If you had bothered to read the full article you would see on the page relating to overclocking Guru3D do discuss this noise levels.
-
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 670 or AMD 7970?
- Thread starter RogerMesenseless
- Start date
If you had bothered to read the full article you would see on the page relating to overclocking Guru3D do discuss this noise levels.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
if you had bothered to think about it, this thread is comparing 7970 to 670... so then a single result of a single overclocked 670 is still not very useful if you are looking at choosing between different 670's and then throw 7970's in to the mix as well...
you may as well have posted links to every guru3d 670 or 7970 review
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
on what card do you see 2.5gb usage?
I've seen 2.4GB usage on a GTX580 3GB on BF3 @ Ultra 1080p... I'm now running 670 SLI 2GB on the same settings but 1440p and see 1.8-1.9GB usage and no issues whatsoever
cards with more VRAM will report higher usage but not necessarily because all of that usage is actually needed
+1
Even at 6040 x 1080 in BF3 i'm only seeing around 1.9 to just over 2GB,
its even less with aero turned off.
With 3D surround enabled it doesn't hit a wall.
If you use 4gb cards it may show more usage wether or not its required
and then to actually utilise the 4gb you going to need minimum of SLI if not TRI SLI to fully benefit.
I've tried 4gb sli and still didn't see over 2gb of usage or for that matter any benefit of more vram,
If anything it wasn't as smooth as 2gb Sli for some reason.
It was on my 7950. I do have 2k-4k texture mod installed though which makes a big difference to vram usage obviously. Perhaps it would be fine with 2gb vram at 1080p but I think it would struggle at 1440-1600p. Games look so much better with high Res textures, and if I've got 3gb vram I'm damn well gonna use it 
We have spoken about this VRAM usage many many times and it has been proven that VRAM is cached. The more VRAM you have, the more VRAM is stored into the available VRAM.
I tried to get VRAM in that statement a lot and I think I done it
I tried to get VRAM in that statement a lot and I think I done it
Of course it is, just like windows uses more ram up if you have 8GB installed than if you have 4GB installed. No one can argue that its not a bad thing to have that headroom though as long as it doesnt cost a large premium. Its just myopinion that high res textures are very important to how a game looks (deus ex:HR im looking at you
), and I think I have got more scope for high res texture mods with 3GB as opposed to 2GB.
), and I think I have got more scope for high res texture mods with 3GB as opposed to 2GB.I know 4gb is "mental" but given this week only prices a 4gb 670 is only going to cost £9.98 more than the 7970 windforce I was going to get(if I was getting a 79xx at all). I would be quite happy with 3gb, but if I want this card to last 2-3 years then I'm not sure I want to go with the amount of vram that was standard a generation back(2gb).
The only thing still nagging at me is the better coolers available for the 7950/70 cards. Windforce in particular. The KFA2 670 has a better cooler than the more expensive EVGA 4gb and I would be losing out on the extra warranty and good looks, but I can live with that... I think.
The only thing still nagging at me is the better coolers available for the 7950/70 cards. Windforce in particular. The KFA2 670 has a better cooler than the more expensive EVGA 4gb and I would be losing out on the extra warranty and good looks, but I can live with that... I think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,663
- Location
- London
What I mean with better driver integration for Nvidia is the 3 games which I have been playing recently (BF3, ME3 & Max Payne 3) they have all been developed using Nvidia tech.
I didnt think ME3 had anything to do with Nvidia, but at the end of the game during the credits it says the game licenced Nvidia Physx, Dice where handing out Nvidia 560 pre launch (they show cased the game on a GTX 580's) so they must have developed the game using Nvidia hardware and Max Payne 3 has Nvidia all over it.
Nothing against AMD. Im not a fanboi, thats bs. I get the best card at the time (according to my own judgements) but over the years with my 5870 I noticed a lot of Nvidia endorsements and tech in games as well as the ATI drivers causing me issues over the last two years with my 5870.
So this time I thought the GTX 670 was for me.
I didnt think ME3 had anything to do with Nvidia, but at the end of the game during the credits it says the game licenced Nvidia Physx, Dice where handing out Nvidia 560 pre launch (they show cased the game on a GTX 580's) so they must have developed the game using Nvidia hardware and Max Payne 3 has Nvidia all over it.
Nothing against AMD. Im not a fanboi, thats bs. I get the best card at the time (according to my own judgements) but over the years with my 5870 I noticed a lot of Nvidia endorsements and tech in games as well as the ATI drivers causing me issues over the last two years with my 5870.
So this time I thought the GTX 670 was for me.
A man that talks sense.
And if you'd bothered to read the rest of the thread you would have seen the following
And
I was providing Cutshaw a link to some information on the heat, noise and power of the particular 670 he had identified, it wasn't directed to the OP which you might have realised if you more carefully follow who is posting and quoting a think a bit rather than trying to be so quick on the reply button.
People actually belive games developed is on a specific hardware which cuts of the other cards? wow, what a business decision they made?
BF3 made and developed for Nvidia?
Oh right.
There are issues at both sides, I recall MMO a while back where Nvidia cards basically was unplayable due to stuttering.
People will rationalize about their buy to support it for justification.
I had amd and Nvidia hardware but I go price/performance route and as far amd offeres the best one last few years with 5850, 6850/6870. just got a 7970 for 330euro, and darn its good in the games I play.
Progress fps with the new GCN arch since release.
I agree with your comment flopper but AMD released slides of 'improvements' are likely to be nowhere near the truth on the majority of systems, just the same as the marketing junk released by Nvidia is usually a load of old toffee too.
Them saying a 7700 gets a 50%+ gain in performance in Skyrim at 2560 with 8AA and 16 AF can only be taking it from unplayable to barely playable at about 25fps I'd wager, if that!
Nvidia and AMD both specifically team up with Developers at times to ensure certain features are included in new titles, again I'd usually wager this is mostly just marketing spiel but it does happen, obv. the Devs want their game to work on as many systems as possible to reach the broadest audience.
Them saying a 7700 gets a 50%+ gain in performance in Skyrim at 2560 with 8AA and 16 AF can only be taking it from unplayable to barely playable at about 25fps I'd wager, if that!
Nvidia and AMD both specifically team up with Developers at times to ensure certain features are included in new titles, again I'd usually wager this is mostly just marketing spiel but it does happen, obv. the Devs want their game to work on as many systems as possible to reach the broadest audience.
lol. I am glad you are enjoying your 7970 but the truth is, games like BF3 run better on NVIDIA. Say what you like but we all know this to be true.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5625/...-7850-review-rounding-out-southern-islands/11
Can't argue that BF3 is a winner on Nvidia.
You would think AMD would have really focused some driver updates to pull every last drop out of BF3 since it is a key benchmark title and has such a massive following.
Or maybe they have and this is as good as it gets. Still runs absolutely fine on AMD, just not as well as Nvidia, but then Crysis tends to lend itself better to AMD hardware according to Anandtech, bit of give and take in a number of titles and also depends on resolution a lot.
Ok i will be buying 7950 or 670...
Questions are:
1.Which of those 2 is better overclocker on water
2.Which is better for 3d gaming.
Afaik in both situations AMD wins. More Vram -> better for 3d. It can clock higher on water.
Questions are:
1.Which of those 2 is better overclocker on water
2.Which is better for 3d gaming.
Afaik in both situations AMD wins. More Vram -> better for 3d. It can clock higher on water.
psychodil in bf3 im hitting 19xx vram usage and taht is not on maxed out details. 3D does eat extra Vram up.
7950+ water block it is then
After 8-10 hours weekend sessions with my 6950 i get max of 55c on core. So i assume there is still no workaround vcore limit on 670s ?? Shame 
7950+ water block it is then
After 8-10 hours weekend sessions with my 6950 i get max of 55c on core. So i assume there is still no workaround vcore limit on 670s ?? Shame 1. 7950 is better at the moment for OC with water
2. NVIDIA is better at 3D. I own a 680 with NVIDIA 3D Vision 2 and my mate had the AMD 3D and sorry but AMD's 3D is nowhere near as good as NVIDIA's and even my mate who has a 7970 agrees.
Don't think vram makes a difference for 3d. 3d is better on nvidia in my experience. No point water cooling a 670 though. Get that 7950 to 1250mhz + on water
3D does use more vram but it is very negligible.
psychodil in bf3 im hitting 19xx vram usage and taht is not on maxed out details. 3D does eat extra Vram up.
7950+ water block it is then
7950 will see you well