The first "proper" Kepler news Fri 17th Feb?

SimonMaltby · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:35

ALXAndy said:
Look mate at the end of the day ask yourself this.

Do you need a 680 or 7970?

If not then get what you need. In most cases a 7870 (when it finally arrives) 7950 as a luxury or GTX 480 for £180 would be more than enough.

Nope I don't need... but I do want

Affording it is not an issue, but that does not mean I don't want to understand the cost and decide if it represents a reasonable purchase based on outlay and return.

andybird123 · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:35

stulid said:
Early preview.

http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view

Dont all thank me at once.

Thankyou!

ALXAndy · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:36

andybird123 said:
yeah well done, the article you linked to shows that Quake III ran at 19FPS on the $150 card and over 100FPS on the more expensive card

no that more expensive card definitely wasn't worth more money

IIRC there was a way to display FPS with Quake but I never bothered.

At the end of the day before Nvidia came along all of the crap talking, hype, and other associated BS in the GPU market now (willy waving benchmarking etc) never existed.

People simply installed a game through DOS and played it.

xsistor · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:37

stulid said:
Early preview.

http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view

Dont all thank me at once.

Finally. Looks legit too because they've shown a pic of the card in their setup

ALXAndy · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:37

Finally. Kepler benchmarks cherry picked to the max to show how it beats the 7970.

andybird123 · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:39

all reviewers cherry pick results, there is no such thing as an unbiased review

we saw the same thing with 7950 with some only showing biased to AMD results

stulid · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:39

ALXAndy said:
For a bunch of loaded benchmarks? Gee, thanks a bunch

Battlefield 3 and Arkham City. Both Nvidia biased titles.

I had a feeling this would happen.

Arrhh didumms

Dont hate the game, hate the player

MichaelM · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:39

stulid said:
Early preview.

http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view

Dont all thank me at once.

Is that overclocked? 1006MHz core and 6008MHz memory.

edit - 4008MHz on the 580's memory so I guess its just Nvidia's whacky stock frequencies.

elrasho · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:41

stulid said:
Early preview.

http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view

Dont all thank me at once.

If they are legit then it better not be £50 more expensive that a 7970

andybird123 · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:41

erm hang on, it show 3dmark and heaven both of which were lauded over the GTX580 because they showed much better percentage increase in favour of 7970 than most actual games did

xsistor · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:42

ALXAndy said:
Finally. Kepler benchmarks cherry picked to the max to show how it beats the 7970.

How is this cherry picking? BF3 is probably the most important game around, performance-wise. And Arkham City is another tessellation heavy DX11 title It also includes many other games other than those two so it's hardly cherry picking.

Not to mention synthetics like heaven and 3DMark 11.

On the contrary, you're cherry picking BF3 and Batman to whinge about

ALXAndy · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:43

andybird123 said:
all reviewers cherry pick results, there is no such thing as an unbiased review

There is. A review that covers everything and not just a few hand picked games.

I've seen quite a few very in depth reviews comparing the 580 to the 7970.

It's well known that the 7970 does not perform very well in BF3 and Batman. You don't need to be Einstein to know that. So what have they done? chosen every game that loves an Nvidia card to showcase it.

I absolutely ****** love how the only game they decided to show a weakness in was the one it seems to be completely level with a 7970. It's a fact that the 7970 is bound to beat it in certain things, yet they show none of it.

If people really are stupid enough to fall for that then I pity them.

I will also wait and see what it can muster at 1600p. Because 1920 benchmarks on a £450 card are bloody insulting.

xsistor said:
How is this cherry picking? BF3 is probably the most important game around, performance-wise. And Arkham City is another tessellation heavy DX11 title It also includes many other games other than those two so it's hardly cherry picking.

Not to mention synthetics like heaven and 3DMark 11.

On the contrary, you're cherry picking BF3 and Batman to whinge about

You know, I had you down for being quite a decent and intelligent guy.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:45

I took pictures just in case.

andybird123 · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:45

ALXAndy said:
There is. A review that covers everything and not just a few hand picked games.

I've seen quite a few very in depth reviews comparing the 580 to the 7970.

It's well known that the 7970 does not perform very well in BF3 and Batman. You don't need to be Einstein to know that. So what have they done? chosen every game that loves an Nvidia card to showcase it.

I absolutely ****** love how the only game they decided to show a weakness in was the one it seems to be completely level with a 7970. It's a fact that the 7970 is bound to beat it in certain things, yet they show none of it.

If people really are stupid enough to fall for that then I pity them.

I will also wait and see what it can muster at 1600p. Because 1920 benchmarks on a £450 card are bloody insulting.

what about 3dmark and heaven that were both heavily used and abused to promote the 7970 as they showed a bigger increase than important / popular games like BF3 and Arkham (which are the only 2 games I've bought in the last 4 months)

RavenXXX2 · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:45

Disappointing TBH, for a 1000 core card it's not exactly beating the 7970 by a significant amount. Interesting to see how far the 680 clocks, if it's a bad clocker then I can only see me going with the higher spec 7950 especially if the 680 comes in at £400+.

LeJosh · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:46

Why aren't they using 2560x1440/1600?

Kelt · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:48

stulid said:
Early preview.

http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view

Dont all thank me at once.

Nothing coming up for me, wonder if it's being overloaded?

andybird123 · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:49

because neither the 7970 or 680 are suitable single card solutions for that resolution

as a general rule you always needs to spend more on GPU's than pixels - a 1920x1080 display costs at most 2-300 and needs 300+ of GPU to drive them on max
it's not surprising that when you spend 700+ on a monitor you need 800+ of GPU to drive them

ALXAndy · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:49

andybird123 said:
what about 3dmark and heaven that were both heavily used and abused to promote the 7970 as they showed a bigger increase than important / popular games like BF3 and Arkham (which are the only 2 games I've bought in the last 4 months)

A FAIR set of benchmarks cover EVERYTHING and not just a few hand picked titles.

How do we know that the 7970 is disappointing in BF3? because we have seen the bloody benchmarks !

Let's use your logic then, and not Nvidiot logic.

Where the hell is Skyrim? and Crysis 2? and Metro 2033? I mean, that's a Physx title right?

I maintain. Those benchmarks are completely loaded in Nvidia's favour and I would strongly imagine it was them who made that so.

So again, I will wait and see what the card actually does.

How do we know the card isn't heavily overclocked?

LeJosh said:
Why aren't they using 2560x1440/1600?

Because it only has 2gb vram. Any other questions?

stulid · 16 Mar 2012 at 14:50

Kelt said:
Nothing coming up for me, wonder if it's being overloaded?

CAT has posted images above.