yup, best game last year was Serious Sam, this year:- FAR CRY 3, BORDERLANDS 2, i cant stand any game that's similar to COD..or i suspect that it might be..
Doom 4 ?..........uum suspicious, not for at least another year
-
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
- Thread starter coughs
- Start date
yup, best game last year was Serious Sam, this year:- FAR CRY 3, BORDERLANDS 2, i cant stand any game that's similar to COD..or i suspect that it might be..
Doom 4 ?..........uum suspicious, not for at least another year
There was certainly no offense intended and absolutely no intention of putting it into context to suit myself.
It was meant in regards to overclocking gregster, that's why I used it, it was in direct context to bhavv talking about how quiet the 680 is while overclocking and the 7970 turns into a leaf blowing monster:
The purpose of me quoting you(there is nothing to hide with a quote, anyone reading it can click it to see the full post) was showing how someone who actually owns a 680 describes the noise when pushing the fan up while overclocking going head to head using highly clocked cards in the 7970 v 680 shootout on the heaven thread(which is fantastic stuff by the way
).While I wouldn't spout about any of them being the out and out champ, I have already said many times, if I was to choose between them, the 680 would be going in my machine unless a 7970 could be had for quite a few quid less.
I'm just not impressed the way some folk try to bash down perfectly capable cards to suit their needs, I have already asked someone(7970 user) to wind it down many times but got hammered for daring to ask.
As pointed out above there was no misquoting.
I think even gregster would agree he's glad he took this seriously(you can click the quotes to see where it came from
):My advice would be to read through the thread again and make your own decision with the information available!
'It's also faster, on average, than a same-clocked HD 7970, though it's almost close enough to call it a draw.' from the Hexus review, they paint a different picture than what you are.
Both cards are @GTX 680 speeds of 1,058MHz.
Hexus also states:
'Notes
* Average GPU Boost speeds.
Not a fair test, we know
We've said it before but we'll say it again: this is not an apples-to-apples GPU-to-GPU test. This is an examination of the two best architectures with frequency set at roughly the same speeds, because no-one knows for sure the exact frequency of every GTX 680 in various games.'
It could look even better/worse for either card, we simply don't know yet.
I shall wait for a review that shows both cards at their respected 'balls out' max clocks before drawing a conclusion, [H] said they are going to do an article so hopefully it's here soon.
Last edited:
The GTX 680 still runs silent and with acceptable temperatures when over locked, but the 7970 won't. This was confirmed by an owner of both cards on another forum.
The GTX 680 doesn't need the fan to be increased for over locking, the temperatures remain safe.
I can't be bothered manually correcting every auto correction on my stupid phone now, enjoy reading all about over locking, GTX 560To and how many gbs of gram they have.
The GTX 680 doesn't need the fan to be increased for over locking, the temperatures remain safe.
I can't be bothered manually correcting every auto correction on my stupid phone now, enjoy reading all about over locking, GTX 560To and how many gbs of gram they have.
Last edited:
Seriously? People still bicker about this? Just acknowledge that you will not agree on this, ever. Let people decide themselves from what is here already. I don't think either will be a blatant mistake.
I doubt more can be brought to the table.
Anyone with a little sense should be able to pick for himself now. Either one or the other.
Continuing this seems pointless to me at the moment. What can you people say that has not already been said? And no please don't answer that...
But promise me all to have a wonderfull day!
I doubt more can be brought to the table.
Anyone with a little sense should be able to pick for himself now. Either one or the other.
Continuing this seems pointless to me at the moment. What can you people say that has not already been said? And no please don't answer that...
But promise me all to have a wonderfull day!
The only reason why threads like this exist is because the GTX 680 made current owners of the 7970 / 7950 so mad that they need to start defending their purchase as much as possible, and trying to convice as many people as they can to buy a 7970 instead.
Its far better not to listen to a single person who posts on this forum for advice on what to buy, its not hard to google a review yourself, do your own research and decide which one you would rather buy.
The 7970 owners however cant have that, because too many people will want a GTX 680 instead of their precious 7970 because 99.9% of reviews must be lying, so they have to make threads like this their mission.
Its far better not to listen to a single person who posts on this forum for advice on what to buy, its not hard to google a review yourself, do your own research and decide which one you would rather buy.
The 7970 owners however cant have that, because too many people will want a GTX 680 instead of their precious 7970 because 99.9% of reviews must be lying, so they have to make threads like this their mission.
If you overclock the 680gtx isn't better, it's confirmed pretty much everywhere. And don't buy a stock 7970 I agree that the fan sucks. But you can get a custom one for almost same as stock price.
If you don't overclock 680GTX is the clear winner. If you overclock, use multimonitors/highres 7970 does start to look more appealing.
If you don't overclock 680GTX is the clear winner. If you overclock, use multimonitors/highres 7970 does start to look more appealing.
Incorrect:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/
Clock for clock, the GTX 680 is still the faster card, though not by much. Confirmed by proper testing, not by random AMD fans.
multimonitor:
Probably the first thing I agree with regarding the 7970, I wouldnt buy any other than this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-152-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=938
But it costs a lot more, I thought it was £459 the other day
I would only recommend a non lightning version of that, I dont see any yet though, and the Asus custom cooled one is triple slot.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/
Clock for clock, the GTX 680 is still the faster card, though not by much. Confirmed by proper testing, not by random AMD fans.
multimonitor:
Probably the first thing I agree with regarding the 7970, I wouldnt buy any other than this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-152-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=938
But it costs a lot more, I thought it was £459 the other day
I would only recommend a non lightning version of that, I dont see any yet though, and the Asus custom cooled one is triple slot.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,226
Incorrect:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/
Clock for clock, the GTX 680 is still the faster card, though not by much. Confirmed by proper testing, not by random AMD fans.
Probably the first thing I agree with regarding the 7970, I wouldnt buy any other than this:
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-152-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=938
But it costs a lot more, I thought it was £459 the other day
Clock for clock the gtx680 is indeed faster but according to all the forums around the web the gtx680 does not gain as much from overclocking. I have not done a lot of research on this apart from reading the gtx680 overclocking thread which seems to suggest that the gtx680 is not the overclocking beast some reviews made it out to be. The majority on here were only seeing around 1200mhz on the core. Thats not a major boost when you consider stock cards are hitting around 1100mhz.
Its close when both cards are overclocked which is a fact. If i had bought a 7970 on release and it was a good clocker i would not be bothered at all about a gtx680.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,484
- Location
- UK.
That's why I haven't switched yet, my 7970 will do 1200Mhz on the core. I can't go from 3GB to 2GB Vram either
Patiently waiting for the EVGA and MSI 4GB or Zotac 2Ghz GTX 680's to tempt me over. HD 7990 might be here by then though, rumours are it's $849 dollars, not that expensive for a dual 7970
God knows what the UK cost will be though
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-overclock-guide/12
I've seen most of people easily getting 1275 - 1300 mhz on these cards as their max overclock.
That's why I haven't switched yet, my 7970 will do 1200Mhz on the core. I can't go from 3GB to 2GB Vram either
Why would anyone even think of switching from a 7970 to a GTX 680? Seriously?
I assumed the '7970 vs GTX 680' debate was for people deciding which one to buy, not for people who already have a 7970 to feel justified with their purchase or even think about switching to a GTX 680.
I confirm that this is the average overclock that I've seen people have. I can get a little more out of mine (1290) but every other day or it'll crash to desktop maybe once before being fine again.
So 99.9% stable at just a rat hair short of 1300mhz. Pretty decent overclocking to be honest. Temperatures pretty similar to stock speeds. Maybe 2-3c more at most. Fan noise is fine.
On a separate point, I don't see the 7970's 3GB being a reason to purchase it over a 680. I mean for christ sake we've only just (arguably) reached the point where 1GB cards are becoming VRAM limited on maximum settings at 1080p.
You can't take the cards VRAM usage from afterburner as an indication of what's actually being used as already described by people on this forum. 2GB has been proven - in numerous reviews -to be fine for multi-screen gaming.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 139
- Location
- York
Im sure every 7970 and 680 owner is happy with there purchase!
This is what matters.
This is what matters.
I wish this was the case. Sadly, all I read recently is some 7970 owners constantly bigging up the 7970 whilst berating the 680. This tells me that certain 7970 owners feel insecure with what they have and to make themselves feel better, they run down the 680.
+1
This they feel justifies it being an inferior card. Any body with sense knows that 2GB is plenty on multiple monitors.
Mind boggling. I can't understand either!
I own 2 x 7970's, don't game often but if I had to choose now I would have probably made the same decision. If your going to game buy the 680 as an upgrade, not to gain mediocre fps over 7970 if you already own it and save your money!
The reviews have shown the 680 is a cracking card, but so are the 7970's. Foolish to say 3GB RAM is advantageous if you don't even use it. I would expect a 7970 owner who actually uses it for work rather than games to boast about the compute and idle power consumption and how in a multi-gpu all cards spin right down except the one used for outputting the picture.
7970 owner here, been looking at the reviews and benchies and my impression is at 1080p the 680 is the winner, at 2560x1440 and 5760x1080 then theres not enough in it either way to worry about, but even at 1080p i doubt very much anyone could tell the difference, if i was buying now the deciding factor for me would be cost and buy the cheapest.but then it does seem a bit silly for anyone with a 6970/570gtx and 1080p to drop over £400 on one of these cards, when i ditched my eyefinity for 27" 120hz i wished i had kept my 6970 xfire and saved myself quite a few quid.
You may not use it or need it now. However, it can all change very quickly with the release of a new game.
Now granted, some one like DICE or ID are not going to launch a game tomorrow that renders the 680 useless (and all other 2gb cards for that matter) but sooner or later the way we are heading it will become an issue.
Maybe not now, maybe not even for another two years. But it will.
And the reason it will is very simple.
DX11 is a very heavy hitting API. What I mean by that is it has all of this tessellation stuff and uber detail possibilities. All of this detail and these textures need to be preloaded to render a scene. Now some of it loads into your system memory. However, you want as much of it on the GPU's memory and ready to load as possible.
If you are having trouble understanding what I am pointing to then please compare Dirt 2 or Dirt 3 and benchmark them running DX9 in one set of tests and DX11 in the second set.
Even on Dirt 2 which is pretty much a linear race track the performance hit is massive.
And, deep down all that is going on in DX11 in Dirt 2 is some mild tessellation on the flags and puddles, and some shading and lighting. Yet it comes at a massive performance hit.
The more tessellation and high res textures used the more vram you need. Now for a moment stop and think about the vram usage levels posted over the past few months since BF3 was released. Hell, not only that but now things like GPUZ come with memory usage monitors. Even Afterburner can now display it on the screen.
So how much vram and how much of a performance hit does a full DX11 game come with? take a look at BF3. There's absolutely no denying it's a gorgeous game. However, sacrifice has clearly been made with that game to make it look like that. Levels are quite small, and cleverly designed to be small without feeling small when you look at them. However, they are quite clearly very small indeed. Especially when you compare one of them to something like the fan bike level in Half Life 2.
So why the step back? why are levels becoming smaller?
Because to use DX11 in full comes at a cost. BF3 is around 16gb installed. NFS : The Run with the patches is closing in on 19gb. RAGE is 20gb. Hidden in RAGE are the uber textures. Crysis 2 with all of the DX11 stuff "patched in" is also absolutely enormous.
So what would happen if we took, let's say, NFS : The Run and applied the graphics it uses to Need For Speed : Underground 2. Or even Need For Speed : Undercover?
They would be around 60gb at least. Not only can you drive around multiple cities without the need for it to stop and load, but you also have tons of cars. Not only that, but you have tons of mods for those cars, all of which need to be loaded into vram in order to present the car or model on the screen.
So right now? that isn't possible. A game that works like either of those just is not possible. It would be around 60gb to install and you would need so much vram that there isn't a card on the market that could run it.
So should we worry about it? well yes. Simply because as developers continue to push technology they need the hardware with which to do it. It could be years before we see games like the ones I describe above, but, it could happen in a year's time.
Do you really think, taking everything I have said into account that 2gb vram would be enough for a game ten times the size of BF3 or NFS : TR ?
That is where we are headed. And it does happen, and it has happened before.
Who here remembers when Far Cry released? How many CDs was it? five?
If DX11 wasn't so heavy then I would be less worried. But hey, time will tell as it always does. But personally if I were DICE or Black Box I would be sitting down planning out my next game as we speak, and it would be a lot more ambitious than either of the games released on FBII so far.
You do realise the disk footprint of a game's install has absolutely ZERO bearing on the amount of VRAM it might use at any given time?
My WoW install was over 25GB of actual game data but that is just an indication of the overall available content and explorable world and nothing to do with the texture size/effect complexity/otherwise that would compromise a card with less VRAM.
Without very detailed analysis of a games VRAM usage (Such as when/if it flushes unused assets from VRAM when more is needed or if the actual reported usage is 100% in use and REQUIRED for the scenes being rendered) we can only go from the numbers we can record. That is, if a GTX680 performs as you would expect with 2GB of VRAM and is compared to a 3GB 7970's numbers showing OVER 2GB of usage on large res multi screen gaming then we can only speculate that more than 2GB is not needed at all and the card is just being greedy when it has headroom.
By the time the next iteration of frostbite is released, all current gen gpu's will be rendered useless. Not because of VRAM but because the engine will be more demanding. Don't think for 1 second that 3GB will help when the next engine requires the equivalent of 2x7970/680