• 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.

GTX 680 vs 7970 at the same clockspeeds.

N19h7m4r3

N19h7m4r3

N19h7m4r3

Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,640
Location
Ireland
There were a few people that wanted to know what would happen if both cards were compared clock for clock.

It's recently been done, with both cards running at 1058Mhz which is the average GPU boost speed for the GTX.

Overall it seems the GTX 680 is better at 1080 resolutions, yet both cards seem very close at 1600.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/

Note the GTX680 was banched using 300.99 drivers instead of the latest though.
 
Martini1991 said:
Since when did we compare GPU's clock for clock?
Click to expand...

I know it doesn't really prove anything as clock speeds aren't the only thing that differentiates between the two cards. Like the article states, they not comparing apples for apples.

The only thing this article settles is people saying the 680 is only faster than a 7970 because of it's high stock speeds... obviously this isn't the case. The GTX680 is faster than the 7970 at the same clock speeds, and at it's default "boost technology" settings too. The 7970 only wins when heavily overclocked or at ultra high resolutions.

Its been said time and time again, if your thinking of getting wither a 680 or a 7970 first look at your needs. Gaming on 1 monitor at 1080P or thereabouts? Then get a 680. Multiple monitors at much higher resolutions get a 7970.
 
Last edited:
elrasho said:
I know it doesn't really prove anything as clock speeds aren't the only thing that differentiates between the two cards. Like the article states, they not comparing apples for apples.

The only thing this article settles is people saying the 680 is only faster than a 7970 is because of it's high stock speeds... obviously this isn't the case. The GTX680 is faster than the 7970 at the same clock speeds, and at it's default "boost technology" settings too. The 7970 only wins when heavily overclocked or at ultra high resolutions.

Its been said time and time again, if your thinking of getting wither a 680 or a 7970 first look at your needs. Gaming on 1 monitor at 1080P or thereabouts? Then get a 680. Multiple monitors at much higher resolutions get a 7970.
Click to expand...

I don't see people comparing 5870's clock for clock with the 480 :p
Just people changing their stance on things because the shoe is now on the other foot. Nvidia were the power hungry massive beasts, now they're not (Well, that's because this is the performance Nvidia thought we should have had at the mid range, but that's another story)
 
Martini1991 said:
I don't see people comparing 5870's clock for clock with the 480 :p
Just people changing their stance on things because the shoe is now on the other foot. Nvidia were the power hungry massive beasts, now they're not (Well, that's because this is the performance Nvidia thought we should have had at the mid range, but that's another story)
Click to expand...

Time have changed, GPU architecture isn't just about clock speeds anymore.
 
As this site is called 'Overclockers' I would have thought we all want to see how they perform OC'ed to the max safe 24/7 clocks. That's how I would expect frequenters of a forum called 'Overclockers' to run thier hardware.... but maybe that's just my logic.
Personally, I couldn't give a rats ass how they run as stock or clock for clock as I would never run them like that.
Of course OC can be different card to card but once we start to see a decent number of results we can work out the average OC you can expect and declare which is faster at the OC we can reasonably expect.

I have to laugh at all the ppl having little digs at one side or the other, get over it, whichever side of the fence you sit on. It would seem some just can't help themselves.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Since when did we compare GPU's clock for clock?
Click to expand...

Some people even on this forum were asking for it essentially. As GPU boost is "cheating" according to some.

Yet those same people have Intel i5/i7 cpu's.

This entire review was essentially done just to get it out there and show how the cards perform at similar frequencies.

I don't see the point in it really. I don't overclock anymore since moving to an M-ITX system, and I'm sure many people are just curious.

For myself, I want the best performing stock card with good features that fits into my budget and requirements.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Neither were the AMD cards in this case either,so it was fair on both cards!! :D
Click to expand...

Did know that, thanks :)
Haven't kept up with AMD drivers in a while.
 
Last edited:
'We played the game and couldn't determine a visual difference when gaming on either same-clocked card at the highest resolution.'

'Again, without knowing which GPU was in the box it is difficult to differentiate the two'

'it's practically neck-and-neck again'

Those with a few extra brain cells over the average Joe should buy with their wallet and get the cheapest card they can find, considering no ones going to be able to tell them apart without a fps counter in the corner.
 
You goto love this forum, we (myself included) are never happy.
Site X shows that the red card is faster where as site Y shows that the green card is faster, open up the graphics card forum and sit back with popcorn and enjoy.

Bottom line (in my opinion) the only figures that matter is stock vrs stock as that is how they are sold, everything else is dependent on how well that individual card clocks.
 
bru said:
Bottom line (in my opinion) the only figures that matter is stock vrs stock as that is how they are sold, everything else is dependent on how well that individual card clocks.
Click to expand...

Completely understand and respect your opinion, stock performance is important for those who don't overclock and at least shows the minimum performance you can expect.

Having said that, this is a forum for enthusiasts who enjoy overclocking and are aware of risks (breaking stuff/ crap OC) that go with every almost component. I suppose it's because I got in to OC'ing around the ATI 9500pro/ AMD XP2500 days when you could unlock and OC a cheap, fairly average card/ CPU and make it something amazing. That in itself got me hooked on OC'ing and have only ever been interested in the maximum performance I can hope for from each part.

Of course this is slightly different as we are talking about a highend part but I still only care what the safe maximum performace is, that's how it would be running if I bought one.
 
tommybhoy said:
Those with a few extra brain cells over the average Joe should buy with their wallet and get the cheapest card they can find, considering no ones going to be able to tell them apart without a fps counter in the corner.
Click to expand...

Or pick which brand they prefer, seeing as they do have their own USPs no matter how worthless that seems to you.

It's not all about FPS.
 
ALXAndy said:
Yeah, and then they disabled it and overclocked the CPUs themselves.
Click to expand...

Ahhh ignorance shining yet again.

You do not know how to overclock on modern Intel CPUs, do you? You use the CPU Boost feature and enhance it with your own parameters.

Nobody disables it, because that would be utterly retarded.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Ahhh ignorance shining yet again.

You do not know how to overclock on modern Intel CPUs, do you? You use the CPU Boost feature and enhance it with your own parameters.

Nobody disables it, because that would be utterly retarded.
Click to expand...

Lol what? I'm sorry but that's a load of BS. You find your CPU's sweet spot and anchor it there because any faster is unstable. It still downclocks when idle but if it overclocked itself it would then crash.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Ahhh ignorance shining yet again.

You do not know how to overclock on modern Intel CPUs, do you? You use the CPU Boost feature and enhance it with your own parameters.

Nobody disables it, because that would be utterly retarded.
Click to expand...

+1

Absoloutely no reason to disable the Speed step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom