Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,792
- Location
- London
Might be of some interest to some of you.
-
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.
Three-screen GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon HD 7970
- Thread starter opethdisciple
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Not really, you can see its lead at higher res is cut down, fast at higher res, with games dropping from 25% ahead to 10%... this is with some level of auto overclocking, meaning theres usually very little headroom for overclock(vs stock results, you might overclock from 1000 to 1150Mhz but at stock you might be running 1100Mhz anyway, or more), while a 7970 almost all hit 1100mhz, a good 20% overclock and often more. meaning overclocked 7970 is likely to beat it in surround basically every time.
Most important thing though and I'm still not sure IF it happens or how they can test it, Nvidia 3dvision supposedly runs side screens at half the framerate, so realistically Nvidia is doing much less work than AMD already at tri screen resolutions. As someone said on the Hexus review, in some games lower fps on the side might not matter, in others it might be awful, either way its still comparing apples to oranges.
I'd take a 7970 for surround at this point, if the 680gtx is doing half fps on side screens and still not maintaining a big performance lead there is no reason to go 680gtx. Single screen is a much tougher decision.
You do not understand how the 680 dynamic clock works.
If at stock speeds it is dynamically overclocking it to 1100 then that is still just the stock speeds. When you overclock it you do not set a physical clock. Instead you simply add a certain amount of Mhz onto it. For example, if stock is 1000Mhz you can overclock it by adding +200mhz onto it. Then the stock will be 1200.
When in game if the dynamic clock ups the speed my 150Mhz then it will add that on regardless of the overclock. So at stock it will add 150 onto 1000 and when overlcocked it will add 150 onto 1200. So in actual fact manual overclocking is just as important with the 680 range.
Thanks 
, the part i'm interested in is the 2560 x 1600 resolution and as we see that resolution still takes a huge hit grrr. Waiting for the GTX 780 or GTX 785 and see if they cure that problem atleast so there is not such a huge hit and games run at a decent framerate. So far sticking with the GTX 580 and the 1920 x 1200 screen. I want to update my screen to a 2560 x 1600 before I update graphics again and none of the current single GPU cards can run decent frame rates on 2560 x 1600 and not interested in SLI at all or Crossfire.
, the part i'm interested in is the 2560 x 1600 resolution and as we see that resolution still takes a huge hit grrr. Waiting for the GTX 780 or GTX 785 and see if they cure that problem atleast so there is not such a huge hit and games run at a decent framerate. So far sticking with the GTX 580 and the 1920 x 1200 screen. I want to update my screen to a 2560 x 1600 before I update graphics again and none of the current single GPU cards can run decent frame rates on 2560 x 1600 and not interested in SLI at all or Crossfire.
For the ~1% of people who use 3-screens for gaming, the 7970 gets my vote (I think VRAM will become more of an issue over the next 12 months). For the other ~99% of users on single screens, the 680 wins it (even at 2560x1600). These results are broadly as expected given the 1GB and 128bit memory advantage the 7970 carries.
My 680 hit 1200MHz comfortably and the overclock actually acts more like an underclock in practice. For instance, when I played Skyrim (2560x1600, max settings) my card downclocks to 990MHz for much of the time but cranks up to over 1200MHz during the more demanding scenes, all the while staying above 60fps. It just means the card runs cooler and quieter, which I definitely appreciate. The assumption that it would be a poor overclocker just doesn't seem to match the reality.
What's surprising is that the 680 is able to edge out a lead at every resolution, despite everybody's assumption that the 2GB of VRAM would be a bottleneck. Sure the lead diminishes at 2560x1600 and with multi-monitor setups but it's still ahead, which is what people want. The 7970 is still a great card but the 680 seems to edge it out in every review that I've seen and I've been very happy with the performance of it.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 46
- Location
- London
That review just reinforces my initial thoughts 680 gtx is the best card Nvidia have realeased since the 8800 gtx.
It's epic.
It's epic.
Perhaps even better due to cool running and low noise on top of that monsterous performance. Apart from the price, GK104 is probably the best GPU in terms of performance per transitor, per watt, and per degree of heat ever. It also offers far more features and innovations than the usual single generation jump.
Considering the review doesn't detail it, how on earth did they manage to get the frame rate so low at 5760x1080 in BF3?
In my own testing I can crack over 30fps with Ultra settings & 4xAA at 3560x1920 (portrait equivalent of 5760x1080) - 38fps w/ 2xAA and 62fps with "high" settings. My HD7970 is clocked at 1125/6600 so maybe this is what is making the difference but still their results seem very low on both cards.
I do wish review sites would review Eyefinity/Surround properly.
In my own testing I can crack over 30fps with Ultra settings & 4xAA at 3560x1920 (portrait equivalent of 5760x1080) - 38fps w/ 2xAA and 62fps with "high" settings. My HD7970 is clocked at 1125/6600 so maybe this is what is making the difference but still their results seem very low on both cards.
I do wish review sites would review Eyefinity/Surround properly.
And a week ago I got suspended for saying exactly what people are only just noticing now, with the AMD fans whinging about the 7970 being better at everything when its over locked, and at multiple displays when in reality its not better at either, the GTX 680s performance lead just becomes smaller.
Last edited:
TBH the only reason it exists is because of all the threads and posts you made spreading false information which is now being contradicted by every single fair and honest test on the internet.
If you hadn't said anything the last week or so, no one would have felt any need to make this thread.
So are you going to finally admit that you were wrong, or brush this off as another website / review that's simply lying?
