Its upto you but i also have a thread on here as i was in the very same boat and made my mind up fiannly about 5min ago lol. If it helps you in any way im going with the 770 simple reason http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-219-EA&tool=3 read the first review, after all is said and done and we've all looked at benchmarks when somone says what he is saying it all becomes clear (to me at least)
-
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.
Which graphics card for my system - 770 v 7970
- Thread starter Xcandyman
- Start date
He's just spent £300 on a sidegrade, of course he's going to tell himself and others that there's a massive difference.
It's called purchase justification syndrome. People get it really bad when they spend money on stuff and there's no difference.
If you want to see it at its worst/best look up expensive audio/video cables.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/768?vs=829
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
So you based you puchase on someone claiming the 770 can hold frame rate at consistent 60-90fps on Crysis 3 at Ultra 1080p...? Hmmmm...
Also you do realise many Crysis 3 bench were tailered to Nvidia's instruction, cleverly avoiding settings that would hit the performance of the hardest?
Sorry to rain on your parade but you will get similar performance. That review posted sounds like a classic example of PEBKAC. However as long as you're happy with the new card thats all that matters.
Latest drivers
He's realised it's BS in another thread.
Link plox.
A single GK104 chip running the Hitman Absolution bench @1080p totally maxed out
Not the fastest run I have ever seen but it has got higher minimums than the HD 7970 seen in earlier posts. Hang on a minute, lack of vram really hits the minimum fps so why is the HD 7970 doing so bad.
Not the fastest run I have ever seen but it has got higher minimums than the HD 7970 seen in earlier posts. Hang on a minute, lack of vram really hits the minimum fps so why is the HD 7970 doing so bad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
The screenshot doesn't say much as it doesn't even show the hardware used.A single GK104 chip running the Hitman Absolution bench @1080p totally maxed out
Not the fastest run I have ever seen but it has got higher minimums than the HD 7970 seen in earlier posts. Hang on a minute, lack of vram really hits the minimum fps so why is the HD 7970 doing so bad.
If really have to go by your word on the hardware use, the simplest answer I could think of for the so called "7970 doing crap" is most likely because of the test systems being different- particularly an AMD platform rather than Intel platform, as Hitman are known to not use beyond 4 cores. By using the FX-8350 alone would be at least around 10fps behind the Ivy i5 3570K, even on the same graphic card.
The problem with that result Kaap is its not what they benched. They benched a particular part of the game where vram usage is high. The benchmark is more about gpu grunt, than using lots of vram. You can see this by monitoring the vram.
That said though i couldn't resist a comparison bench with my £180 7950.
Then my £360 crossfire setup.
My scores would be higher, but sadly im a bit cpu bottlenecked at this res.
That said though i couldn't resist a comparison bench with my £180 7950.
Then my £360 crossfire setup.
My scores would be higher, but sadly im a bit cpu bottlenecked at this res.
Last edited:
Hey wait a minute, the same site has this review on it? WHAT!
In this apples-to-apples test we raised all the in-game settings to the highest values at 1920x1080. We also enabled 8X MSAA at this resolution, this is the highest AA level available. At these settings, the ASUS GeForce GTX 770 DC II averaged 54.7 FPS. It performed 8.5% faster than the GeForce GTX 680. The Radeon HD 7970 GE averaged 61.2 FPS which is 11.9% faster than the stock ASUS GeForce GTX 770 DC II video card. The overclock brought the performance up to 61.9 FPS, a 13.2% performance gain compared to the stock video card.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013..._directcu_ii_video_card_review/8#.UfOGTY3VDcg
The 680 did not run out of bandwidth / Vram or grunt at the same settings as the one posted earlier.
It does it doesn't or does it.
In this apples-to-apples test we raised all the in-game settings to the highest values at 1920x1080. We also enabled 8X MSAA at this resolution, this is the highest AA level available. At these settings, the ASUS GeForce GTX 770 DC II averaged 54.7 FPS. It performed 8.5% faster than the GeForce GTX 680. The Radeon HD 7970 GE averaged 61.2 FPS which is 11.9% faster than the stock ASUS GeForce GTX 770 DC II video card. The overclock brought the performance up to 61.9 FPS, a 13.2% performance gain compared to the stock video card.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013..._directcu_ii_video_card_review/8#.UfOGTY3VDcg
The 680 did not run out of bandwidth / Vram or grunt at the same settings as the one posted earlier.
It does it doesn't or does it.
Yes my card was overclocked, i expect Kaap's was as well knowing him.
Their results here are strange. The 680 has higher minimums and maximums than the 770, which is a 10% faster card? Also look how low the 7970 minimum is in the final test, yet the 7970 minimum is much higher in the tests above and even the 770 oc is still a few fps behind it. Looks like they may have had a gremlin in the system this time around.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Ignore.
Last edited:
Even though my Quadfire was doing well even today i could tell the 256 bit bus was holding them back at times when i turned up AA in some games as i was still way from tapping out GPU load but the fps hit was greater than it should have been due to bandwidth.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Anyway...after all these discussion, it still bring back the fundamental question of- on the ground of GPUs being equal, what's the merit of and WHY going for a card which the 2GB vram and 256-bit (lower memory bandwidth to be more exact) can and most likely would become and issue in the future over a card that has 3GB vram, and 384-bit (higher memory bandwidth) when both are priced the same?
I would love to toss in the good old "Nvidia drivers are better and more reliable", but their more recent drivers proves otherwise (for gamers at least)
I would love to toss in the good old "Nvidia drivers are better and more reliable", but their more recent drivers proves otherwise (for gamers at least)