How to convince myself to go red

[spoffle]

I think Spoffle needs to step back from his dislike of NVidia and give more credit to their products when they perform well.

I'm not sure how this makes sense. You're agreeing with IDCP, and I'm saying pretty much what he's saying but you're moaning about what I'm saying.

How does that work? Is it the good old, you see what you want me to be saying over what I am actually saying? It's not like I'm saying nVidia cards are crap and awful or anything of the sort.

I'm pointing out to the people who want to talk about overclockability that nVidia cards are typically going to have much lesser overheads due to voltage tweaking being taken away.

You should have an issue with nVidia over this, not with me for pointing it out. I really don't get why people moan at me for stuff they should be angry at nVidia for.

 

[spoffle]

It is very representative of GPU performance with minimal influence from the CPU.

It's representative of how well a card does in Heaven, that's it really.

It's a synthetic benchmark, they are never truly representative of game performance. Stop trying to make it out to be more than it is.

This is the reason the HD 7970s did it all over the GTX 680s, it showed the faster card in the best light.

Whichever card is faster is irrelevant, really, unless you're really in to Heaven and want to be competitive with it.

Sure, I've used Heaven, and Valley but to create a reference point for overclocks to see what sort of performance increase an overclock has given.

IIRC as well the GTX 770 seems to be doing more than ok against the HD 7970 on the review sites where they do use games.

I didn't say it wasn't. Why are you acting as if I've said the 770 is bad? I'm talking about overclockability. 770s doing "more than over against the HD 7970" doesn't mean much when I'm talking about overclocking headroom and comparing a 770 to a 7950...

I really think you should give NVidia credit for coming up with a very good card.

Credit for what exactly? You're responding to my posts in a different way compared to IDCP's posts, which is weird because we're pretty much saying the same thing.

As I've already said, be annoyed with nVidia, not me. If they hadn't have gimped their cards in the first place they'd be much better. Note that I'm not saying they're crap though, so stop acting like I am.

 

[Suarez7]

All the benchmarking threads bore me to death, people nearly killing their cards to get a few more points. I bet some of you have done lasting damage that's probably shortened the cards lifespan. All I care about nowadays is how well a card works in the games I play, not some number on screen that means absolutely nothing really as most of the benchmarks favour 1 brand or the other.

 

[spoffle]

All the benchmarking threads bore me to death, people nearly killing their cards to get a few more points. I bet some of you have done lasting damage that's probably shortened the cards lifespan. All I care about nowadays is how well a card works in the games I play, not some number on screen that means absolutely nothing really as most of the benchmarks favour 1 brand or the other.

Stop rubbishing nVidia's cards and give them some credit!

 

[Suarez7]

Stop rubbishing nVidia's cards and give them some credit!

I <3 nVidia, they are the best, the end.

 

[Kaapstad]

Stop rubbishing nVidia's cards and give them some credit!

I <3 nVidia, they are the best, the end.

Which NVidia card would either of you recommend and why ?

Serious question.

 

[Suarez7]

Which NVidia card would either of you recommend and why ?

Serious question.

770, price isn't too bad and has excellent performance straight out the box

 

[spoffle]

Which NVidia card would either of you recommend and why ?

Serious question.

Typically I wouldn't, because I see it as supporting nVidia's dodgy actions.

Though it depends entirely on the situation, eg, if someone needs CUDA acceleration (as opposed to thinking they need it, as a lot of people wrongly assume Photoshop needs CUDA when it is in fact OpenGL.)

That however doesn't mean I've been rubbishing their cards the way you've suggested I have.

When you feel the need to respond to something I didn't say, you should really think about what's made you do that, as I know it's not what I've actually posted.

 

[Kaapstad]

Typically I wouldn't, because I see it as supporting nVidia's dodgy actions.

Though it depends entirely on the situation, eg, if someone needs CUDA acceleration (as opposed to thinking they need it, as a lot of people wrongly assume Photoshop needs CUDA when it is in fact OpenGL.)

That however doesn't mean I've been rubbishing their cards the way you've suggested I have.

When you feel the need to respond to something I didn't say, you should really think about what's made you do that, as I know it's not what I've actually posted.

I think where practical people should recommend NVidia regardless of what they might think of the company themselves providing it is a good recommendation. This actually adds weight to the times when they recommend AMD as they are seen as unbiased.

 

[Marine-RX179]

I think where practical people should recommend NVidia regardless of what they might think of the company themselves providing it is a good recommendation. This actually adds weight to the times when they recommend AMD as they are seen as unbiased.

"Practical" people wouldn't be recommending a card with lower spec (even if both card were similar performance), and keep advising people there's no benefit of having higher memory bus or extra memory, despite it doesn't cost anything extra...(in fact, the 7970 is better value because of the free games, even if they don't worth too much these days).

Nvidia had always have 384-bit bus cards for the £250+ range, and their card performance consistantly better than 256-bit bus AMD cards, despite having lessing vram. But now for the last two gen, they have been feeding the customers with these £300 256-bit bus cards (with 192-bit card such as GTX660Ti ridiculously hitting £240), not to mention their vram they provide is STILL lesser than their competition. It is quite clear they are just trying to milk the GK104 for all it's worth. With the GTX770 launching 12 months after the AMD's 12.11 driver, there should be so reason at all for it to still be beaten by the 7970 in any way other than in AMD optimised games.

