7970 vs 680 thread.

[Mal X]

Most of my posts were written last night after 12 am before trying to fall asleep, Im not in my serious posting mood at that time

I was purposely mocking AMD fans throughout this thread for the mere fun of it, not trying to state that the 7970 is a bad card, but the GTX 680 is clearly better in every way - price, performance and power consumption.

no it isn't, the 7970 has more VRAM.......2GB ram wont be enough for next year, i've been told this more than once..

``make sure it has no less than 3GB ram, but the card you choose isn't so important; just make sure you get this right``

 

[bhavv]

no it isn't, the 7970 has more VRAM, the 680 does not have enough.

2GB ram wont be enough for next year, i've been told this more than once..

Hahahaha, Vram, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ......

You were lied to and you believe porkies.

Again ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Vram .... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

(<---- 1 Gb Vram, running Skyrim with the unofficial 2K HD texture pack from Nexus plus max settings, 4x AA and 16x AF, recommended Vram 1.2 - 2 Gb, runs 100% smooth, lag and stutter free while my GTX 560 tis sit on maximum Vram load).

Again ... Vram, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, oh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ......

 

[Gregster]

no it isn't, the 7970 has more VRAM.......2GB ram wont be enough for next year, i've been told this more than once..

``make sure it has no less than 3GB ram, but the card you choose isn't so important; just make sure you get this right``

Tell me what games at 1080P next year will require 3GB to run please.

 

[bhavv]

Tell me what games at 1080P next year will require 3GB to run please.

Someone could also tell me what games over the next year or two wont be able to run on a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti, or a 1280 Mb GTX 570 at 1080p, I am extremely curious to know the answer!

FYI I'm using 1200p (1920x1200), playing everything with max settings and 4x AA with 1 Gb Vram including Skyrim with the huge Nexus texture packs.

The only game I'm aware of that I cant run maxed at 4x AA is BF3. And thats it. Since I dont play FPS games, that doesnt really bother me, and neither would using either high settings and 4x AA, or ultra settings and 2x AA to get a game that demanding working.

A GTX 680 would absolutely own any game for the next 2-3 years, it isnt ever going to be limited by 2 Gb Vram.

 

[555BUK]

Clock for clock is unimportant. As others have said, nobody was demanding clock for clocks benchmarks between the GTX580 and 6970 because AMD had an unfair clockspeed advantage.

All that really matters is performance out of the box, max performance when overclocked, features, and price.
*Performance out of box = pretty much the same (maybe small lead for GTX680 but not by much)
*Performance when overclocked = pretty much the same (I have not seen any reviews which indicate a clear winner here)
*Features = GTX680 has the edge now that it supports multi-monitor. I think most owners will also appreciate turbo boost (it will no doubt become a standard feature for all future graphics cards). Physx is better to have than not (even if it only makes a minor difference), and 3DVision is also important for a small percentage of owners.
*Price = Same, although the RRP for the 680 is $50 lower, savings have not been passed on to consumers yet.

Both cards are effectively equal enough to cause such debate. I personally think the 680 has a small overall edge. All of the people holding off to see what Kepler offered do not seem too disappointed. Gibbo himself has said that 680 launch day sales were much better than 7970 launch sales. Evey 680 here has sold out, but none of OcUK's cheapesr 7970's have sold within the past 2 days. Stock levels for the £429 to £439 7970's have remained exactly the same for the past two days (2, 6 and 6).

 

[chipachap]

@Menty. You're right, that's what I meant to say but worded it wrongly, max OC performance vs max OC performance is what I actually meant to say.

@Gregster. I've already had a different convo with him in another thread explaining why and it's ok now so let's forget about it.

I've seen bf3 use 1879mb of VRAM every now and again with minimum at 1400mb so I wouldn'y go for a 2gb given it's already just about at it's limit in some games.

Actually most of the 7970 vs 580 benches i saw both cards were running at max OC, I can't remember seeing a stock v stock comparison albeit I didn't look a lot.

Before I had to RMA my 570 4XMSAA in BF3 would give me a jump and stutter every now and again which personally I find annoying. I'd go for a 3gb card if I was planning on playing such games on the same card for ~2 years.

EDIT: The highest 680 I've seen is 1251Mhz. Some chap on a diff forum has a 7970 going at 1340/1700 on air.

 

[chipachap]

When comparing overclocked cards, they are NEVER matched clock for clock either. One card is clocked to maximum, and the other is too and they get pitted against each other. I call pure fubar that a typically OCed 7970 can beat an OCed GTX 680 ... sure it beats a stock GTX 680, but oveclocking one card and leaving the other at stock settings is purely cheating.

Sorry I don't know if you we're being sarcastic but does a 'stock' 680 not beat a stock 7970 out of the box? Or are you talking if turbo boost is disabled?

 

[Gregster]

@Menty. You're right, that's what I meant to say but worded it wrongly, max OC performance vs max OC performance is what I actually meant to say.

@gregster. I've already had a different convo with him in another thread explaining why and it's ok now so let's forget about it.

I've seen bf3 use 1879mb of VRAM every now and again with minimum at 1400mb so I wouldn'y go for a 2gb given it's already just about at it's limit in some games.

Actually most of the 7970 vs 580 benches i saw both cards were running at max OC, I can't remember seeing a stock v stock comparison albeit I didn't look a lot.

Before I had to RMA my 570 4XMSAA in BF3 would give me a jump and stutter every now and again which personally I find annoying. I'd go for a 3gb card if I was planning on playing such games on the same card for ~2 years.

EDIT: The highest 680 I've seen is 1251Mhz. Some chap on a diff forum has a 7970 going at 1340/1700 on air.

No problem

My 560TI would play BF3 fine on ultra but without the trimmings. Now I would have never believed that above 45 fps my eyes would notice the difference but man is it smooth on a 680 with all the trimmings.

I would doubt very much if you could see any difference in gameplay if 2 rigs SBS had each brand in it (7970 - 680). I feel the consumer will buy the card that he feels best suits him/her.

 

[Gregster]

Sorry I don't know if you we're being sarcastic but does a 'stock' 680 not beat a stock 7970 out of the box? Or are you talking if turbo boost is disabled?

According to "most" of the review sites, the 680 wins "most" of the benches. Take a look at the review thread if you are in the market for a new GPU and one of these cards has your attention.

If you like playing Heaven 3.0 then the AMD is the card for you.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Tell me what games at 1080P next year will require 3GB to run please.

I have a screen shot somewhere of BF3 using 2050mb vram @ 1920x1200 - I'll dig it out.

A GTX 680 would absolutely own any game for the next 2-3 years, it isnt ever going to be limited by 2 Gb Vram.

I bet the 2gb choice will lokk pretty daft within the year.

I regretted only getting a 1gb 5870 within a year - it was gutting to not be able to enable ultra settings in Shogun 2:TW on what was still a powerful card at the time. I think the same will happen with those that chose a 2gb 680. Not an issue for those who change cards every 12 months but I usually keep my cards for 2+years.

 

[RavenXXX2]

ASUS GeForce GTX 680 OC vs R7970 OC vs GTX 580 OC

Test System and Methodology

ASUS GeForce GTX 680 2GB @ Stock and 1218 Boost/7096MHz

MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB @ 1265/1505MHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 OC 3GB (ZOTAC/Dual Fan) 815/1025MHz
2x AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB Reference
NVIDIA GTX 590 3GB Reference

Summary
The GTX 680 offers significant gaming and power enhancements over the last generation of NVIDIA cards and is priced very competitively against the 7970 which it regularly matches or exceeds in gaming. When we overclock both to their limit the GTX 680 provides the best framerates for 1920x1080 gamers, at 5760x1080 the comparison is much closer but no less impressive.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...gtx-580-oc-performance-review-conclusion.html

 

[chipachap]

I can get my 7970 to 1200/1700, and it gives about a 12% performance increase in BF3. If the 680 was released back in Jan when i needed a card it may got my money but I was fed up of waiting 3 months for a Kepler that never appeared when it was supposed to.

After researching 570's before I bought and had to return it, there was many contrasting reviews so I ultimately had to test it myself. I've seen AMD are to release 12.4 drivers soon which give a huge increase in BF3 with how it deals with AA, so game for game performace should be more balanced.

When both cards are OC'd we can see the difference is minimal, I wouldn't sell my 7970 for a 680 or vice versa given how even they are, but when people say it blows it out of the water you can't really take them seriously can you? (Not starting argument, just want a valid answer).

 

[555BUK]

EDIT: The highest 680 I've seen is 1251Mhz. Some chap on a diff forum has a 7970 going at 1340/1700 on air.

I imagine that there are 20 to 30x as many people with 7970's in their cases at the moment, plus they have had more time to tinker and find max clocks. As such there are many more "highly overclocked" 7970 samples to choose from. Give it a few weeks and then we can judge.

I very much doubt 1340/1700 is good for anything other than the odd benchmark. Many people struggle to keep 1200MHz stable, so 1340 on a 7970 is running the ragged edge.

 

[chipachap]

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...gtx-580-oc-performance-review-conclusion.html

That seems to be fair based on max OC. But I would still prefer to see the actual frames instead of a winner, probably just me though.

I thought that myself but he seems to be running it no problem gaming the whole time, both of my 7970's get to 1200/1650 or 1150/1700 with 80% of the extra voltage limit applied (if that makes sense, they both have diff voltages at stock) but hey, I was probably lucky, same way as some 680 owners will get auto boost to 1200 or more and others won't boost above the advertised 1058.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Read the review.

 

[555BUK]

I can get my 7970 to 1200/1700, and it gives about a 12% performance increase in BF3. If the 680 was released back in Jan when i needed a card it may got my money but I was fed up of waiting 3 months for a Kepler that never appeared when it was supposed to.

After researching 570's before I bought and had to return it, there was many contrasting reviews so I ultimately had to test it myself. I've seen AMD are to release 12.4 drivers soon which give a huge increase in BF3 with how it deals with AA, so game for game performace should be more balanced.

When both cards are OC'd we can see the difference is minimal, I wouldn't sell my 7970 for a 680 or vice versa given how even they are, but when people say it blows it out of the water you can't really take them seriously can you? (Not starting argument, just want a valid answer).

Sensible post.

It is only because these cards are so close that there is so much debate. If the difference was large, one camp would be very quiet at the moment.

 

[Gregster]

The only real difference is "what manafacturer do you prefer" as the bench tests in the real world are minimal to nothing. I am only talking games of 1080P here and not looked too deep into other resoloutions, as this does not interest me, unless they bring out a higher res 3D.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

It is only because these cards are so close that there is so much debate. If the difference was large, one camp would be very quiet at the moment.

Which makes it all the more odd! All it comes down to now is noise, power consumption and price. Performance is stellar from both cards.

 

[bhavv]

*Performance out of box = pretty much the same (maybe small lead for GTX680 but not by much)

Very untrue, out of the box performance is hugely better on the GTX 680, have you not read any actual reviews?

Look at these, obviously click through every page and look at every graph, not just the page I link to which is just the first actual benchmark in each review:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/13

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-11.html

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/36509-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-graphics-card/?page=8

Please actually bother to read each one of those reviews thoroughly beginning to end as I already have and then repost a defence to exactly how the out of box performance is pretty much the same or only a small lead on the GTX 680, because I'm reading not only those 3 reviews, but every single one out there and the stock to stock performance increase of the GTX 680 to a 7970 is very significant.

It is only because these cards are so close that there is so much debate. If the difference was large, one camp would be very quiet at the moment.

Seriously have you even read a single review? Im not going to rehost every single graph that shows how large the stock to stock difference is because people cant be asked to actually read reviews. OCUK need to make an exception in this disussion and allow hotlinking, a lot of people here would be crying if they actually looked at the GTX 680s lead in 99% of reviews, as opposed to trying to be smart by posting the 1% of data which favors the 7970 or shows no difference.

 

[LeJosh]

Overclockers, not overclocking since GTX680 release.