Which graphics card to get?

james_2k · 2 Sep 2012 at 15:06

haha, that ugly thing isnt going anywhere near my pc.

having said that, id pay extra for nvidia based purely on my own past experiences.

Mal X · 2 Sep 2012 at 15:33

humbug said:
For a start its £400 +, and it doesn't, BF3 is usually a much stronger bench for nvidia than AMD, its a console port / nvidia optimised game, the GTX 680 is on that slide, in the middle, the 7970 is on the right. it matches the GTX 680.

As for the performance crown, that's about to change http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-7990-graphics-card-review-battlefield-3.html

Sorry, i know this looks a bit AMD fanboi. I just can't see how nvidia make any sense at current prices, if they were the same price it would not be as clear cut for me at all.

we've already got that ugly sod on the other thread, plus if you want AMD performance you have to get 7970 crossfire

felton1592 · 2 Sep 2012 at 15:37

I thought 7970 was best for multiple screens. An over locked 670 would be better imo, but the price of 7970 if lowered would be good. Better driver support for nVidia would win the 670 for me but I appreciate both Amd and nVidia too. I've owned cards from each.

Twirlywoos · 2 Sep 2012 at 15:44

humbug said:
It's as simple as this. 7950 £250, GTX 670 £330, once overclocked the performance in BF3 is the same for both cards and yet the 7950 is £80 cheaper.

If you want to spend £330 get a 7970 which will completely Muller the GTX 670

Why is there no MSAA or 4-8AA or whatever it's called run in those benches?

Kaapstad · 2 Sep 2012 at 15:51

humbug said:
For a start its £400 +, and it doesn't, BF3 is usually a much stronger bench for nvidia than AMD, its a console port / nvidia optimised game, the GTX 680 is on that slide, in the middle, the 7970 is on the right. it matches the GTX 680.

As for the performance crown, that's about to change http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-7990-graphics-card-review-battlefield-3.html

Sorry, i know this looks a bit AMD fanboi. I just can't see how nvidia make any sense at current prices, if they were the same price it would not be as clear cut for me at all.

So your point from those graphs is as most people game @ 1600p or less get a GTX 690.

If I was going to game on a multi monitor setup I would not use either a GTX 690 or a HD 7990. I would use single GPU cards in SLI/Crossfire to get the max oc available. For multi monitor setups dual gpu cards have always been poor.

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 15:55

@ majnu, it says "highest in game settings" one would have to assume the game settings are as high as they will go, AMD usually deal better with AA than nvidia anyway, so if its (no AA on the slight) it's not done with the agenda you might be thinking of.

@ Kaapstad, agreed, its probably cheaper that way to, 7990 / GTX 690 are for people who want 8 GPU's in there case.

Mal X · 2 Sep 2012 at 17:15

gregster said:
So why not get a 680 which completely "Mullers" the 7970?

because only an idiot will spend all that extra money on a GTX 680 when the GTX 670 is far better value for money, let alone the 7970.

the GTX 680 was always going to be a waste of money, even back in march time, because any smart person will realise as the season progresses, that cheaper cards will come out soon and of a similar performance.

Rusty0611 · 2 Sep 2012 at 17:21

humbug said:
It's as simple as this. 7950 £250, GTX 670 £330, once overclocked the performance in BF3 is the same for both cards and yet the 7950 is £80 cheaper.

If you want to spend £330 get a 7970 which will completely Muller the GTX 670

At 1600. I forgot most people play at 1600.

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:02

@ Rusty0611, the reason that is there is because that's the way gaming monitor resolutions are going. most single 26" gaming monitors these days are 2560 x 1600.

But even if you do want to stick with a 21" 1920 x 1080P for a £340 card, or £400 + for the 680 the difference is still, almost nothing.

Rusty0611 · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:04

humbug said:
@ Rusty0611, the reason that is there is because that's the way gaming monitor resolutions are going. most single 26" gaming monitors these days are 2560 x 1600.

But even if you do want to stick with a 21" 1920 x 1080P for a £340 card, or £400 + for the 680 the difference is still, almost nothing.

They aren't any time yet. Not before these GPU's are dead and buried so it's still a little bit of a pointless comparison.

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:08

Rusty0611 said:
They aren't any time yet. Not before these GPU's are dead and buried so it's still a little bit of a pointless comparison.

Oh give over... look here, http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=17&catid=1120 how many 2500 + res monitors do you see there?

I see more than half of them are.

Rusty0611 · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:11

humbug said:
Oh give over... look here, http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=17&catid=1120 how many 2500 + res monitors do you see there?

I see more than half of them are.

Yes that's definitely the way to determine what monitors people have on the market and will be purchasing in the next 2-3 years

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:13

You getting ridiculous now, they are there now, people buy them now.

Gregster · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:15

humbug said:
@ Rusty0611, the reason that is there is because that's the way gaming monitor resolutions are going. most single 26" gaming monitors these days are 2560 x 1600.

But even if you do want to stick with a 21" 1920 x 1080P for a £340 card, or £400 + for the 680 the difference is still, almost nothing.

19 1080P monitors and 2 1600P monitors for sale here...That tells me the majority of gamers use 1080P.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=17&catid=1120

As for my quote earlier, it was you who said the 7970 mullers the 670. I don't see 5 fps = mullers tbh.

Rusty0611 · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:17

humbug said:
You getting ridiculous now, they are there now, people buy them now.

I'm not saying people don't buy them, I'm just saying it's a pointless comparison as:

1) the 660Ti is not made for running 2560*1600
2) monitors at that resolution are not mainstream because:

a) the cost
b) 60 Hz

Until those two issues are overcome then they won't become the normal benchmark and 1080 will remain the standard benchmark.

No need to resort to name-calling. I'm not going to ignore something you post if it's incorrect.

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:23

Rusty0611 said:
I'm not saying people don't buy them, I'm just saying it's a pointless comparison as:

1) the 660Ti is not made for running 2560*1600
2) monitors at that resolution are not mainstream because:

a) the cost
b) 60 Hz

Until those two issues are overcome then they won't become the normal benchmark and 1080 will remain the standard benchmark.

No need to resort to name-calling. I'm not going to ignore something you post if it's incorrect.

It does not matter, the 7950 is at least as fast as the GTX 670 / faster than the GTX 660ti at 1920 x 1080P and 2560 x 1600. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/23/galaxy_gtx_660_ti_gc_oc_vs_670_hd_7950/3

Gregster · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:27

humbug said:
For a start its £400 +, and it doesn't, BF3 is usually a much stronger bench for nvidia than AMD, its a console port / nvidia optimised game, the GTX 680 is on that slide, in the middle, the 7970 is on the right. it matches the GTX 680.

As for the performance crown, that's about to change http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-7990-graphics-card-review-battlefield-3.html

Sorry, i know this looks a bit AMD fanboi. I just can't see how nvidia make any sense at current prices, if they were the same price it would not be as clear cut for me at all.

Here is my cherry picked chart

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire__toxic_hd7970_6gb/7.htm

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:31

gregster said:
Here is my cherry picked chart

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire__toxic_hd7970_6gb/7.htm

July 16'th. and on 12.4 drivers???? those are one of the worst of all 7### series Drivers. get real.... That review is binned now. my review is on later drivers that's why the huge difference, what are you trying to do here with that rubbish?

Rusty0611 · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:33

humbug said:
It does not matter, the 7950 is at least as fast as the GTX 670 / faster than the GTX 660ti at 1920 x 1080P and 2560 x 1600. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/08/23/galaxy_gtx_660_ti_gc_oc_vs_670_hd_7950/3

gregster said:
Here is my cherry picked chart

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/sapphire__toxic_hd7970_6gb/7.htm

Right so now you're talking about something else?

Can I add a cherry picked chart to the mix as well?

You seem to not understand that different sites get different results. I know you like to repost the same one over and over again which you feel backs your point up repeatedly but it really isn't that difficult to find a review which shows one card favourably when the performance is relatively close.

I aggregate the ones I read and then decide. This seems like a far better way of doing things than just repeating yourself.

humbug said:
July 16'th. and on 12.4 drivers???? those are one of the worst of all 7### series Drivers. get real.... That review is binned now. my review is on later drivers that's why the huge difference.

My review is better than yours, neh neh neh neh neh. This is what you sound like.

humbug · 2 Sep 2012 at 18:39

Rusty0611 said:
Right so now you're talking about something else?

Can I add a cherry picked chart to the mix as well?

You seem to not understand that different sites get different results. I know you like to repost the same one over and over again which you feel backs your point up repeatedly but it really isn't that difficult to find a review which shows one card favourably when the performance is relatively close.

I aggregate the ones I read and then decide. This seems like a far better way of doing things than just repeating yourself.

My review is better than yours, neh neh neh neh neh. This is what you sound like.

No, i'm talking about the performance on todays drivers. you can't pull up a review with obsolete drivers and claim its relevant today. and try making a point like that with it. :rolleyes:

seriously that's just completely ridiculous.