• 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.

***Official GTX 670 thread***

bhavv said:
But there's a big difference in games between the reference clocked, and pre overclocked GTX 670 cards.
Click to expand...

I'd say not, the difference across the board doesn't seem to be more than 100mhz whether you compare stock for stock or best OC for best OC on the 670's and this translates in to 3-4fps either way

this sounds more like purchasers justification than actual fact

like if you are going to spend 370 on a 670 then why not just pay the extra 20-30 to get a 680 which will then OC to a point that gives you another 3 FPS on top of that...
 
andybird123 said:
I'd say not, the difference across the board doesn't seem to be more than 100mhz whether you compare stock for stock or best OC for best OC on the 670's and this translates in to 3-4fps either way

this sounds more like purchasers justification than actual fact

like if you are going to spend 370 on a 670 then why not just pay the extra 20-30 to get a 680 which will then OC to a point that gives you another 3 FPS on top of that...
Click to expand...

Comparing custom design 670s to a reference 680 is daft.

A reference design GTX 670 is £80 less than a reference 680. A custom built GTX 670 is £110 less than a custom GTX 680.

The main reasons for avoiding the reference GTX 670 are the PCB and the reference cooler. For £30 more, a better cooler, GTX 680 PCB and out of the box 1215 Mhz boost clock is definitely worth getting a custom design 670.
 
more like 90 quid and 100 quid (so the same diff), I like how you've distorted the figures to preference your argument

you also keep saying that a long PCB and more connectors is better for overclocking, but evidence seems to be saying the opposite and that it's down to the silicon lottery more than anything else

I would imagine that most people would quite happily save 30 quid or 50 quid or 100 quid however you split it for the sake of 3FPS
my reference 680 is for all intents silent in my case so why would I want a custom cooler?

the only type of non reference cooling that seems to make real sense is water
 
Last edited:
reference GTX 670 - £319.
Custom GTX 670 - £359
reference GTX 680 - £399
Custom GTX 680 - £469.

Do the math.

Regarding the 'silicon lottery', not all reference GTX 670s will even reach 1200 Mhz, let alone remain under 70 degrees to prevent thermal throttling. The custom cooled versions are managing that, at least with a cooler reseat on some models.

The GTX 670 reference cooler is absolutely **** compared to a GTX 680 reference cooler, you can't compare apples to oranges. The quality of the reference GTX 670 is absolutely bare minimal for a card of its specification.
 
Last edited:
Broken Hope said:
Looks like EVGA 670 Superclocked versions are being replaced with FTW editions in the US, I doubt they will be as nice here in the UK

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1592308&mpage=1#1592831
Click to expand...

I got a dodgy one as well. Quite annoyed as I built my first PC in 5 years this weekend in time for D3 and I get a bum card.

Even at stock CPU/mobo and stock (but EVGA pre-overclocked 670 SC version) I can't get stable graphics without artefacts, crashing to desktop or soft reboots on this card. It got so bad that even the bios screens were garbled showing artefacts when the system reset itself.

Now I don't know whether to just return the card and get another or wait for the RMA. Especially as I just bought everything on Friday in time for Tuesday's D3 release....
 
What are the stock clocks meant to be on this EVGA SC card? Proof that the reference design cannot handle pre overclocked cards while Gigabyte and KFA2 are having no problem with their cards at 1189 - 1215 Mhz stock clocks.
 
GPU 967MHz, Boost 1046MHz
6208MHz GDDR5

AFAIK its a reference board, 2x6pin PCIE and reference cooler.

On the hardforums and EVGA forums it seems this is a widespread issue amongst their 670 SC cards. They are even upgrading people's RMAs in the US but no word on what will happen in Europe yet.

I'm tempted to put an order in for the Gigabyte Windforce 670 tomorrow and hope it arrives Tuesday. Then just send my EVGA as a return. But I specifically bought EVGA due to their reputation for good customer service...

Also this is quite a long thread - is there consensus on which of the KFA or Gigabyte cards are quieter and cooler?
 
There we go then, clear evidence that the reference PCB is incapable of supporting a mass produced overclocked edition, even with overclocks that small.

The gigabyte is better than the KFA2, but not by much. The gigabyte is few degrees cooler after the KFA2 cooler is properly reseated, and both seem to be managing a minimum overclock across every card of 1250 Mhz.

Every KFA2 EX OC is running perfectly out of the box at 1215 Mhz with no hassle, it looks to be well worth the cost over the best reference design card from EVGA. The only problem is that the KFA2 needs the cooler to be reseated for acceptable temperatures, but the gigabyte doesn't and still has lower temperatures.
 
Last edited:
Well I think we need volts to boost frequency not a higher power limit. My card never uses more than 76% power even when benching at my max overclock. I already have a high enough power limit, I need extra volts to get closer to it.
 
Sampsy said:
Well I think we need volts to boost frequency not a higher power limit. My card never uses more than 76% power even when benching at my max overclock. I already have a high enough power limit, I need extra volts to get closer to it.
Click to expand...

Snap, 1.2v would be a godsend.
 
bhavv said:
There we go then, clear evidence that the reference PCB is incapable of supporting a mass produced overclocked edition, even with overclocks that small.

The gigabyte is better than the KFA2, but not by much. The gigabyte is few degrees cooler after the KFA2 cooler is properly reseated, and both seem to be managing a minimum overclock across every card of 1250 Mhz.

Every KFA2 EX OC is running perfectly out of the box at 1215 Mhz with no hassle, it looks to be well worth the cost over the best reference design card from EVGA. The only problem is that the KFA2 needs the cooler to be reseated for acceptable temperatures, but the gigabyte doesn't and still has lower temperatures.
Click to expand...

it's proof of nothing, evga are blaming the memory for the problems, which is only rated to 6ghz but they pre oc to 6.2

reviews are quoting the evga sc as stable at 1280 boost but the few cards that have the problem have it out of the box with no oc possible, it's dodgy quality control, not a pcb problem :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom