks like a long conversation about not much, I'll sum up the thread so far

1. Both are the same price (pretty much)
2. Both are the same performance (pretty much)
3. One consumes more energy but has more vram
4. one overclocks automatically the other has it in its driver utility
5. Both are probably not required if you have a normal display without 3d
6. Nvidia probably better for 3d or 120fps action
7. AMD probably better for high resolution
8. Cards released 6 months in the future will be slightly faster than these current ones
9. Cards released 6 months in the past were slightly slower than these current ones

Hope that helps any newcomers to the thread
 
Last edited:
looks like a long conversation about not much, I'll sum up the thread so far

1. Both are the same price (pretty much)
2. Both are the same performance (pretty much)
3. One consumes more energy but has more vram
4. one overclocks automatically the other has it in its driver utility
5. Both are probably not required if you have a normal display without 3d
6. Nvidia probably better for 3d/120fps action
7. AMD probably better for high resolution
8. Cards released 6 months in the future will be slightly faster than these current ones
9. Cards released 6 months in the past were slightly slower than these current ones

Hope that helps any newcomers to the thread

Number 6 is the reason im looking at the 680... Really want to try 3D AND 120 fps :p
 
As a 6970 and 580 owner I must say that you'd have to be really crap with computers to have to "wrestle" with AMD drivers.

No review I've read mentions this wrestling either.
 
Back
Top Bottom