Soldato
-
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 vs 680 thread.
- Thread starter ALXAndy
- Start date
Hexus hexus hexus hexus, yay hexus hexus hexus hexus:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/36509-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-graphics-card/
99% of reviews show that they arent identical? Do I honestly have to rehost benchmark graphs to prove this when its evident in just about every single review?
Last edited:
Caporegime
LOL You know if this was a real war there would be someone knocked out by a old IDE PATA HDD, I would have pieace of ram stuck in my head, pieaces of shrapnel from motherboards and chips flying around while everyones fighting with there best loved video cards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However as it stands am i bit miffed of the 680.... i thought i was gonna be but no because actually i think nvidia kinda tryed a dirty tactic witch showed me they were worried.
already has a boost feature so even without the over clocks of the 680 its still overclocking it's self when needed So it never be a fare reading against the AMD 7970.
Plus they had to just clock the cores memory just enought to out beat the AMD 7970.
And if that wasnt laughable they knocked the price at just a small % under the 7970.
Im sorry but if you guy's beleave this gonna be the low end entery card not middle end then nvidia arnt gona have a great deal of buyer's with UK starting price at over £400...
I love my AMD 7970 its the only card i spent that much on in my life i spent my years going on medium end cards £200, Now i can see why people pay there money i no longer get stutter in dues ex, I feel like im running not walking in bf3 now compared to my gtx 560 sli no matter what game i go on weather frame rate goes up or down by fraps i still feel constant smoothness speed To me gentleman if you get smoothness and and feels fast too you having fun who gives a dam about numbers.
I do however find a lot of these sites biest or a little miss leading as i have done my own tests got differnt results to them on the internet with the charts.
also ive loked at 5 sites with there charts not one was the same infact some were wayy off base.
Im gonna scurry off stop moaning now sorry guy's what do i know i started with spectrum.
Oh and im a thug tooi love you guy's
Somewhere in that thread that hurts my eyes, he says that nvidia are not going to have a lot of buyers or something.
That is my relevancy to that post.
Ah OK fair enough. They'll sell simply based on the early reviews.
I mean you have review sites telling people what great value for money they are.
Soldato
Just wondering (I've skipped a lot of this thread as it seemed to be a lot of arguing), are these benchmarks being done on the latest drivers for each card or the drivers available at release?
Isn't it normal that both companies fine tune the drivers to improve performance over time? And in this case AMD have had a little longer to do that. For example, wasn't it quite recently that Nvidia released driver updates with some decent performance gains in Skyrim on the 500 series cards (and possibly older ones)?
Isn't it normal that both companies fine tune the drivers to improve performance over time? And in this case AMD have had a little longer to do that. For example, wasn't it quite recently that Nvidia released driver updates with some decent performance gains in Skyrim on the 500 series cards (and possibly older ones)?
Add Andy as well then please.
At least the majority of reviews state the GTX 680 is faster, unlike Andy's claims that it's not.
I started the thread. And I started it to get the comparisons up.
And, they've gone up. We've also had some good discussion going on too.
If you don't like the thread and want to continue to think that the 680 is faster there are plenty of threads on here ATM that will cater to your needs.
Soldato
Ok sorry, they're 1 or 2 frames out of each other.
This could have been a good thread and people could share results and have healthy competition with each other but it's just been you lambasting about how it destroys the competition (which it doesn't) and you've completely ruined it by arguing about something we've went past. We know the reviewers are saying that but that's because it's stock vs stock. You're on an overclockers enthusiast site ffs.
Last edited:
Soldato
I've make this same point to him several times, e.g:
Overclocking is, by definition, increasing the frequency of a silicon chip beyond its factory supplied settings. The 680 comes with a dynamic clockspeed adjustment feature, design to minimise power consumption. As it is a factory-supplied feature, it is not 'overclocking' - not until you manually adjust the base or boost clocks.
This erroneous assertion of yours that using this feature of the GPU is somehow "cheating" is getting very tiresome. I really wish you wouldn't keep polluting each and every 680 thread by repeating it ad-nauseam.
Would you have reviewers disable this feature before reviewing the card?How about AMDs powertune - should that be 'disabled' as well? If the answer to either question is "yes", then what clockspeeds should we be comparing at? How do you determine a suitable "maximum" overclock for each card (since it's clear that different cards have dramatrically different overclocking capabilities)?
... or here, or here.
He simply isn't interested in answering such questions. Logic doesn't come into it.
None of my posts are irrelevant, 99% of the evidence supports them, 1% supports you.
If you want relevancy why cant you even respond to and answer this simple question?
Or how about you read eversingle full review and realize that BF3 isnt the only game where the GTX 680 is rofflestomping the 7970, and that physx is actually off in all cases where it does?
I've answered it many times yet you obviously are not paying attention.
Whether an overclock is dynamic or put there by the user it is still an overclock.
It is still pushing the part you are overclocking past its default frequency.
The 680 does that itself, the 7970 doesn't. Thus, comparing them is like comparing apples to cat food.
When they are both overclocked the results are more fair yes? so if they were both overclocked and the 680 was still faster then it would be the faster card overall.
Is that logical enough for you?
Soldato
So - you're rewriting the definition of overclocking to suit your agenda. Nice
Its default frequency is variable - so no.
Soldato
Well done, you posted a stock vs stock chart. Congratulations, it fits your agenda. I hope you're proud of what you have achieved.
Anything else?
+1
It isn't variable. It's 1006mhz or whatever. It then overclocks to 1050 and beyond when it needs to.
A neutral buyer that plays BF3 will obviously see this as yet another good feature to have, especially given the performance of the card.
So why not look at more than just plain fps, which out of the box puts the GTX680 in the lead in the majority of games.
Sure if you mainly play the games that perform better on the 7970, then just get that, but if you're going to be play more why not get the card that'll perform better overall, cost a little less and contain features such as PhysX, TXAA and Adaptive Vsync. All of which will only improve more.
Not to mentio that there are some M-ITX buyers out there that ths GTX680 would be ideal for given it's TDP and use of 2-6pin power connectors.
Quite true, the boost technology is comparable to Intel's Turbo function in there CPU's. Yes the CPU can run stable at those frequencies, but why not help conserve power during the times it's not needed.
GPU Boost is essentially just a GPU Turbo function.
Last edited:
BF3 doesn't use Physx.
Yet, in another thread he is telling people that buying a 680 is a wise choice because it does.