Were they not voltage locked as well? I seem to recall they were but could br wrong.
-
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.
What's the best card out of the 7970 and 680 factoring in mature drivers?
- Thread starter kissenger
- Start date
Were they not voltage locked as well? I seem to recall they were but could br wrong.
I think i recall quite a few people sending them back due to mass coil whine. Questionable build quality.
That's it. I knew there was something about them and so many threads with people saying about coil whine on these.
OT, what time is your card due to arrive?
im not failing to comprehend that, im pointing it out. of course a 2gb card isnt going to use more than 2gb. it physically cant. if a game can load extra textures and use what the card has you can get better performance especially at higher resolutions, this is not a unknown fact beyond the basic future proofing it offers if you want to move up a resolution or the new crysis (figuratively) comes out. despite the fact its not just heavily modded skyrim that uses over 2GB or the fact if you want to buy a top range card you should want to get the most out of it, it just so happens that the best card for the job is the 3gb 7970. unless you play borderlands and want physx in your life.
as for
incorrect. maybe you were too busy reading through the 680 thread but on release day at higher resolutions the 7970 usually equalled or out performed the 680, sometimes even on "twimtbp" games such as batman
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...tx-680-phantom-review-batman-arkham-city.html
or virtually every game being dominated at the higher resolution here (beyond skyrim and bf3 that were later fixed in drivers) >
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/4
it was at 1080p that the 680 was worth it even at release day. When you add in the amd price drops, driver improvements, game bundles etc and if you see yourself gaming in the future or currently do now at higher than 1080p, the 7970 is the better choice now. it simply outperforms the 680 where it matters.
equally i think perhaps you might want to take off those glasses. you seem to have bought the hype of the green team at release day and not let go since.
oh and i forgot, patronising smiley back
its a reference board so built with all the other brands. the influx was due to loads of people buying it when they were selling for ridiculously good prices. the cooler is great tho. mines happily sitting at 1200 on the core and i grabbed it for £300
Last edited:
The point regarding VRAM which you have missed is that just because a 3GB card is using more than 2GB doesn't mean it needs more than 2GB or that performance would not be the same on an otherwise identical 2GB card (theoretically speaking). That was the point so although what you're saying isn't false, I never actually said it was.
Your links aren't release day reviews either. And I'm sure I could find links showing the complete opposite. Welcome to the world of conflicting performance reviews. D'oh!
Anyway, I don't think I can really take somebody all that seriously who is openly admitting that they don't know the difference between 'your' and 'you're' as demonstrated by your signature.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Bristol
Just thought I'd mention that Matt ran his 7970 at the same clock speeds as my 7950 and there was less than 1% between them (on 3DM11 anyway). For price/performance, the 7950 is definitely the far better choice now.
one of the links is from may, a month after they both came out. the other is from before the big performance drivers came out. its as close as i can get without spending to much time trawling simply put.
you sir are a very silly sausage.
quite, so how can you claim i am totally wrong?
but its actually relevant as the 3gb card performs better above 1080p (what the op is playing at) instead of just throwing in arguments that the op doesnt need.
my sig is a quote from another person on the forum but you are right that completely invalidates my points despite 1. not coming from me 2.that its a grammatical error not a factual one.
you sir are a very silly sausage.
thats a good shout. are you running the 12.11s? i think the 7950 gets a bigger boost over the 7970 in them as well.
^^ Legit reviews
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1887/4/
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...mance-review-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm.html
another bench
http://www.overclock.net/t/1253670/...70-680s-running-at-5760x1080/10#post_17578487
You see where I am going with this? While I appreciate seeing reviews and benchmarks, how many are genuine?
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1887/4/
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...mance-review-world-of-warcraft-cataclysm.html
another bench
http://www.overclock.net/t/1253670/...70-680s-running-at-5760x1080/10#post_17578487
You see where I am going with this? While I appreciate seeing reviews and benchmarks, how many are genuine?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 May 2012
- Posts
- 2,537
- Location
- Bristol
Yeah, Matt and I were both on 12.11, it does seem that the 7950 has got a larger increase from these drivers than the 7970. Given such a miniscule difference between them now, it is even harder to justify the extra £100+ for a 7970 over an equivalent 7950.
Mate, I don't care when they are from but pointing out that these reviews leave things rather questionable at times. A pinch of salt needs to be used.
Edit:
I will say after seeing the latest 'user' results on here, I am more than happy to say at 1080P, AMD have nicked the kings spot of best card for BF3.
for 1920x1080 its a toss up between a lot of cards due to the individual would have a hard time judging difference. at that resolution a OC 7950 simply is the best choice in the world.
And you sir, are arguing incoherently!
I responded to your VRAM point and now I have no idea what you're going on about nor am I really that interested.p.s. I've never said the 680 was better for 1440p vs a 7970 so I don't know why you keep talking like I have? All I'm doing is questioning your dodgy logic regarding VRAM.
Re-posted for your convenience to get you off the windmill:
Last edited:
Hardocp if one asks me or hardwarecanucks are sources that test with some depth, any other I dont read much.
Benchmarks aside, I view it from the players and you be hard pressed to tell cards apart if one dont know which one is in the machine.
however the 7970 I own is the best card I ever had.
its just awesome for my resolution at 5040x1050.
its a reference board so built with all the other brands. the influx was due to loads of people buying it when they were selling for ridiculously good prices. the cooler is great tho. mines happily sitting at 1200 on the core and i grabbed it for £300
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22387710&postcount=20
Doesn't look like it. It looks like VTX took the reference design and did it themselves, to make it cheaper most probably.
VTX- X-Edition
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/VTX3D/Radeon_HD_7970_X-Edition/images/front.jpg
AMD Reference
http://blogs.amd.com/play/files/2012/05/Reference-Board-e1337200685873-635x277.jpg
Last edited:
Sounds nice ! Thanks.
When I got the 680, it didn't match to any of the bench results I had seen. I got it on day 1 though, so not much time for honest reviews. This is why I love to see user re****s. This holds more ground for me.
i understand this mate, however benchmarks are going to be the only way to back up a argument over a forum and i was asked for proof. the fact things were so interchangeable shows how close they were on release (despite what rusty is stating). in a discussion 6+months later so far in time it has only really gone down the red route due to the offers and driver performances increases which is all that needed to be said.
because its the thing relevant in this thread? i haven't been talking about 1080p as we have both agreed they are similar at that level.
erm actually it was me that questioned your logic at post 24. post 10 is correct and that's why i didn't reply to post 10. its hardly confusing.
but then i guess if you have to fall back onto a grammatical error in a sig that wasn't written by me i think it shows how low you are scraping the barrel in regards to "point scoring" so maybe lets drop it because i am actually feeling a bit embarrassed for you at your progressive posts.
The weren't all that close on release. The 680 was faster across the board bar a couple of titles at maximum resolution due to AMD drivers not releasing the cards potential fully... combined with quite low stock clock speeds. Your links are from 3-4 months after the 680 release date and you referred to them as release day reviews. They're not. A release day review is a reference card review.
Since then of course AMD has progressively improved things with performance now, very, very good compared to the equivalent nVidia card.
Fine - I'm sure it wasn't written by you, to be honest I don't really care but I do find it "embarrassing" that you've felt the need to explain twice what your signature is about.
You now sound like you're responding for the sake of responding. You're saying obviously agreeable things and trying to make it sound like I've said the opposite.
What are you actually saying now to which I am disagreeing with? Nothing? Right. Give it a rest then.