Please keep the thread on topic.
-
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 CF or 680 SLI?
- Thread starter SwiftJump
- Start date
Please keep the thread on topic.
No it's you whining about other threads. Go and talk on that one if you want to discuss that thread again.
Again, memory bus and GPU grunt, yes. VRAM, no. It doesn't come into it. Not sure how many times you can explain the same thing to someone before you give up and just realise they aren't very intelligent on the subject
.Sorry, the gpu guru has spoken and I must cease and desist.
It's the whole package rusty, not just bus/grunt.
You could learn a thing or two from me if you listened. Especially on VRAM where your knowledge is lacking slightly.
No it's just memory bus and GPU grunt. Gregster, me, whyscotty, Gripen90, OptimaLrng would have had to have ran out of VRAM at playable FPS levels for that to be the case. We didn't.
I was never in dispute with the above greg, no mention otherwise from me in that thread, it's all there to read and I don't know why it comes back to that discussion time and time again:
I don't think I could have made it any more clearly what I was discussing, but this place being the way it is, some try to make out that I was discussing vram limits between 2Gb/4Gb 67/80's-when I clearly never.
Well as you know, certain people only read what they want you to be saying, so their responses read as such.
However, I do know that your arguments are about the RAM amount coupled with the bad choice of a 256 bit bus, which was just a bizarre move from a performance standpoint, but I know they did it as a cost cutting measure.
Part of the issue is that some people want to argue about subjects they they admit they don't understand, and then call you out for saying things that they, again, don't understand. It's a very bizarre situation.
No it's you whining about other threads. Go and talk on that one if you want to discuss that thread again.
Again, memory bus and GPU grunt, yes. VRAM, no. It doesn't come into it. Not sure how many times you can explain the same thing to someone before you give up and just realise they aren't very intelligent on the subject
7900s do outpace on memory, it's fact. What you mean is that a situation where being outpaced by VRAM makes a difference.
However, around now is the turning point where 2GB is no longer going to be enough. How do you think Kepler is going to cope with "studio quality" textures, and then AA and other effects that consume memory? I don't think they're going to cope very well.
The point where new consoles are announced is when we tend to see a generational jump in graphical fidelity when it comes to PCs, because the developers are all tooling up, making games with higher quality assets, such as more detailed meshes with higher polygon counts, larger resolution textures, and various other maps, so I think now is an important point in time to contest the amount of RAM that they have.
I know it's not really been so much of an issue yet with the vast majority of games, but the odd time it's crept up and been a bit of an issue, and it's going to become a regular occurrence, with the 256 bit bus width being even more of a hindrance.
Last edited:
To clarify I was referring to the hard limit not the speed/bandwidth not making a difference. Could you please stop making comments at Gregster across the forum as well? You could take it to email if there's a prob? 
Edit: there's just no point in it - you'll end up suspended again or something
Edit: there's just no point in it - you'll end up suspended again or something
Last edited:
Don't play dumb on me .
We'll see soon enough regarding the future. If Crysis 3 is anything to go by then it's 4GB minimum for next generation.
Edit: Bioshock Infinite is a good one to look at as a trend for the future with regards to high def textures. Shame there's not many 600 series surround users about anymore to test. They've either gone Titans or gone AMD mainly. Or downsized (just me)
. We'll see soon enough regarding the future. If Crysis 3 is anything to go by then it's 4GB minimum for next generation.
Edit: Bioshock Infinite is a good one to look at as a trend for the future with regards to high def textures. Shame there's not many 600 series surround users about anymore to test. They've either gone Titans or gone AMD mainly. Or downsized (just me
)
Last edited:
I'm not playing dumb. There's plenty of people who do that sort of thing, ie, try to argue about stuff they openly admit to not understanding.
I do think Crysis 3 is something to go by, devs know that the PS3 and 360 have just about peaked, and they will want a head start on making games with higher quality assets.
They will have dev kits of course, but won't be able to roll their creations out on anything other than PC until the consoles actually launch at the end of the year.
The most interesting part is that realistically, higher quality games aren't even that much more costly to make, and I think the fact that the consoles are using standardised PC hardware will cut development times down as it'll be a lot easier to program for them, instead of programming for things like the CELL BE, which a lot of devs found very alien to work with.
The end of an old console generation, and beginning of a new one is always the best time for PC gamers as there's that big jump.
I do think Crysis 3 is something to go by, devs know that the PS3 and 360 have just about peaked, and they will want a head start on making games with higher quality assets.
They will have dev kits of course, but won't be able to roll their creations out on anything other than PC until the consoles actually launch at the end of the year.
The most interesting part is that realistically, higher quality games aren't even that much more costly to make, and I think the fact that the consoles are using standardised PC hardware will cut development times down as it'll be a lot easier to program for them, instead of programming for things like the CELL BE, which a lot of devs found very alien to work with.
The end of an old console generation, and beginning of a new one is always the best time for PC gamers as there's that big jump.
Last edited:
I'm not sure there really is though. I've read that twice from you today aimed at somebody in particular across different sub forums so...
Perhaps. I don't think the VRAM requirement is just suddenly going to shoot up though. The mass majority of gamers will be 2GB or under.
Exactly.
Just lol. Whereas spoffle knows what he's talking about generally, you cluster GPU grunt/VRAM/memory bus all together as as way to mask your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Agreed that the 256 bit bus/2GB is underwhelming but that doesn't necessarily mean the 2GB VRAM amount is a performance hindrance.
Last edited:
Multiple people are guilty of it, I'm not aiming at anyone specifically when I say it, I'm just saying how frustrating it is when people act like that, when suggest it's your issue somehow. But it's irrelevant really, I wasn't actually mentioning him.
I have experienced people doing this A LOT. I have come across so many people who try to argue with others on things they don't understand that I probably do respond overly harshly to people who I see doing it, but I don't think that at all changes the fact of what they're doing.
The VRAM requirement won't shoot up, but that's not what I meant. I'm talking about playing games at "Ultra", obviously we always have the choice of turning settings down to increase performance, and game engines are generally very scalable, meaning games will still look good at lesser settings.
It's more me highlighting that Kepler based cards will become irrelevant much quicker due to the decisions nVidia made on the VRAM and bandwidth front, so a more sensible solution for people buying now is to basically avoid, as their lifespan is much more limited.
Last edited:
Well that was how I read it after reading the same thing earlier this evening. If that wasn't intended then fair enough.
I never said you did, that was just my personal feel on it. Disagree regarding the Kepler cards becoming irrelevant quicker because I feel that they'll naturally drop out before their limitations become an issue. We'll see though.
Edit: @1080p
Of course high res/triple screen then AMD should be strongly considered irrespective of current set up.
Anyhow, as interesting and amusing at times this has been I am turning in.
Night!
I never said you did, that was just my personal feel on it. Disagree regarding the Kepler cards becoming irrelevant quicker because I feel that they'll naturally drop out before their limitations become an issue. We'll see though.
Edit: @1080p
Of course high res/triple screen then AMD should be strongly considered irrespective of current set up.
Anyhow, as interesting and amusing at times this has been I am turning in.
Night!
Last edited:
Well that's what I mean, above 1080P. Look at how something like a 7850/70 performs at 1080P, they still have quite the performance in most things at that sort of level.
As for kepler cards becoming irrelevant, I'm talking about for the type of people who like to try and keep a graphics card for 2-3 years.
In that, I think a 7900 would stay relevant relative to the latest games for longer than a Kepler GPU based purely on the 3GB VRAM and 384bit bus.
As for kepler cards becoming irrelevant, I'm talking about for the type of people who like to try and keep a graphics card for 2-3 years.
In that, I think a 7900 would stay relevant relative to the latest games for longer than a Kepler GPU based purely on the 3GB VRAM and 384bit bus.
Sorry you have lost me? Minimum spec for a GPU is 1GB. How is that system RAM?
The 256bit bus isn't as limiting as you and Tommy are making out. The general gaming PC populace game on 1080P monitors and the 256Bit bus is plenty for this resolution. It is when you start to go triple screen it starts to slow up but the 670/80's can also be memory overclocked, and this in turn helps that bus and allows for more fps. I agree it was a bad move for triple screen gamers but again, they are a minority market.
If you are referring to me, when did I say I know nothing about it? The only thing I have said I know nothing about is PhysX. This doesn't mean I can't say I like the effects and would prefer to have them in a game because I don't know the coding of it on a hardware/software level.
Maybe you should swat up a bit because you are a triple screen gamer and Crysis 3 uses more VRAM than your 7950's have available. I linked a GPU-Z image showing how Crysis 3 used 3.8GB of VRAM at 5760x1080. The advice given to the OP from yourself and Tommy is "7950's in CF". That is fine and good advice but now you are stating how the 2GB 256bit bus can be a limiting factor... You are contradicting yourself. Future games will only get worse, which from your advice will render the 7### series useless except for the 6GB 7970.
I have seen you put this a couple of times but ignored it because of politeness but as I have been mentioned a few times, where do you get this figure from?
42% in favour of 680's
32% in favour of 7970's
25% in favour of 680's
32% in favour of 680's
21% in favour of 7970's
1.7% in favour of 7970's
11% in favour of 680's
11% in favour of 7970's
2.5% in favour of 680's (more if you disable SLI)
4.4% in favour of 7970's
1.1% in favour of 7970's
6.7% in favour of 680's
16% in favour of 7970's
67% in favour of 680's
Please show me where you get these vast numbers of 35/40/45% faster? I am seriously disappointed that numbers like these are getting plucked from the air. I hear "Yer but the new 12.11 ddrivers have made the 7 series so much faster and you can't count those charts because they use old drivers blah blah blah" Not one person ever mentions the improvements that Nvidia drivers bring with new drivers.
I know Tommy and Spoffle will defend AMD to the hilt but do it with honesty and stop giving misinformation... Where is the 256Bit bus losing out? Where is the 2GB VRAM losing out?
Last edited:
7970 is anything between 5-10% faster than a 7950=40-45% swing in performance.
Bad crack greg, your accusation of being dishonest and putting out misinformation has came as a shock not to mention quite offensive.
In the one sense user reviews are to be trusted but then when it suits, your posting tech reviews from when not to mention stock v's auto boost?
I'm well aware Nvidia have some driver improvements, but AMD performance increases haven't stopped since the 12.11's they keep bringing more each time.
This vram debate is mental tbh, shot down in flames for daring to have an opinion and suggest that the 6's can't cope in the same manner that you were shot down in flames last gen for having an opinion saying the 570's couldn't either-and we know what happened there.
Lessons should have been learned, but no, they never are usually down to the misinterpretation of putting it down to brand preference/defending/loyaty.
There's been attempt at twisting my words and ridicule aimed at me for I don't know how long now in regards to vram/bus/grunt, in the one sense it doesn't bother me as I'm sorted, but it bothers me that the defenders say with absolute statement it's fine to spend £300-£400+ on a gpu that's quite possibly going to become useless very soon due to it's limitations despite having to pay through the nose for it.
This place is a joke at times tbh, one minute it's how dare AMD charge the same as Nvidia's 3Gb, then it's shouts of 'out the box performance' and people don't oc a la stock 680 vs stock 7970- to then turn around full circle when the Titan is priced where it is, now my interpretation from some here is that 2Gb is enough but 3Gb isn't and only 6Gb will do?
Is that where we are at now?
Last edited:
They're GEs?
You can't say because it held true once it'll hold true for all future instances as well. That's not really how things work. It's just not an opinion - calling it this is to try and divert criticism - it's more complex than that. Guessing once right doesn't automatically mean you'll guess right again.
There's just no real precedent for a GPU becoming completely useless due to VRAM limitations. 570s were struggling to push the frames on the settings which caused it to run out of VRAM anyway so it is a moot point somewhat. Talking single GPU here.
Yes. Your 7950s are useless as they'll run out of VRAM when doomsday occurs. As will mine.