• 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.

GTX680 to arrive at the end of February!

xsistor said:
But wasn't BF3 one of the games where 580 3GB and 7970 3GB were pretty much almost equal in performance? (at least that's what I remember seeing from Gibbo's benches.)
Click to expand...

They were at stock - there was about 2-3 fps difference between them. A heavily overclocked 7970 (i.e. 1200Mhz core) can hit 50fps+, but this comes at significant power draw along with heat as outlined above.

Bottom line for me is that the next card I buy should be able to run BF3 2560x1600 @ Ultra settings with 4 x MSAA at it's stock settings with 60fps. The 7970 falls just short in a heavily overclocked scenario with ~50fps (and all the problems with heat/power), so Kepler it is.
 
Does single GPU performance really mean so much in these days of CF/SLI? Most issues we have seen recently have been game issues rather than hardware configurations.

A single card seems a waste with the other high end gaming parts most people have.

Edit - and when the I bought mine I could have bought 6970 tri-fire for 580 SLI money...so single GPU performance premium can be counter productive.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line for me is that the next card I buy should be able to run BF3 2560x1600 @ Ultra settings with 4 x MSAA at it's stock settings with 60fps. The 7970 falls just short in a heavily overclocked scenario with ~50fps (and all the problems with heat/power), so Kepler it is
Click to expand...

Some of us plan to be using 2560x1440 IPS panels @ 120hz by christmas 2012.There is talk of them coming so forget about 60fps.When people start playing at 120hz and it becomes standard everyone is going to get a shock at the lack of GPU power to power those games like crysis and BF3 at 120fps.

Keplar needs to be a monster i want it to be.Im pretty sick of these 30% jumps each year.Either sort out SLI microstutter or stop holding back on single cards :)
 
Why are Nvidias Refernce/Release cards always so low with the clocks, 715 compared to the 7970? I dont understand, cant they hit similar and get better performance?

I cant wait for the 680, means the 7970 will go down in price and i can get my grubby hands on it for less than half a grand.
 
Rofflay said:
Some of us plan to be using 2560x1440 IPS panels @ 120hz by christmas 2012.There is talk of them coming so forget about 60fps.When people start playing at 120hz and it becomes standard everyone is going to get a shock at the lack of GPU power to power those games like crysis and BF3 at 120fps.

Keplar needs to be a monster i want it to be.Im pretty sick of these 30% jumps each year.Either sort out SLI microstutter or stop holding back on single cards :)
Click to expand...

+1

I'm currently on a 2560x1440 IPS at 60hz and hell sometimes it's hard enough just getting that 60fps in games.

I've not even gotten BF3 yet since my GPU can't handle it at my res and there's no point in buying a current highend card.

I can and will only buy one GPU so I myself want Kepler to be a real monster.
 
DamoTourettes said:
They were at stock - there was about 2-3 fps difference between them. A heavily overclocked 7970 (i.e. 1200Mhz core) can hit 50fps+, but this comes at significant power draw along with heat as outlined above.

Bottom line for me is that the next card I buy should be able to run BF3 2560x1600 @ Ultra settings with 4 x MSAA at it's stock settings with 60fps. The 7970 falls just short in a heavily overclocked scenario with ~50fps (and all the problems with heat/power), so Kepler it is.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I had no idea the 580 and 7970 were so close in BF3. And I'd like the same thing actually. At 2560x1440 my 1.5 GB 580 is only good for medium settings at the frame rates I like, yes its all I need, but not all that I want. So your target of 60fps at stock settings is good for me too.
 
Wucked said:
Interesting, I had no idea the 580 and 7970 were so close in BF3. And I'd like the same thing actually. At 2560x1440 my 1.5 GB 580 is only good for medium settings at the frame rates I like, yes its all I need, but not all that I want. So your target of 60fps at stock settings is good for me too.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of trumpet blowing about the 7970 being 50% faster than the GTX 580, but this is in situations where it's clocked 30% more than stock and is running games other than BF3. BF3 apparently had a bunch of instructions that were written expressly for Nvidia, so the difference between the two in this title at least is completely marginal. Granted, if you overclock the crap out of it you can get decent framerates, but I'm still sketchy on having to do that at all in the first place...

Here's some specifics:-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review/22
 
Ben-Irvine93 said:
Yeah it does. However, not really by a big margin considering its new architecture?

Old architecture V.S new? Says its all IMHO.
Click to expand...

If you are comparing architecture then stock frequency is not relevant. Overclocked vs overclocked gives a much clearer comparison of all measurable qualities of an architecture. The fact a 7970 gains so much performance for overclocking and does it so easily before voltage needs to be raised should be obvious to everyone as a sign of it being restrained intentionally.

It's a bit like saying the GPU's in a 590 are worse than the ones in 570's when they are really cherry picked 580's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom