-
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.
Best GPU !!!
- Thread starter hakank68
- Start date
Sorry JD but I can't work it out?
haha
ok, ok, ok I admit it, I finger danced in a sarcastic fluster 
. It was a nicer way of saying "**** you and read above!!!!" 
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- Ayr, Scotland
LOL, I would just have said 'read your own thread ffs.'
1. Sometimes it is better to pay a little more for the end result.
2. Wrong.
3. Some games are faster on Nvidia and some are faster on AMD. Using one game as an example is poor.
4. 2GB is plenty at 1080P. Proof to show otherwise please.
LOL - your basket includes GTX670 2GB models the previous poster listed 4GB models which are closer in performance to a 7950.
Also one of the cards you've listed includes shipping when the others dont...
My opinion is not worth buying NVIDIA at the current time unless you are a fanboy or want to say you've got a Titan...
7950 all the way - just have a look at all the benchmark threads in this forum to see that AMD has the edge over NVIDIA.
£239.99 for a MSI Twin Frozer II 7950 3GB
£379.99 for a KFA2 GTX670 4GB
£140 difference!
Like others have said.....
Both are brilliant cards and either way you will not be disappointed.
But i'd say, if your not going to overclock than get the GTX 670. But if your going have a play around then I would say get the 7950 as it is brilliant bang for buck, and even better when overclocked. But take overclocking with a pinch of salt as nothing is guaranteed, its just luck of the draw
Also you get the added bonus of higher bandwidth and 3GB VRAM with the 7950, but at 1080p gaming the difference is negligible.
I was in the exact same position as you. I weighed up the pros and cons for me (i play Crysis 3 and Farcry 3, like overclocking, potential 1440p later, less cost) and decided to get the 7950.
Both are brilliant cards and either way you will not be disappointed.
But i'd say, if your not going to overclock than get the GTX 670. But if your going have a play around then I would say get the 7950 as it is brilliant bang for buck, and even better when overclocked. But take overclocking with a pinch of salt as nothing is guaranteed, its just luck of the draw
Also you get the added bonus of higher bandwidth and 3GB VRAM with the 7950, but at 1080p gaming the difference is negligible.
I was in the exact same position as you. I weighed up the pros and cons for me (i play Crysis 3 and Farcry 3, like overclocking, potential 1440p later, less cost) and decided to get the 7950.
Last edited:
If you want bang for buck and two AAA games=7950
If you want the likes of PhysX, and MMO cash, pay the premium=670.
Or whether you like AMD/Nvidia, pick that one.
Both do the same thing otherwise as your going to need two of them 'if' it uses over 2Gb(unless you heavy mod Skyrim/FO series etc).
If you want the likes of PhysX, and MMO cash, pay the premium=670.
Or whether you like AMD/Nvidia, pick that one.
Both do the same thing otherwise as your going to need two of them 'if' it uses over 2Gb(unless you heavy mod Skyrim/FO series etc).
One thing that might be worth considering:
Tombraider with all the eye candies turned up can break 2GB (gpu-z read 2206MB at its highest for me). Thats at 1680x1050 with TressFX on.
Admittedly only 3-4 games i've tried break 2GB, but if its a sign of things to come, it could be a problem.
Tombraider with all the eye candies turned up can break 2GB (gpu-z read 2206MB at its highest for me). Thats at 1680x1050 with TressFX on.
Admittedly only 3-4 games i've tried break 2GB, but if its a sign of things to come, it could be a problem.
Last edited:
Doesn't mean anything on its own. If people with 2GB cards are running out of VRAM at the same settings them it is a problem. The application caches extra textures when excess VRAM is available.
e.g. In BF3 3GB 580s were using 2.4GB whereas a 2GB 670/680 was using 1.6GB etc. Obviously the 670/680 were a bit faster as well which shows that even if a card is using more VRAM than a card currently has it isn't proof on its own that the extra VRAM is required.
This obviously ignores the point of what FPS you're getting at the maximum settings which is more than half the story. If you're running out of VRAM but getting an average of 10 FPS anyway, it's a moot point. If you were getting 60 FPS then running out of VRAM then that is more pertinent.
I guess what i was getting at is, 2GB might be enough now, but in say 2-3 years time, when a 670 will still be a reasonably decent card, will 2GB still be enough?
the lowest 570 has 1.25GB on it, the GPU is still pretty decent even now, but is 1.25G vram enough?
i'm just thinking about futureproofing. i had 2 6870's which were fine power wise, but only had 1GB vram and it became a problem.
the lowest 570 has 1.25GB on it, the GPU is still pretty decent even now, but is 1.25G vram enough?
i'm just thinking about futureproofing. i had 2 6870's which were fine power wise, but only had 1GB vram and it became a problem.
Well the thing is, with the 670, the price difference means that you're paying for the MMO cash near enough anyway.
It'd still be more cost effective to get a 7950 with the 2 free games, and just buy the MMO cash if you wanted it.
The power of the 570 GPU is round about right at 1.25GB. If the bus width was different then 1.5GB would have been the sweet spot.
Multi-GPU is a different kettle of fish really because you're doubling the GPU grunt but obviously the VRAM remains static so it does change the dynamic.
I agree with you, but, my post was more along the lines of what you get with each vendor rather than the usual 'buy the cheapest'-which not everyone wants.