GTX 680 or 7970?

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 18:45

Rusty0611 said:
I don't see that you are and Tommy definitely isn't but if you're counting the fact being pointed out that [H] being posted liberally before and now they're not as trolling then...

I guess this thread has run its course now the OP has got his card and to be honest I think I would have made the same choice.

No i wasn't talking about that though as you know Rusty i hold a dire opinion of H as i always compare my results and to get accurate figures i have to add on 5-30fps with H's AMD results. That's how biased they are. Anyway as you say the OP has made his choice, the right choice which for now we agree on.

Arthur Hucksake · 3 Apr 2013 at 18:56

LtMatt said:
Thanks for the honest feedback. Not sure bumping your cpu up will add 11ps onto your average fps though.

So 51fps vs 62. But according to H the 680 is a fair bit faster. Smirk.

You misread. It would add 4 or 5 fps upto about 56 fps.

heh

Gregster · 3 Apr 2013 at 18:58

LtMatt said:
Thank god he didn't pay any attention to those misleading and inaccurate graphs you posted.

Only misleading and inaccurate when they suit

spoffle said:
Do you really think this is valid logic? Because it really isn't.

Also to people saying "I'm not bias" it's "biased"...

I am so glad you are here to tell those three posters that their logic is invalid. What would we do without you to correct spelling mistakes and grammar? :rolleyes:

tommybhoy · 3 Apr 2013 at 18:59

Congrats on the new toy ReliefWithBeef.

Gregster said:
The only childish ramblings I am reading here is coming from you Tommy. If you are not happy with any of the posts, there is the RTM system (red triangle by the name) for you to report any posts that you find offensive. I felt this was a fair discussion and nothing here is offensive. I thought you was mature enough to not need wrapping up in cotton wool and could have a sensible debate.

Three users in this one thread have said they found Nvidia to be better. You can post all the bench results up to justify your points but I feel the OP has enough info to go by.

It seems fairly pointless to keep clutching at straws Tommy and Matt and now let the OP choose from the info given.

I've not got an issue with any of the posts, none of them are offensive either, I'll leave the rtm to those that love to push it all the time as well.

If you can't see the pointless childishness of some of these posts that have no bearing on what the op wanted to know, then carry on, because I'm fed up entertaining it and why I don't engage much if at all with certain posters.

You used to...

He said...

She said...

Playground stuff, you and your buddies are welcome to it and I'll not engage again in a hurry.

:mad:

and fed up with it all.

Arthur Hucksake · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:01

It's the higher minimum frames that gives the smoothness, it has to be.

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:02

Arthur Hucksake said:
You misread. It would add 4 or 5 fps upto about 56 fps. heh

Shall i match my cpu to yours to see the difference? Or do you mind clocking yours up to 5.0ghz?

Gregster said:
Only misleading and inaccurate when they suit

Misleading and inaccurate because i have a 7970ghz and Tomb Raider and can test myself as opposed to H who always manage to make slower Nvidia cards faster than AMD cards in gaming evolved titles.

I'm not questioning the 7950vs670 results as i own neither card. I can however completely discredit their 7970ghz results.

Rusty0611 · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:03

Well you did used to post [H] around everywhere Tommy lol. That's not my fault they're not flavour of the month anymore and therefore have invalid results now.

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:05

Rusty0611 said:
Well you did used to post [H] around everywhere Tommy lol. That's not my fault they're not flavour of the month anymore and therefore have invalid results now.

Stop mentioning their name. :mad:

Gregster · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:06

So you can't alter a setting to give slightly better results as well Matt?

Rusty0611 · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:06

LtMatt said:
Stop mentioning their name.

OK, OK I'm sorry. I know how much you despise them. Dare I mention Sleeping Dogs and [H] in one sentence?

Oops

spoffle · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:06

Gregster said:
Only misleading and inaccurate when they suit

I am so glad you are here to tell those three posters that their logic is invalid. What would we do without you to correct spelling mistakes and grammar?

I am commenting on your post, not theirs. The rubbish of "three posts in one thread can't be wrong", that's awful logic.

Gregster · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:08

Give over Spoffle. You know exactly what I meant and just playing up.

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:09

Rusty0611 said:
OK, OK I'm sorry. I know how much you despise them. Dare I mention Sleeping Dogs and [H] in one sentence?

Oops

Don't even get me started.

spoffle · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:13

Gregster said:
Give over Spoffle. You know exactly what I meant and just playing up.

Of course I know what you meant, it wasn't ambiguous. :confused:

What you meant is the exact problem, not to mention that there are people in this thread commenting on their preference of AMD over nVidia, but your "multiple posts in one thread" logic doesn't get applied to that.

I wonder why!

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:19

Arthur Hucksake said:
You misread. It would add 4 or 5 fps upto about 56 fps. heh

Just did a run at 4.5ghz and got the same results. Average is surprisingly slightly higher but only by 0.3. Suffice to say cpu speed does not make a jot of difference in this title mate.

Arthur Hucksake · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:29

LtMatt said:
Shall i match my cpu to yours to see the difference? Or do you mind clocking yours up to 5.0ghz?

Misleading and inaccurate because i have a 7970ghz and Tomb Raider and can test myself as opposed to H who always manage to make slower Nvidia cards faster than AMD cards in gaming evolved titles.

I'm not questioning the 7950vs670 results as i own neither card. I can however completely discredit their 7970ghz results.

My chip would prob need 1.45v minimum to hit 5Ghz, its a hot potato.

Just not sure why my experiences differed with the 7970.

It was the Sapphire Vapor-X.

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:34

Arthur Hucksake said:
My chip would prob need 1.45v minimum to hit 5Ghz, its a hot potato.

Just not sure why my experiences differed with the 7970.

It was the Sapphire Vapor-X.

Yeah furry muff i got lucky with mine i can do 5ghz at 1.416.

One final batch this time with the 7970 clocked. I'd love to see H's 680 in comparison to this, no doubt they would have it doing 80fps average.

Arthur Hucksake · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:41

I would get nowhere near that.

My 680s clocks are 1084 / 1150 boost and 6300 on the mem.

LtMatt · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:46

Arthur Hucksake said:
I would get nowhere near that.

My 680s clocks are 1084 / 1150 boost and 6300 on the mem.

No shame in that mate.

I was just trying to emphasise my point. H had the 680 beating the 7970ghz by 10 fps. That little bit of misinformation got my goat as i have the game and the gpu involved so i know where there is some FUD going around.

Arthur Hucksake · 3 Apr 2013 at 19:53

LtMatt said:
No shame in that mate.

I was just trying to emphasise my point. H had the 680 beating the 7970ghz by 10 fps. That little bit of misinformation got my goat as i have the game and the gpu involved so i know where there is some FUD going around.

What drivers did they use though? That's the thing.

If it was a previous beta, quite possible they were correct.