Which graphics card for my system - 770 v 7970

[Tonester0011]

Arguing with Spoffle is kinda pointless, he'll never back down when Nvidia are concerned, he will look at your graphs and claim the 256bit bus is holding the cards back as AMD have higher average/minimums in a couple of your graphs, but ignore it's only happening on AMD Gaming Evolved titles

God forbid you disagree with him whilst owning something green, as he'll tell you you're only forming that opinion as purchase justification

 

[Kaapstad]

Arguing with Spoffle is kinda pointless, he'll never back down when Nvidia are concerned, he will look at your graphs and claim the 256bit bus is holding the cards back as AMD have higher average/minimums in a couple of your graphs, but ignore it's only happening on AMD Gaming Evolved titles

God forbid you disagree with him whilst owning something green, as he'll tell you you're only forming that opinion as purchase justification

What is interesting about the subject is a GTX 690 is not good for multi monitor gaming. Yet in a head to head comparison the GTX 690 with its 2gb per GPU will easily beat a single HD 7970 with its 3gb of vram on a multi monitor setup. This only changes if you add a second HD 7970 and then the xfired cards do better than the GTX 690. So what just happed?, the GTX 690 for most things does not run out of vram on a multi monitor setup but the HD 7970 runs out of GPU grunt. Adding a second HD 7970 adds GPU grunt.

Or putting it another way the 3gb card ran out of GPU grunt long before its vram could make a difference. If the GTX 690 was running out of vram it would score practically nothing on all the game benchmarks and get beat by a single HD 7970.

Having said all that, above 1600p the GTX 690 is most definely limited by its lack of vram.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Arguing with Spoffle is kinda pointless, he'll never back down when Nvidia are concerned, he will look at your graphs and claim the 256bit bus is holding the cards back as AMD have higher average/minimums in a couple of your graphs, but ignore it's only happening on AMD Gaming Evolved titles

God forbid you disagree with him whilst owning something green, as he'll tell you you're only forming that opinion as purchase justification

However if we actually sweep the "unfair" argument aside with the game being "AMD Gaming Evolved", and even if we throw the argument of the memory bus/memory bandwidth aside as well...considering most high profile games in the recent years are all "AMD Gaming Evolved" rather than "Nvidia The Way it's Meant To Be Played", and with other future high profile games such as WatchDog, BF4 being "AMD Gaming Evolved" titles as well, shouldn't be the smart money be going to the 7970 rather than 770? I mean like it or not, with AMD pocketed the consoles, there will be far more "AMD Gaming Evolved" titles than "The Way it's Meant To Be Played" titles.

I mean between the 7970 and the 770, I can think of many reasons to go with the 7970, but I can't really think of any reason for going with the 770 with lower spec at the same price, other than if someone absolutely hate AMD, or MUST have PhysX and/or 3D Vision or CUDA. At least the 760 got the excuse of being good bit cheaper than the 7950 (if we forget about the free games) and is worth recommending for people who can't stretch for the 7950...but for the 770 with it being the same price as the 7970, I just don't see the reason why.

 

[teppic]

^ That's the whole argument, really. But people are misquoting (or plain inventing) things spoffle has said. As far as I can see, he's been completely objective, regardless of any bias he might have.

 

[LtMatt]

I'm inclined to agree. ^

Unfortunately Spoffle is about as popular here as genital herpes so that's probably why there is lots of misquoting and inventing going on.

Welcome to ocuk gpu section.

 

[RetrogamerX]

We all need to stop really. Does it really all matter? I've played lots of games and all run totally fine for me. This whole argument is getting out of hand again.

 

[LtMatt]

We all need to stop really. Does it really all matter? I've played lots of games and all run totally fine for me. This whole argument is getting out of hand again.

+1.

 

[scotsdragon]

+1.

I +1 his +1

 

[Marine-RX179]

We all need to stop really. Does it really all matter? I've played lots of games and all run totally fine for me. This whole argument is getting out of hand again.

