• 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.

The first "proper" Kepler news Fri 17th Feb?

[WU-TANG]GZA;21495495 said:
No - if it is the same performance and same price = not dumb
- if it is better performance and same price = not dumb either


My point was that the chap said "same/better/worse for same price" he would get the Nvidia. I was wondering why if it turns out to be inferior he would still get it over the 7970 for example. As I don't buy into the 'ATi/AMD drivers are terribad' argument having had both ATi and Nvidia over the years. Just wondered if there was another reason...

Fair point. The trouble is, we have 5 days till some hard facts (real benches) comes out, maybe 6, so we wont realy know anything substantial untill then. NDA is a nuisance.

I am wanting to upgrade and as I run Nvidia 3D vision 2, I am tied to Nvidia. I am begging it to be at least the same performance for the same money, especially as Gibbo has hinted Nvidia will not be dropping prices yet on old stock (580/570 etc etc).

Man I want news now and not next week :( hmpffffffff
 
Basically this thread has just made me all the more happy for purchasing another gtx 480.

I have seen NOTHING that matches the sheer speed of a pair of these for £380.

Bring on the next gen consoles so that pcs will have to think about the games once again.
 
What will AMD release in response to this, a higher clocked 7970?

There was some noise about all HD7970 cards being bumped upto 1GHZ for the core according to some chap from AMD(I saw this on another forum so cannot confirm if this is true or not). Supposedly,AMD used conservative clockspeeds for the HD7970 as they were not sure if the HD7970 would consistently be able to do 1GHZ. Take this with a jar of salt though.

Edit!!

Here is the link:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1626557#post1626557

So it seems he didn't say specifically they would bump up the clockspeed to 1GHZ but just hinted they will have a look at the Tahiti clockspeeds again.
 
Last edited:
Basically this thread has just made me all the more happy for purchasing another gtx 480.

I have seen NOTHING that matches the sheer speed of a pair of these for £380.

Bring on the next gen consoles so that pcs will have to think about the games once again.

to be honest the more i think about it people are expecting a huge jump but i just dont think its there, to be honest i think gaming is near it peak graphics wise just look at the cost involved in producing tripple A games at the minute :eek: its huge and takes a big team a long time to complete there games,then you look at the industry as a whole and how much of a mess its in financialy with many companies cutting jobs etc and even retailers like game having to downsize and left looking for a buyer its sad times indeed people have got so hooked up on how a game looks rather than how it plays .games look better now but are not as fun as they were and thats a fact
 
There was some noise about all HD7970 cards being bumped upto 1GHZ for the core according to some chap from AMD(I saw this on another forum so cannot confirm if this is true or not). Supposedly,AMD used conservative clockspeeds for the HD7970 as they were not sure if the HD7970 would consistently be able to do 1GHZ. Take this with a jar of salt though.

Edit!!

Here is the link:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1626557#post1626557

So it seems he didn't say specifically they would bump up the clockspeed to 1GHZ but just hinted they will have a look at the Tahiti clockspeeds again.

I went through a load of bioses on TPU today and there were quite a few 1ghz ones.
 
Will be funny to see the green team go from- "nobody needs more than 1.5GB" to "It's 4GB or bust- 3GB isn't enough!"

So is the HD7970 going to be the VRAM MASTER?? :p

TBH,the VRAM quantities are getting silly now. They seem more like the amounts seen on Professional 3D cards. Now,if only we could hack them like in the past!!:D

If the card's supposed to support up to 4 screens, then realistically, it will need at the very very least 2GB VRAM. (for all the trimmings)

4GB would be better.
 
Basically this thread has just made me all the more happy for purchasing another gtx 480.

I have seen NOTHING that matches the sheer speed of a pair of these for £380.

Bring on the next gen consoles so that pcs will have to think about the games once again.

Good call. I wish I had one earlier, that way I would have gone SLI and been content for a while :(

1GB on my 560 isn't justifiable to get another.
 
In my opinion multi-monitor gaming and 3D gaming are like fluffy dice. Some people like them but others cannot see the point. I cannot see the point, so 3GB and 4GB cards will be overkill for me. Give me a 1.5GB 7970 (when they arrive) or a 2GB GK104 (I refuse to call it a GTX680) as either would serve me fine at 1920x1200. With TXAA, much less VRAM is needed than FSAA and it apparently gives much better results anyway.
 
In my opinion multi-monitor gaming and 3D gaming are like fluffy dice. Some people like them but others cannot see the point. I cannot see the point, so 3GB and 4GB cards will be overkill for me. Give me a 1.5GB 7970 (when they arrive) or a 2GB GK104 (I refuse to call it a GTX680) as either would serve me fine at 1920x1200.

Try 3 screens with 3D and try going back to normal gaming! just won't happen!
 
In my opinion multi-monitor gaming and 3D gaming are like fluffy dice. Some people like them but others cannot see the point. I cannot see the point, so 3GB and 4GB cards will be overkill for me. Give me a 1.5GB 7970 (when they arrive) or a 2GB GK104 (I refuse to call it a GTX680) as either would serve me fine at 1920x1200. With TXAA, much less VRAM is needed than FSAA and it apparently gives much better results anyway.

Having used both over the past six months (triple monitor and 3D) I can say that triple monitor isn't something I wanted to keep. I ended up breaking the array down after about two weeks, it really bothered me that much.

The worst part of it was how it zoomed in the two side monitors no matter what game you were playing. Due to this Fallout 3 was pretty much pointless, as the two side monitors were woefully inaccurate on things like enemy distances.

IE - If I looked to the left monitor and saw a Deathclaw it looked like it was right on me. Turn around and bring it onto the middle one and it was miles away. This made it kind of stupid. Not only that, but the textures on the side monitors were stretched really badly. So whilst it was quite nice I just spent the whole time staring at the middle monitor, making it all kinda pointless.

It was like this in FPS too.

3D however? whilst it isn't great for all games in certain games it's absolutely fantastic. Left 4 Dead, for example, is seriously enhanced by it. It makes using a melee weapon so much more accurate as distance is much easier to judge when you have a full 3D model running toward you. Because the screen has depth it is easy to see just how long, for an example, the Samurai sword is, making it far easier to time swinging the thing at an incoming zombie.

Plus, 3D is absolutely tons of fun. Throwing a pipe bomb and then standing as close as you can and watching the spray is absolutely hilarious, and things like sparks falling from the overhead power cables are really cool.

It definitely adds another dimension to gaming (pardon the pun) and I really love playing most of my games in 3D now. I didn't bother to play Alan wake, however, because of that horrible warping thing it does. It made me feel quite ill. But, it's a simple matter of not launching Tridef and not putting the glasses on and you have a completely normal desktop set up.


Again, try 3 and you'll never come back!

I thought it was nobbish too at first

It is. And when you start to notice the flaws you then have to continually keep convincing yourself it isn't nobbish. Which for me is very very hard, so I took them down and broke out the Polyfilla.
 
Last edited:
Haven't noticed any flaws that outweigh te benefits. It may be a case of us playing different games. Simulators are where my heart lies and for flight sims, triple monitor is the most worthwhile thing in the world.

BF3 is also great in three screens but haven't played much in 3 screens yet.
 
3 monitor gaming rocks. There is no way I can go back to single display lol, it's like losing two eyes.

So GTX 680 does 29 fps in Heaven? That's v-sync people mentioned, and that "middle monitor" with higher fps - weird.
Mine 7970 @ 1125 & 1575 does 25 fps.
 
urgh am i better spending my 400 this month spare on a 2nd 7970 or sell it and get 2 680s. The puzzling problem that only few have but i'm having it.
 
Try 3 screens with 3D and try going back to normal gaming! just won't happen!

Tried it, most of the games I play tho 3D feels restrictive to play compared to normal 2D and while some games work very nicely with 3 monitors I can't get past the bezels in a lot of games especially fps games tho somewhat easier in racing games especially as some try to place the joints where the bulkheads are in the cars.
 
Back
Top Bottom