• 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.

Changing cards next month

Leeroy123 said:
So ive always stayed away from AMD/ATI because of the stories with the driver issues. If i was to change over, which 7970 should i get mate?
Click to expand...

I don't think the driver issues are really there for single card set-up's.

I'm not an expert on the 7970 models but I'd guarantee that the Gigabyte Windforce is a good one to go for. It is however £60 more expensive than a reference card which is quite a premium.

Hopefully someone with a reference card can come in and let you know how they are cooling/noise wise.

psychodil said:
OP has already said he's tied to nvidia because of his monitor, for 3d. Get a good non reference 670, try and get the wind force at a good price.
Click to expand...

D'oh didn't see that. Sorry OP!

Gigabyte Windforce 670 then. I have the 680 version. It's very, very good.
 
Last edited:
I would stay away from the reference cooler if you are sensitive to noise and/or want to over clock. Wait for a decent non reference cooled one to come on offer if that's what you want. You probably won't notice the difference while gaming between a 670 and a 7970, but what would you do with your 3dvision kit?
 
Rusty0611 said:
They still perform the same overall @ 5760*1080 depending on the game of course.

The thing is I'm only close to the limit on settings which I cannot use due to not having enough GPU grunt. MSAA uses a huge amount of VRAM and if you remove this then it's comfortable on both the VRAM side of things and GPU power.

You could remove other things to allow MSAA to be run but you'd be looking at dropping settings to low to get playable FPS and to have MSAA on as well at this resolution which kind of defies the point.

The other settings which you can alter don't actually affect your FPS that much. It's the resolution and MSAA which do it.

So I don't think by lowering the odd setting you'd get to the point where you're VRAM capped instead of GPU power capped due to my next point.

I see your point but it's unlikely as realistically if I want to game in Surround I have 500MB of wriggle room with VRAM. I can get higher VRAM usage but there's no point as it slows right down due to a lack of GPU grunt.

This has all been discussed in great depth elsewhere on this forum and I don't think there's any need to detract further from the OP's topic as he has confirmed that he games on a single monitor.
Click to expand...

Your an Nvidia Fanboy, which normally is fine, but not when you keep trying to swing the argument into making Nvidia look good and accuse anyone who does not follow your line of that as inferior to your knowledge.

You know what, just for someone like that i am willing your miserable 2GB of vRam to come to a dead end before long so you have an over priced paperweight, not that you would ever admit it when it happens, even to your self i suspect.
 
Last edited:
^^ no need for that, or calling people fanboys.

Just looking at Rustys screenshots though, not exactly a lot happening on those screens. Won't you get closer to the limit during some action rather than looking at plain walls?
 
humbug said:
Your an Nvidia Fanboy, which normally is fine, but not when you keep trying to swing the argument into making Nvidia look good and accuse anyone who does not follow your line of that as inferior to your knowledge.

You know what, just for someone like like i am willing your miserable 2GB of vRam to come to a dead end before long so you have an over priced paperweight, not that you would ever admit it when it happens, even to your self i suspect.
Click to expand...

Very harsh :(
 
humbug said:
Yes it is, sorry. :(
Click to expand...

Don't let the harshness get in the way of facts though. Pretty much how it's coming across, "2GB is enough because my card has 2GB".

Rusty, yo' arguments are consistently floored brah. It's just anecdote after anecdote shoved forward as fact.
 
spoffle said:
Don't let the harshness get in the way of facts though. Pretty much how it's coming across, "2GB is enough because my card has 2GB".

Rusty, yo' arguments are consistently floored brah. It's just anecdote after anecdote shoved forward as fact.
Click to expand...

Oh don't worry, i stand by my reasoning. @ 1920 x 1080P 2GB is enough for a while yet. anything over that is getting close to the boundaries now and is going to find its self wanting in the not to distant future.
 
Theres no way 460 sli get any where near a 670 mate. And Rich i use 3dvision 2 with the benq monitor, so it's Nvidia only i think.
 
Last edited:
The GTX670 is the best card on the market currently in my opinion. The 680 is £100 more expensive and isn't a massive amount faster. Just grab the cheapest 670 you can find.
 
humbug said:
Your an Nvidia Fanboy, which normally is fine, but not when you keep trying to swing the argument into making Nvidia look good and accuse anyone who does not follow your line of that as inferior to your knowledge.

You know what, just for someone like that i am willing your miserable 2GB of vRam to come to a dead end before long so you have an over priced paperweight, not that you woTuld ever admit it when it happens, even to your self i suspect.
Click to expand...

It's "you're". My last 4 cards were AMD actually and I had no issues with them so you can knock that one on the head.

Your incoherent waffle is still failing to grasp that this isn't about which card is better or AMD vs nVidia. It's about you failing to comprehend that two GPU's do not have enough GPU grunt to push the settings which require more than 2GB of VRAM at triple monitor.

I can run extremely close to the VRAM limit yes, but I'll have unplayable FPS anyway (20-30 in MP)

Your initial statement stated the opposite to that. Blindly recommending somebody purchase a 4GB card without really having a clue what you're saying.

psychodil said:
^^ no need for that, or calling people fanboys.

Just looking at Rustys screenshots though, not exactly a lot happening on those screens. Won't you get closer to the limit during some action rather than looking at plain walls?
Click to expand...

Firstly, the amount happening doesn't affect the VRAM used. I've seen it go up and down while in firefights. Secondly, remember I'm gaming at 5800*1080 and the EVGA on screen display is drawn at the top left of the left most display. I cut this out of the screenshot because they're about 5MB each otherwise :D. Plenty drawn on screen to the right of what is displayed anyway.

spoffle said:
Don't let the harshness get in the way of facts though. Pretty much how it's coming across, "2GB is enough because my card has 2GB".
Click to expand...

Is it bugger coming across like that. It's more like 2GB is enough because that's what I've tested and proven so.

Unlike you I don't like to post knowledgeably about things I haven't researched in depth or tested myself.

I know certain posters such as yourself with AMD preference (as you proved by suggesting a 7950 is faster than a 670) like to emphasise the importance of VRAM but unless you've got proof showing 2GB limiting then your comments are as worthless as humbug's above.
 
Last edited:
Rusty0611 said:
......It's "you're". .......
Click to expand...

Oh, i'm so glad somebody has at last pointed that out.

Regarding the Vram argument. Doesn't the lack of muscle in the GPU lend weight to having the extra 2Gb of Vram on a 4Gb card to allow extra caching of the graphics load (framebuffer?) to therefore achieve the required extra framerate, i.e., smoother gameplay?

Just asking :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom