Solved

gtx 880 vs amd hd 9970

maxwell vs hawii island i think who do u think would win.
21 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about gtx 880 amd 9970
  1. Gtx980 solos
  2. If history is any lesson, nVidia will take the $200 and up categories and AMD the ones below.
  3. Funnily enough they aren't out yet, so no one knows.
  4. Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.
  5. 17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.
  6. cookybiscuit said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.


    That is because of the domination of Nvidia. AMD had to lower their $550 HD7970 down to its current price of $350, develop factory overclocked versions, and incredible game bundles just to sell any cards. Still, Nvidia outsold AMD 3 to 1 this last generation.

    All the same, pricing is not what we're talking about here. The GK110 chip exemplifies performance domination over Tahiti. No one with any sense of history and business logic would assume that somehow struggling-to-turn a profit AMD would suddenly come out on top of Nvidia in terms of performance technology.
  7. 17seconds said:

    All the same, pricing is not what we're talking about here. The GK110 chip exemplifies performance domination over Tahiti. No one with any sense of history and business logic would assume that somehow struggling-to-turn a profit AMD would suddenly come out on top of Nvidia in terms of performance technology.

    Pricing kind of is the issue though. No doubt the Nvidia card are better, but they come with a price premium, and a bloody big one. The AMD cards consume a bit less power, and because of this, usually run a bit hotter and louder, if you can live with that, chances are theres an AMD card for atleast 20% less than the Nvidia counterpart thats the same speed if not faster. At Least that was the case in the few months leading to the 7xx launch, I think AMD had it wrapped up across every price range.

    I see where you are coming from though, AMD is obviously going through tough times. I imagine even if the 9000 series disappoints in terms of performance, Nvidia will just release comparable products at comparable prices to maximize profit, makes more sense to do that, and doesn't really affect the consumer.
  8. GK110 has a huge die, it's not just "better", it's higher cost to manufacture.

    AMD could do it. Some argue it couldn't but it's nonsense. The only argument that makes sense is that NVIDIA is more successful in general and can sell more GK110 even to the Quadro market.
  9. well here is my take on this situation. amd is going to make a lot of money on their console GPU market, but nvidia is making some aswell with their project shield. However I believe the HD 9970 will double in performance from the 7970 and still cost less than a titan almost half. And performance wise it will be slightly less than titan. Slightly less performance for half the cost is a deal brakers, now we know Nvidia is going to release ARM cores with their maxwell lineup and the current prices they have on their 7xx refreshed cards are going to entice people to buy those cards, with hopes of them buying the gtx 8xx cards because due to the arm technology the performance will jump significantly.
  10. cookybiscuit said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.


    I agree my 7970 matrix p(30% faster than my evga 680 when both oced) pars a 780 , I have 2 680s at the moment because of the micro stutter issue which amd has now fixed. I'm tempted to get another matrix but 9970 and 4k are too close. 680's were a real disappointment they just fall short of maxing crisis 3 @ 1080p. 2 7970's always were and are still the better choice oced they can just about carry crisis 3 above 60 fps maxed out @1080p. and so should have a good couple years life in them, playing games the way they are meant to be played unlike the 680's 770's with 2gb VRAM that just can't or the 780 which is just far to overpriced for perfomance that you could have had since cards like the 7970 lightning launched
  11. Best answer
    How about the architecture isn't even out yet so everyones opinions are not valid?
  12. Well according to the rumor mill at WCCFTECH.com, the 9970 will be on the old 28nm process, same as Tahiti. If true, then this is more of a refresh than a new generation. The GTX 880 will be a new 20nm process and an innovative new architecture.
    http://wccftech.com/amd-volcanic-islands-family-hawaii-xt-hawaii-pro-possibly-based-current-gcn-architectures/
  13. The GTX7xx series was a refresh too. Since it just came out I am willing to bet the GTX8xx series is quite aways off.

    IMO, The 9xxx series will probably once again claim top performance until NVidia releases something else. They seem to trade off every generation.
  14. smeezekitty said:
    The GTX7xx series was a refresh too. Since it just came out I am willing to bet the GTX8xx series is quite aways off.

    IMO, The 9xxx series will probably once again claim top performance until NVidia releases something else. They seem to trade off every generation.


    Now they do. Before it was mainly the same time each generation.
  15. Maxwell will be a die shrink, so it is safe to assume it will be faster than the 9xxx series coming out in September/October of this year. But if you are talking about AMD's 20nm GPU coming afterwards, then nobody knows.
  16. reedy777 said:
    cookybiscuit said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.


    I agree my 7970 matrix p(30% faster than my evga 680 when both oced) pars a 780 , I have 2 680s at the moment because of the micro stutter issue which amd has now fixed. I'm tempted to get another matrix but 9970 and 4k are too close. 680's were a real disappointment they just fall short of maxing crisis 3 @ 1080p. 2 7970's always were and are still the better choice oced they can just about carry crisis 3 above 60 fps maxed out @1080p. and so should have a good couple years life in them, playing games the way they are meant to be played unlike the 680's 770's with 2gb VRAM that just can't or the 780 which is just far to overpriced for perfomance that you could have had since cards like the 7970 lightning launched


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWhv8FvXdGs
    Your 7970 is nowhere near a reference 780 and the 7970's do NOT have physx. So to compare them to almost any nvidia card, you must turn off physx in the game. Do this and go back to comparing your 7970 to your 680s. The AMD side also has many driver issues at the moment. End point is that at the moment, Nvidia is dominating and therefore able to put on huge price premiums because consumers will pay them. This is yet another reason for us to be against amd as they aren't even competing at the moment. Once the console explosion happens, hopefully amd will have the revenue to step up their game and bring prices back under 4 digits
  17. Brantyn Gerik said:
    reedy777 said:
    cookybiscuit said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.


    I agree my 7970 matrix p(30% faster than my evga 680 when both oced) pars a 780 , I have 2 680s at the moment because of the micro stutter issue which amd has now fixed. I'm tempted to get another matrix but 9970 and 4k are too close. 680's were a real disappointment they just fall short of maxing crisis 3 @ 1080p. 2 7970's always were and are still the better choice oced they can just about carry crisis 3 above 60 fps maxed out @1080p. and so should have a good couple years life in them, playing games the way they are meant to be played unlike the 680's 770's with 2gb VRAM that just can't or the 780 which is just far to overpriced for perfomance that you could have had since cards like the 7970 lightning launched


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWhv8FvXdGs
    Your 7970 is nowhere near a reference 780 and the 7970's do NOT have physx. So to compare them to almost any nvidia card, you must turn off physx in the game. Do this and go back to comparing your 7970 to your 680s. The AMD side also has many driver issues at the moment. End point is that at the moment, Nvidia is dominating and therefore able to put on huge price premiums because consumers will pay them. This is yet another reason for us to be against amd as they aren't even competing at the moment. Once the console explosion happens, hopefully amd will have the revenue to step up their game and bring prices back under 4 digits


    You commented on a month old thread.
    Why?
  18. 17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.


    So you are saying that the new GTX 700s beat the old HD 7000s? Oh dear oh dear, just wait until the 8000s come out, then you can compare the two brands and only THEN can you say that nVidia dominated this current gen.
  19. Skace said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.


    So you are saying that the new GTX 700s beat the old HD 7000s? Oh dear oh dear, just wait until the 8000s come out, then you can compare the two brands and only THEN can you say that nVidia dominated this current gen.


    Oh dear oh dear.
    You know that the 8000 series are laptop gpu's; and that the next generation desktop gpu's are going to be the 9000 series?
    And clock for clock nvidia beats amd; they also have better frame latency.

    Both brands are good. Arguing over which is better is like arguing over whether oranges taste better than apples.
  20. Brantyn Gerik said:
    reedy777 said:
    cookybiscuit said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.


    I agree my 7970 matrix p(30% faster than my evga 680 when both oced) pars a 780 , I have 2 680s at the moment because of the micro stutter issue which amd has now fixed. I'm tempted to get another matrix but 9970 and 4k are too close. 680's were a real disappointment they just fall short of maxing crisis 3 @ 1080p. 2 7970's always were and are still the better choice oced they can just about carry crisis 3 above 60 fps maxed out @1080p. and so should have a good couple years life in them, playing games the way they are meant to be played unlike the 680's 770's with 2gb VRAM that just can't or the 780 which is just far to overpriced for perfomance that you could have had since cards like the 7970 lightning launched


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWhv8FvXdGs
    Your 7970 is nowhere near a reference 780 and the 7970's do NOT have physx. So to compare them to almost any nvidia card, you must turn off physx in the game. Do this and go back to comparing your 7970 to your 680s. The AMD side also has many driver issues at the moment. End point is that at the moment, Nvidia is dominating and therefore able to put on huge price premiums because consumers will pay them. This is yet another reason for us to be against amd as they aren't even competing at the moment. Once the console explosion happens, hopefully amd will have the revenue to step up their game and bring prices back under 4 digits

    The GTX780 does beat the 7970 performance wise. There is no arguing that.

    But I can only laugh at the fanboys that seem to think that Physx is so meaningful.

    Its only used in a handful of games, and in most of those, it will even work on the CPU.
    Absurd argument to base a decision on something like that unless you play games such as Batman heavily.
  21. smeezekitty said:
    Brantyn Gerik said:
    reedy777 said:
    cookybiscuit said:
    17seconds said:
    Considering that Nvidia completely dominated this current generation and won't have its PC resources diverted into console development, it would be prescient to expect another dominating performance in favor of the GTX 880.

    I wouldn't say that. 6xx vs 7xxx, AMD was faster for less money.


    I agree my 7970 matrix p(30% faster than my evga 680 when both oced) pars a 780 , I have 2 680s at the moment because of the micro stutter issue which amd has now fixed. I'm tempted to get another matrix but 9970 and 4k are too close. 680's were a real disappointment they just fall short of maxing crisis 3 @ 1080p. 2 7970's always were and are still the better choice oced they can just about carry crisis 3 above 60 fps maxed out @1080p. and so should have a good couple years life in them, playing games the way they are meant to be played unlike the 680's 770's with 2gb VRAM that just can't or the 780 which is just far to overpriced for perfomance that you could have had since cards like the 7970 lightning launched


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWhv8FvXdGs
    Your 7970 is nowhere near a reference 780 and the 7970's do NOT have physx. So to compare them to almost any nvidia card, you must turn off physx in the game. Do this and go back to comparing your 7970 to your 680s. The AMD side also has many driver issues at the moment. End point is that at the moment, Nvidia is dominating and therefore able to put on huge price premiums because consumers will pay them. This is yet another reason for us to be against amd as they aren't even competing at the moment. Once the console explosion happens, hopefully amd will have the revenue to step up their game and bring prices back under 4 digits

    The GTX780 does beat the 7970 performance wise. There is no arguing that.

    But I can only laugh at the fanboys that seem to think that Physx is so meaningful.

    Its only used in a handful of games, and in most of those, it will even work on the CPU.
    Absurd argument to base a decision on something like that unless you play games such as Batman heavily.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support
    There are actually quite a few games that do use phsyx to some extent. It does cause a performance hit in many of those games too of up to 5%. 5% may not seem like much but it goes a long way in the epeen measuring contest. I personally haven't tried running physx through, and it may be something i try during future benchmarks. It is not "SO" meaningful, but like I said before, that possible 5% has been more than enough to put the fire out on the brand wars before.
Ask a new question

Read More

Gtx Graphics Cards AMD HD Nvidia