I really don't see the reasoning behind getting the GTX770 over the 7970 (it doesn't even have the low power consumption advantage of the GTX680 anymore due to its high clock, with the power consumption very close to the 7970), other than if people need the Nvidia specific features such as PhysX or 3D Vision.

To me, if two cards cost around the same and performance on par with one another, but one offer higher memory bus and more vram, it's no-brainer really. However, if required features get brought into the the equation (i.e. Need PhysX, 3D Vision, better multi-GPU support and consistency) and they are what I need, then I would consider settling for the lower spec card. Really it is that simple.

 

[Schizo]

Are you lot STILL arguing !

Get a grip and move on,there is more important things happening in the world than a graphics card....geeeezzzzzz.

 

[Schizo]

All the benchmarking threads bore me to death, people nearly killing their cards to get a few more points. I bet some of you have done lasting damage that's probably shortened the cards lifespan. All I care about nowadays is how well a card works in the games I play, not some number on screen that means absolutely nothing really as most of the benchmarks favour 1 brand or the other.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[LtMatt]

All the benchmarking threads bore me to death, people nearly killing their cards to get a few more points. I bet some of you have done lasting damage that's probably shortened the cards lifespan. All I care about nowadays is how well a card works in the games I play, not some number on screen that means absolutely nothing really as most of the benchmarks favour 1 brand or the other.

I'm with you, synthetic benchmarks just don't interest me much these days. I've not even bothered to run Ungine Heaven or 3Dmark 11 since ive got my 7950 xfire setup. I'm more interested in playing games and actual in game benchmarks these days.

 

[pgi947]

Some do like synthetic benchmarks though, if you don't like the threads don't read them

Look at it from this pov, synth benches are a game where you're trying to get the high score, it can even be rewarding for some when you spend a few hours fine tuning something like memory to shave a few seconds from a pi run or a few extra hundred points on 3dmark.

Each to their own is my point.

 

[spoffle]

Some do like synthetic benchmarks though, if you don't like the threads don't read them

Look at it from this pov, synth benches are a game where you're trying to get the high score, it can even be rewarding for some when you spend a few hours fine tuning something like memory to shave a few seconds from a pi run or a few extra hundred points on 3dmark.

Each to their own is my point.

The difference here is that this isn't the argument. Sure, benchmarking is fun for some people but that doesn't mean they are representative of games performance.

 

[dmferrett]

The important thing from my point of view is that 2x7950's in BF3 at 5760x1080 are significantly faster than a TITAN at approx half the price..(A titan is actually only 20-30% faster than a baby 7950 costing £225-£250 in battlefield in terms of FPS its a total joke price performance wise. If you spend £800-£900 on a card it needs to be twice or even three times the speed of a card costing a quarter of its price. Nvidia are laughing at Titan owners because they are EXTRACTING THE URINE OUT OF YOU, whilst not giving you performance......(Surely everyone can see my point)

The other cards can't play BF3 in high res multiscreen effectively, so dont count!!!!


While respecting everyones opinion the 7950 is the king of price and performance............

The other thing we need to consider is that its taken the nvidia GK104 1 1/2 years to kinda catch up with single monitor tahiti chip based HD7*** performance in the games i like (BF3, Bioshock etc,) but at high res and multiscreen they are still lagging behind because of all the reasons above in the other posts.

GK110 Titan isnt remotely in these cards price bracket and should only be compared in performance to cards that tote up to £800-£900 invalue
So compare it to,

3-4x7950's, 3x7970's, and at lower single screen resolution cards cut form a similar cloth or ilk 760x3-4, or 3x770's.



Nvidia take the Urine out of people.....Intel likewise also do but they offer a superior performing product compared to their nearest competitor and hence may justify the premium.........

We live in a greedy selfish world people.......

 

[spoffle]

I think where practical people should recommend NVidia regardless of what they might think of the company themselves providing it is a good recommendation. This actually adds weight to the times when they recommend AMD as they are seen as unbiased.

That's another issue in itself, nVidia typically is rarely a more practical solution with their cards being less value for money than AMD ones.

I also don't claim to be unbiased, but it doesn't mean I can't be objective.

But being objective isn't recommending nVidia for no reason other than in an attempt to come across as unbiased.

As I've said, it's extremely rare that nVidia offers more for the money than AMD does.

Even with the 770 and 7970 being fairly close in price, the 7970 still offers a lot more value with a bunch of games that you can use or sell, 1GB more VRAM, greater overclocking headroom and a greater memory bus.

As I've said plenty of times, the memory bus and 1GB more RAM might not be the biggest issue now (though the memory bus is the bigger issue presently) but it's going to severely inhibit the longevity of all GK104 based cards.

This was the very reason I got a 2GB 5870, I jumped at the chance in fact, because it helped immensely with its longevity. It's still ticking over quite well compared to 1GB variants. As you know, there's no such thing as too much RAM when it comes to practical usage.

 

[eddyr]

Are you lot STILL arguing !

Get a grip and move on,there is more important things happening in the world than a graphics card....geeeezzzzzz.

Exactly.


...so what do you guys think is the best baby name?

 

[spoffle]

Exactly.


...so what do you guys think is the best baby name?

He says that, then joins in anyway though...

 

[teppic]

The main problem with a typical 770 review that gives 7970 benchmarks is the latter's tested at the (very low) reference clock (925MHz), which doesn't properly reflect the 7970s on the market -- the GHz edition is the better comparison, as even standard 7970s are typically factory clocked at 1GHz or higher.