The problem here some people are far to caught up with winning the argument for themselves, and make people who genuinely asking for advise become victim of the crossfire and end up paying same money for a lower spec product.

So many times I read people "assuring the people asking for advice that that 256-bit bus and 2GB vram won't be and issue for 1920 res", acting like they are prophets already see the future of how new consoles won't be having immediate impact on how vram are used and how having much lower memory bandwidth wouldn't be an issue. As I said before, to me what they are doing is essentially advising people to get 8GB DDR3 1600MHz memory instead of 12GB DDR3 2400MHz despite if both were priced the same- with the logic that "8GB is plenty, and 2400MHz don't make much different over 1600MHz, so it doesn't matter which one to get..."

I got nothing against anyone personally, but I do have issue with people giving out irresponsible advises. There's also the argument of "GPU always runs out of grunt before the vram/memory bandwidth become and issue in the pass", but they keep forgetting the last time we had a new console (excluding Nintendo) was back in 2005 and 2006, and we have two new consoles coming this year.

 

[teppic]

Alongside the new consoles, we have an AMD backed major game coming up - BF4 - that will require high end GPUs to play at higher settings, and all of AMD's high end cards have 3GB. I don't think it's far fetched to say you might need 3GB memory to get the best out of it.

There's no question that 2GB cards are suddenly going to become obsolete, but it's perfectly good advice to tell someone that 3GB may become very relevant for higher settings over the next year or so, and it's worth considering.

 

[Tonester0011]

The problem here some people are far to caught up with winning the argument for themselves, and make people who genuinely asking for advise become victim of the crossfire and end up paying same money for a lower spec product.

So many times I read people "assuring the people asking for advice that that 256-bit bus and 2GB vram won't be and issue for 1920 res", acting like they are prophets already see the future of how new consoles won't be having immediate impact on how vram are used and how having much lower memory bandwidth wouldn't be an issue. As I said before, to me what they are doing is essentially advising people to get 8GB DDR3 1600MHz memory instead of 12GB DDR3 2400MHz despite if both were priced the same- with the logic that "8GB is plenty, and 2400MHz don't make much different over 1600MHz, so it doesn't matter which one to get..."

I got nothing against anyone personally, but I do have issue with people giving out irresponsible advises. There's also the argument of "GPU always runs out of grunt before the vram/memory bandwidth become and issue in the pass", but they keep forgetting the last time we had a new console (excluding Nintendo) was back in 2005 and 2006, and we have two new consoles coming this year.

I'd go with the 8GB G.Skill PI over 12GB Kingston HyperX tbh.

As for being "prophets" nobody knows what the new consoles will bring, you can only give advice based on what you currently know, rather than going new consoles are round the corner...everything under 3GB will be redundant, as that puts the vast majority of the PC player base out to dry (Steam's stats state 70% <2GB)

What we currently know is the 770 and 7970 are equal @1920x1080 it's not until you start upping the res past 1600p does the 7970 take a real lead, we also know that 2GB is more than enough for 1080 and maxing out all current games leads to unplayable FPS long before VRAM wall is hit...buying the 7970 you're not getting more for your money as you're not actually going to use it! Likewise buying the 770 you're not getting less for your money as it performs equally with the 7970 what's "higher spec"

Ubersonics analogy describes what's happening best:

The Toyota 2JZ engine is considered pretty bulletproof when looked after and will normally do well over 200,000 miles. The Toyota 1UZ engine is also considered pretty bulletproof when looked after but will normally do well over 300,000 miles. Is this a distinct difference? yes, is it a reason to buy a car with a 1UZ over one with a 2JZ? no because in practice the car will be a pile of rust in a bucket long before either engine is approaching its limits

 

[Ian Evey]

If the amd 9xxx is anyway near a 780's performance level for no more than £400 quid, ill buy one.

If i was offered to straight swap my 670 256bit bus for a 7950 384bit bus i would decline.

 

[Kaapstad]

The problem here some people are far to caught up with winning the argument for themselves, and make people who genuinely asking for advise become victim of the crossfire and end up paying same money for a lower spec product.

So many times I read people "assuring the people asking for advice that that 256-bit bus and 2GB vram won't be and issue for 1920 res", acting like they are prophets already see the future of how new consoles won't be having immediate impact on how vram are used and how having much lower memory bandwidth wouldn't be an issue. As I said before, to me what they are doing is essentially advising people to get 8GB DDR3 1600MHz memory instead of 12GB DDR3 2400MHz despite if both were priced the same- with the logic that "8GB is plenty, and 2400MHz don't make much different over 1600MHz, so it doesn't matter which one to get..."

I got nothing against anyone personally, but I do have issue with people giving out irresponsible advises. There's also the argument of "GPU always runs out of grunt before the vram/memory bandwidth become and issue in the pass", but they keep forgetting the last time we had a new console (excluding Nintendo) was back in 2005 and 2006, and we have two new consoles coming this year.

I don't wish to start yet another argument but your example of the 1600mhz and 2400mhz memory is unfortunate.

This is something I did for another post some time ago. I only used the one game as I was just trying to show that faster memory made very little difference. What I got demonstrated the above but the result was very interesting. The run on the slower ram gave a slightly better average but with better mins and maximums which was unexpected.

This was only one run with one game but it shows how things with memory bandwidth don't always work out the way people assume.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24579581&postcount=7

 

[Marine-RX179]

I'd go with the 8GB G.Skill PI over 12GB Kingston HyperX tbh.

As for being "prophets" nobody knows what the new consoles will bring, you can only give advice based on what you currently know, rather than going new consoles are round the corner...everything under 3GB will be redundant, as that puts the vast majority of the PC player base out to dry (Steam's stats state 70% <2GB)

What we currently know is the 770 and 7970 are equal @1920x1080 it's not until you start upping the res past 1600p does the 7970 take a real lead, we also know that 2GB is more than enough for 1080 and maxing out all current games leads to unplayable FPS long before VRAM wall is hit...buying the 7970 you're not getting more for your money as you're not actually going to use it! Likewise buying the 770 you're not getting less for your money as it performs equally with the 7970 what's "higher spec"

Ubersonics analogy describes what's happening best:

Why am I not surprise someone would twist what I was saying with the DDR3 memory example to for the sake of arguing

All I can see is people only keep trying to justify for the 770 based on that "GPU will run out of grunt before vram/memory bandwidth become and issue" argument, and while fail to give good reason why 770 is a better choice than the 7970.

As for "what's higher spec"? I gonna quote myself from an older post in this thread:

Yes. However, the issue at the moment is that the 770's memory bandwidth cannot reach 7970's memory bandwidth level, even if the memory was overclocked from 1753 (7000MHz) to 2000MHz (8000MHz).

GTX770 (memory at stock clock):
256/8 *1753 *4 = 224,384 (224GB/sec)

GTX770 (memory overclocked to 2000MHz/2050MHz):
256/8 * 2000 *4 = 256,000 (256GB/sec)
256/8 * 2050 *4 = 262,400,000 (262GB/sec)

HD7970 (memory at stock clock)
384/8 * 1375 *4 = 264,000 (264GB/sec)

HD7970 GHz Edition (memory at stock clock)
384/8 * 1500 *4 = 288,000 (288GB/sec)

HD7970 (memory overclocked to 1700MHz)
384/8 * 1700 *4 = 326,400 (326GB/sec)

HD7970 (memory overclocked to 1800MHz)
384/8 * 1800 *4 = 345,600 (345GB/sec)


There's no going around the fact that the 256-bit is clearly holding back the memory bandwidth.

If anyone is gonna dismissing having much faster memory bandwidth as pointless and unnecessary, I don't think they should be in the position to advise people on graphic card.

And for the sake of people that keep getting memory capacity and memory bandwidth mixed up:
"Memory bandwidth is the rate at which data can be read from or stored into a memory (vram) by the processor (GPU)."

 

[Tonester0011]

In theory it's holding it back, the numbers clearly show that...however in practice they're neck and neck....they hold the same FPS value, they play the same games with the same settings at the same resolution (<1600p) identically. So buying the "higher spec" card doesn't matter.
I will also come out and say i'd never recommend a GK104 card for multi monitor gaming, as that's where the 256bit bus really shows its downfall.

I'm serious about the G.Skill PIs though, would love to have 8GB of them, gutted i never bought off Nick when i had the chance

 

[Marine-RX179]

In theory it's holding it back, the numbers clearly show that...however in practice they're neck and neck....they hold the same FPS value, they play the same games with the same settings at the same resolution (<1600p) identically. So buying the "higher spec" card doesn't matter.
I will also come out and say i'd never recommend a GK104 card for multi monitor gaming, as that's where the 256bit bus really shows its downfall.

There are other factors to consider other than specs and current performance alone. You might want to have a look at my post on #243.

If you disagree with my opinions on that, please do speak up and explain why.

With everything considered, IMO there are many merits in going with the 7970 instead of the 770, but not so much the other way round.

 

[Tonester0011]

There are other factors to consider other than specs and current performance alone. You might want to have a look at my post on #243.

If you disagree with my opinions on that, please do speak up and explain why.

With everything considered, IMO there are many merits in going with the 7970 instead of the 770, but not so much the other way round.

I'd agree with you, providing the lead was huge. The graphs that were provided only showed 1 or 2 FPS difference between the 7970 and 770 that's insignificant and shows even with being an AMD title the cards are still neck and neck. My earlier point was aimed at how Spoffle would have taken that as a sign of clear victory for AMD and clearly showed the weaker 256bit bus at work.

For the vast majority of gamers, using either card will net the same result so it really doesn't matter what one you choose as the added benefits of 3GB and 384bit wont be felt. Like i said, if you were gaming with multi monitors i wouldn't recommend a GK104 card.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I'd agree with you, providing the lead was huge. The graphs that were provided only showed 1 or 2 FPS difference between the 7970 and 770 that's insignificant and shows even with being an AMD title the cards are still neck and neck. My earlier point was aimed at how Spoffle would have taken that as a sign of clear victory for AMD and clearly showed the weaker 256bit bus at work.

For the vast majority of gamers, using either card will net the same result so it really doesn't matter what one you choose as the added benefits of 3GB and 384bit wont be felt. Like i said, if you were gaming with multi monitors i wouldn't recommend a GK104 card.

No my post on #243 wasn't about this matter. I mentioned other reasons why going with AMD would be a better bet than Nvidia:

However if we actually sweep the "unfair" argument aside with the game being "AMD Gaming Evolved", and even if we throw the argument of the memory bus/memory bandwidth aside as well...considering most high profile games in the recent years are all "AMD Gaming Evolved" rather than "Nvidia The Way it's Meant To Be Played", and with other future high profile games such as WatchDog, BF4 being "AMD Gaming Evolved" titles as well, shouldn't be the smart money be going to the 7970 rather than 770? I mean like it or not, with AMD pocketed the consoles, there will be far more "AMD Gaming Evolved" titles than "The Way it's Meant To Be Played" titles.

I mean between the 7970 and the 770, I can think of many reasons to go with the 7970, but I can't really think of any reason for going with the 770 with the other way round at the same price, other than if someone absolutely hate AMD, or MUST have PhysX and/or 3D Vision or CUDA. At least the 760 got the excuse of being good bit cheaper than the 7950 (if we forget about the free games) and is worth recommending for people who can't stretch for the 7950...but for the 770 with it being the same price as the 7970, I just don't see the reason why.

 

[Krisali]

Spoiler

 

[Kaapstad]

Free games can be a pain in the butt

They are great if you are going to use them yourself.

Having said that if you are going to sell them, depending on how you do it, it can use several hours of your time. Most people can make more money for less hassle doing a couple of hours overtime at work.

The last free games I got with an AMD card I gave away as it was more hassle than it was worth to sell them.