• 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.

Whats more important for gaming, Clock speed or memory.

Rigged089

Rigged089

Rigged089

Associate
Joined
25 Sep 2012
Posts
17
I'm endlessly searching for a decent card for around £200-250.

I was highly attracted by the GTX 660Ti but then saw the HD7950 for the same price. However, the GTX has a faster clock and the Radeon has an extra 1GB of memory. My head is spinning.

What is more important?

Any advice is highly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.
 
You can't compare the clock speed of a 660ti to the clock speed of anything other than another 660ti, it's meaningless. With each 'clock' the actions of a 660ti are vastly different to those of a 7950.

The memory is comparable to a degree, but 2gb is fine for 1080p.

the 7950 is a better card for the money.

edit: an example would be the AMD 7770. Clocked at 1ghz it does not come anywhere near the gtx580 which had a stock clock of 782mhz or something similar.
 
OptimaLnrg said:
You can't compare the clock speed of a 660ti to the clock speed of anything other than another 660ti, it's meaningless. With each 'clock' the actions of a 660ti are vastly different to those of a 7950.

The memory is comparable to a degree, but 2gb is fine for 1080p.

the 7950 is a better card for the money.
Click to expand...

This. Like Intel and AMD CPUs, both Nvidia and AMD GPUs are based off different architectures, so it's pointless comparing clock speeds between the two since each architecture works differently.

As for your budget, the AMD 7950 will do nicely. With the latest 12.11 beta drivers as well it boosts the 7950 pretty much up to Nvidia 670 levels, as well as the easy overclocking on it to boost it's performance even higher.
 
SkodaMart said:
Which is why Crossfire and SLi isn't always the best answer.
Click to expand...

:D It was a crap answer years back when you had to virtually run 2 cards just to play some games.....It's just plain irrelevant nowadays with these high performance single GPU's, unless you play benchmarks
 
Memory overclocks seem to give the best performance, at least with my 670. But to get the best performance from the memory overclock, you'll need to clock the core up too :P
 
illuz said:
Memory overclocks seem to give the best performance, at least with my 670. But to get the best performance from the memory overclock, you'll need to clock the core up too :P
Click to expand...

Good night last night ?

Maybe another coffee or two before logging into the forum will help :D
 
As above - can't compare speeds across different cards. A 192/256 bit card (all the nVidia 600 series) gain pretty decent from memory overclocking if you're using MSAA. If not then they won't gain all that much.

The gains from overclocking the core are linear almost and well worth doing.
 
JAKUS said:
Makes sense to me but the op was asking about 2 different manufacturers cards, One had higher core, the other more memory...fallen in yet ? :D
Click to expand...

Hell we're on an overclocking board hahaha, I just assumed! My bad :D

Go for either and clock them to hell and back anyway ;)
 
JAKUS said:
:D It was a crap answer years back when you had to virtually run 2 cards just to play some games.....It's just plain irrelevant nowadays with these high performance single GPU's, unless you play benchmarks
Click to expand...

Or have triple monitors, or a single 1440p/1600p monitor and want to run at the highest settings, or you want to take advantage of 3D, or want to split the cost over time: buy a midrange card now, buy another in a few months and maybe get better than high end single-card performance...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom