7970 vs 680 thread.

[Marine-RX179]

Why are people being pedantic about the fact it speeds itself up instead of us doing it manually? Call it overclocking or whatever you want to call it, it's essentially doing the same f'ing thing no mater what you call it.

Some idiotic fanboy above claims 1200mhz is guaranteed on every card, pfft, and then he woke up. Advertised boost clock is 1058 so why would they say 1200? Clearly not the case.

Whoever said they don't want to admit it's so close is right, they don't and they won't.

They are people believes that every 7970 would hit 1200MHz and beyond, it goes both ways. At the very least GTX680 is 1000MHz out of the box without the user having to do anything...suppose 7970 are same speed as GTX680 clock for clock, why do you have a look at the pricing of the 1000MHz or faster 7970 card? They are anything between £480-£550.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Rather or not has AMD has done it elsewhere, but fact is that it doesn't present on the 7970 is it now? I fail to understand what good does it do saying "oh but AMD has it too", when it is on a different product?

I might be wrong on this but I think GTX680 is the first discrete card that offer auto-overclock or turbo boost or whatever people prefer to call it is it not that actually has a meaningful purpose? Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

At the end of the day, I personally don't care if GTX680 or 7970 was faster...but only a fool would try to pass off the feature of auto-overclock as something negative just because they are anti-Nvidia...this is the only thing I disagree on.

?? Why are you so uptight?? Anti-Nvidia?? WTF?? I kept the Kepler thread updated for yonks on BOTH OcUK and Hexus and now you start this nonsense with ME??

I have even pointed out that it adds 4% to 5% overall performance than running at base clockspeed.

So I pointed out that it has been done before by BOTH AMD and Intel. Dynamic GPU clockspeed boost has been out for ages and just because you forgot this now you are having a go at me.

Why don't you write a letter of complaint to the Telegraph and complain about why AMD has put it in one product and not the other??

 

[Marine-RX179]

?? Why are you so uptight?? Anti-Nvidia?? WTF?? I kept the Kepler thread updated for yonks on BOTH OcUK and Hexus and now you start this nonsense with ME??

I have even pointed out that it adds 4% to 5% overall performance than running at base clockspeed.

So I pointed out that it has been done before by BOTH AMD and Intel. Dynamic GPU clockspeed boost as been out for ages and just because you forgot this now you are having a go at me.

Why don't you write a letter of complaint to the Telegraph and complain about why AMD has put it in one product and not the other??

Cat, chill man. I was only addressing your post in the first line. As for the Anti-Nvidia fool I refer to in my last line, I think you know who I'm talking about (and it's definitely not you since you are not that person that keep trying to paint Nvidia's auto-overclock as black). Sorry for the confusion of the post seeming like all addressing to you.

 

[straxusii]

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

So what? Just because the card has allocated 2050mb of ram doesn't mean there would be a performance hit if the card had 1GB of ram, also doesn't mean performance wouldn't totally fall off a cliff for the 1GB card.

A video card isn't going to remove obsolete textures from it's ram if it has spare ram, it will only do so if it hits its ram limit.

 

[chipachap]

@Marine-RX179. I know I've read some benchmark results with people claiming mild overclock of >1125/1650. There's nothing mild about it, they just like to refer to it as mild as a larger than usual percentage can hit such a high clock.

I know I'm not helping the case but why are people still saying it beats it hands down everywhere? Max performance v Max performance is ~7% either way at best, sure we all got screwed on price but manufacturing the newer silicon is getting more expensive, it had to happen some time.

If I didn't get a 7970 in Jan and waited >2 months for an essentially equal card I wouldn't be one bit impressed.

EDIT: No it won't but when you run out of VRAM it causes jumps and stutters while loading from RAM. Was happening to me on 570 on preset Ultra, had to turn down to 2 X MSAA.

 

[Redemption80]

When the overclocked cards appear in the next few weeks or so, that should answer which card is the better overclocker.

Ideally AMD will drop the prices on the 7970 so that the factory overclocked cards can be priced alongside the stock GTX680's, just depends on if the claims that the 680's cost much less to make are true or not, though it makes sense that they are.

As for the vram debate, i don't think it makes as much difference as people think, if it did the 7970's would destroy the 680 at multi-monitor gaming, and it doesn't.

 

[ALXAndy]

When the overclocked cards appear in the next few weeks or so, that should answer which card is the better overclocker.

Ideally AMD will drop the prices on the 7970 so that the factory overclocked cards can be priced alongside the stock GTX680's, just depends on if the claims that the 680's cost much less to make are true or not, though it makes sense that they are.

To cover your points. Right now the 7970 is already cheaper. It can be had for around £390. That's £40 or around 10% less than the 680. In the UK, of course, because in the USA Nvidia's last minute price drop rings true. Personally I think they realised deep down that performance was around level, so the cheaper card would sell. Good strategy !

Secondly let's cover the cost of the cards. It's not claims if you know what you are doing. The components on the 7970 cost far more and there are more of them (especially power stages as the AMD chip is a higher end part even though it doesn't perform properly as one) which all costs more.

The cooler itself (the aluminium part) is also larger, this points to higher costs to make.

There's a reason the 680 is as cool as it is with the cooler it has. It does not pack the wealth of technology the 7970 does.

So, in things that are non gaming related (like directcompute to aid with apps that support it, kind of like CUDA for folding) the 7970 is a far better card. However, that's not really going to be taken into account by the enthusiast, but certain things like overclocking and performance and so on will.

All of this (and the memory bandwidth and so on) all point to the 680 not only being a mid ranged intention, but that it cost a fair chunk less to manufacture.

 

[Marine-RX179]

EDIT: No it won't but when you run out of VRAM it causes jumps and stutters while loading from RAM. Was happening to me on 570 on preset Ultra, had to turn down to 2 X MSAA.

I'm assuming you are talking about BF3? 1.25GB might indeed lacking for running for Ultra and 4xAA, but it's not all about vram though. Take 6970 for example...while it does have 2GB VRAM...because of how severe the fps drop on 4xAA application (due to how its GPU is), realistically nobody would use 4xAA on multiplayer (unless the priorotise graphic quality over having higher frame rate that directly most like to increase their performance). And bare in mind that GTX680 has 2GB of VRAM here...so the chances are it will be out of grunt way earlier than out of VRAM, unless people were running SLI, or gaming at over 1920 res.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Out of interest,has anyone confirmed whether the maximum boost level is the same for ALL cards or varies from card to card,ie,is it a fixed maximum level determined by Nvidia or will it depend on the individual chip only??

AMD and Intel fix their boost level dependent on the model.

 

[ALXAndy]

Out of interest,has anyone confirmed whether the maximum boost level is the same for ALL cards or varies from card to card,ie,is it a fixed maximum level determined by Nvida or will it depend on the individual chip only??

I've seen 1200 from one site, and 1250 from another. Nothing higher just yet.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Secondly let's cover the cost of the cards. It's not claims if you know what you are doing. The components on the 7970 cost far more and there are more of them (especially power stages as the AMD chip is a higher end part even though it doesn't perform properly as one) which all costs more.

The cooler itself (the aluminium part) is also larger, this points to higher costs to make.

There's a reason the 680 is as cool as it is with the cooler it has. It does not pack the wealth of technology the 7970 does.

So, in things that are non gaming related (like directcompute to aid with apps that support it, kind of like CUDA for folding) the 7970 is a far better card. However, that's not really going to be taken into account by the enthusiast, but certain things like overclocking and performance and so on will.

All of this (and the memory bandwidth and so on) all point to the 680 not only being a mid ranged intention, but that it cost a fair chunk less to manufacture.

And this pretty much cover the double-standard I mention before.

When the features present on the Nvidia card and did not present on AMD cards, it is non-relevant; and when the same features are available on the AMD card but no longer present on Nvidia's card, the features are suddenly shining oh-so very important and a big advantage...hmmmm....

 

[ALXAndy]

And this pretty much cover the double-standard I mention before.

When the features present on the Nvidia card and did not present on AMD cards, it is non-relevant; and when the same features are available on the AMD card but no longer present on Nvidia's card, the features are suddenly shining oh-so very important and a big advantage...hmmmm....

Are you being deliberately obtuse ? or, like many others are you either skim reading what I say or missing out on obvious things and then blowing them out of context ?

Quite simply when all is said and done they are right around dead level. Even if you bring other factors into the equation (IE physx, heat, noise, power use) they are again, dead even.

The 7970 uses Zerocore, the 7970 has 3gb vram and massive directcompute performance. The 680 is quieter and uses less power, but only has 2gb.

If you would simply like me to point out AGAIN that I think the 680 is a fantastic card and in the USA a better buy? I will. Because it's all there in text over the past few pages.

But if you are just going to magic things up out of thin air and then apply your logic to them then I wish you luck.

 

[Gregster]

Ignore please.

 

[LeJosh]

A don asked for friendly banter and people are just going over the same thing over and over.

 

[rubin1961]

Cant see pics

 

[Redemption80]

To cover your points. Right now the 7970 is already cheaper. It can be had for around £390. That's £40 or around 10% less than the 680. In the UK, of course, because in the USA Nvidia's last minute price drop rings true. Personally I think they realised deep down that performance was around level, so the cheaper card would sell. Good strategy !

Secondly let's cover the cost of the cards. It's not claims if you know what you are doing. The components on the 7970 cost far more and there are more of them (especially power stages as the AMD chip is a higher end part even though it doesn't perform properly as one) which all costs more.

The cooler itself (the aluminium part) is also larger, this points to higher costs to make.

There's a reason the 680 is as cool as it is with the cooler it has. It does not pack the wealth of technology the 7970 does.

So, in things that are non gaming related (like directcompute to aid with apps that support it, kind of like CUDA for folding) the 7970 is a far better card. However, that's not really going to be taken into account by the enthusiast, but certain things like overclocking and performance and so on will.

All of this (and the memory bandwidth and so on) all point to the 680 not only being a mid ranged intention, but that it cost a fair chunk less to manufacture.

Not on here it's not, and you know that works both ways.

The 7970 is £10 more expensive, but without knowing how long stock will be, it's probably fairer to say the 7970 is £20 cheaper.

As for the rest, well that was my point, AMD have more to lose from a price war than Nvidia, so it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

 

[rubin1961]

Agree with LeJosh

 

[RagingBull]

Any idea when the GTX670 or 660ti will be released?

 

[ALXAndy]

A don asked for friendly banter and people are just going over the same thing over and over.

Because put simply some people come stomping into this thread and start hurling around accusations and bringing things up that were covered absolutely ages ago.

I will agree though that it's becoming incredibly tiring. Getting a bit tired of people walking in and then trying to score a point that was covered pages ago, only they couldn't be bothered to read the thread properly first

 

[ALXAndy]

Not on here it's not, and you know that works both ways.

The 7970 is £10 more expensive, but without knowing how long stock will be, it's probably fairer to say the 7970 is £20 cheaper.

As for the rest, well that was my point, AMD have more to lose from a price war than Nvidia, so it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

Well then once again maybe it's time people are more open minded?

And take all of the variables into account and not trying to over simplify it all to fit it to their logic?

Sure, some people would buy from OCUK before even looking around. Fair play ! There are also people who would go out and buy a 680 and sell their 7970 because they didn't take the time to look over things properly.

I think that's where the differences in opinion come up tbh.

In the USA the 680 is clearly cheaper, the entire US web over. It's not the same story here