Its still the default stock advertised specification!
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-176-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=2255
Its running within the manufacturers specification, therefore it is absolutely not overclocking.
-
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
Its still the default stock advertised specification!
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-176-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=2255
Its running within the manufacturers specification, therefore it is absolutely not overclocking.
Soldato
True that.
Soldato
No...
wiki said:
The manufacturer specifies a variable frequency, between 700Mhz and ~1150Mhz, in order to optimise power : performance.
The clockspeed, as defined by the manufacturer IS variable. Pushing beyond this is overclocking. Leaving the card at the manufactuers specification is not. By definition. It isn't complex.
Yet it still outperforms it at all resolutions tested.
So it'll only be a better plus for buyers since PhysX titles will take advantage of it, which is a library that's only growing.
Soldato
Yeah but overclocking doesn't matter anymore because stock vs stock is where the real boys fight...
Soldato
The very definition of overclocking is increasing frequency beyond the manufacturers specification[\b]. Here the manufacturer's specification is for a variable clockspeed. As I said, it isn't exactly complex
This has been done for years in mobile devices, and due to the power constraints of high transistor density GPUs, we're seeing it in full size parts. This trend will only grow over time.
Soldato
Thread summarised: 680 owners are happy; 7970 owners are happy. Everyone's happy so I don't understand the need to argue about which card is better. I think the fact it's still going on pretty much tells you it's close!
Not even close:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/36509-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-graphics-card/?page=11
GTX 680 on average is consistently 10 FPS better than 7970.
How is a 10 FPS improvement close?
Associate
Feel like a film extra in a vietnam war epic
Need waders to above the ........
My take from a totally neutral pov
No way in hell can i justify spending £300 on a gpu at this moment in time
I have off the top of my head had roughly the same amount of ati/nividia cards
I used to go for bang-for-buck (next gpu will be the same choice)
Now ...............
Being totally neutral and no intention of spending over £400 on a gpu, how can one say something runs at default if and when it's needed it boosts itself ??
To me default = the mean/setting it runs at as-in default
So if something suddenly decides to up-power itself that must be a built-in overclock, if it wasn't and it was at its designed max, then surely it should run at default of the higher ??
Both look great cards to me, not that i know or follow all the balls both companies spin out to get mega wonga on launch days
But for me on the fence i find it hard to compare a default manually need oc'ed gpu to one that uses a built-in system
And so, if you were to comapre power saving (the cwap in bios's i usually turn off etc)
Would you compare a pc using power saving with the same not usong them ?
Surely not, i know i wouldn't as it's common sense
Anyways back to reality
Anyone peeved with either gpu purchses could donate me one and i'll review the beejeezus off em quite impartially
Running for cover now
Need waders to above the ........
My take from a totally neutral pov
No way in hell can i justify spending £300 on a gpu at this moment in time
I have off the top of my head had roughly the same amount of ati/nividia cards
I used to go for bang-for-buck (next gpu will be the same choice)
Now ...............
Being totally neutral and no intention of spending over £400 on a gpu, how can one say something runs at default if and when it's needed it boosts itself ??
To me default = the mean/setting it runs at as-in default
So if something suddenly decides to up-power itself that must be a built-in overclock, if it wasn't and it was at its designed max, then surely it should run at default of the higher ??
Both look great cards to me, not that i know or follow all the balls both companies spin out to get mega wonga on launch days
But for me on the fence i find it hard to compare a default manually need oc'ed gpu to one that uses a built-in system
And so, if you were to comapre power saving (the cwap in bios's i usually turn off etc)
Would you compare a pc using power saving with the same not usong them ?
Surely not, i know i wouldn't as it's common sense
Anyways back to reality
Anyone peeved with either gpu purchses could donate me one and i'll review the beejeezus off em quite impartially
Running for cover now
The very definition of overclocking is increasing frequency beyond the manufacturers specification[\b]. Here the manufacturer's specification is for a variable clockspeed. As I said, it isn't exactly complex
This has been done for years in mobile devices, and due to the power constraints of high transistor density GPUs, we're seeing it in full size parts. This trend will only grow over time.
You do realise that Nvidia refer to the technology as dynamic overclocking yes?
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/30.html
Soldato
Jesus, you literally don't listen to the counter arguments and repeat what you believe over and over.
MetalfaceMark isn't wrong.
MetalfaceMark isn't wrong.
Sums it up rather well. Then one just needs to look at the extra features to see what suits the person more.
The vast majority of people don't overclock, and I myself got bored of it a good while ago then decided to move to an M-ITX system.
It's not about arguing what card is better. Most will make their choice and feel that they have the better card.
It's about performance and what each card can do.
Soldato
What you mean is: Techpowerup refer to it as "a kind of dynamic overclocking".
doesnt look like it 2 me
Now NVIDIA is introducing a new concept called "Boost Clocks".
Soldato
Max OC vs Max OC it's close. Stock vs stock, I agree it's the 680 but I would say as a guess the proportion of 680/7970 owners that do overclock is the same and as such as a proportion 680 owners will receive higher performance. Any way I've got a 680 so you abandon that high and mighty anti AMD fanboy tone on me
Last edited:
Soldato
Poor guys worked himself into such a fanboy lather that he's gone and got himself suspended.
There are no winners when it comes to fanboy arguments, only losers.
There are no winners when it comes to fanboy arguments, only losers.
You can be as pedantic as you wish. Really.
The bottom line is the card increases its frequency. You can word that however you like (boost, turbo boost, Knight Rider Turbo boost Michael) but it doesn't change it.
The card is overclocking itself, and then reverts back to a base clock. So, it is logically dynamically overclocking itself as it is increasing the base frequency.
All of that aside because it doesn't really matter now - when both cards are manually overclocked beyond their factory settings they are about level.