HELP! new SLI or crossfire?
Tags:
- Crossfire
- SLI
-
Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 9:54:08 AM
Hey.
Hope I can get some help picking up some new graphic cards.
I am curently running with 3xGTX 480 in sli (the third one is not making af big difference. so I will go after 2 cards)
So here is my question witch Will be the best:
2x 650ti Boost
2x Radeon HD 7870
or
2x gtx 660 ti
My screen is a 120Hz benQ so I will need the highest Fps all the time more than just running the game at 30-40 Fps
My pc is a :
ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77
Intel Core i7-3770K
Kingston 16 GBytes
3xGTX 480
Thx for your help.
Cheers Dennis
Hope I can get some help picking up some new graphic cards.
I am curently running with 3xGTX 480 in sli (the third one is not making af big difference. so I will go after 2 cards)
So here is my question witch Will be the best:
2x 650ti Boost
2x Radeon HD 7870
or
2x gtx 660 ti
My screen is a 120Hz benQ so I will need the highest Fps all the time more than just running the game at 30-40 Fps
My pc is a :
ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77
Intel Core i7-3770K
Kingston 16 GBytes
3xGTX 480
Thx for your help.
Cheers Dennis
More about : sli crossfire
siddharthmukul007
August 26, 2013 10:02:07 AM
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:13:50 AM
siddharthmukul007 said:
you should remember that a single more powerful card is always better then 2 cards in SLI or CFX.that said you can look at the GTX680 or a GTX770
Completely disagree. It's all situational. 2x 7950's are about 20% faster then Titan at less than half the price $440 vs $1000. I'd go for 2x 7950 all day every day.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
m
0
l
Related resources
- Need some help, new to this, sli/crossfire - Forum
- Help with a New Graphics Card [No SLI/Crossfire] - Forum
- Hd 6950 crossfire or gtx 560 ti sli, New build help!! - Forum
- Crossfire SLI Help? - Forum
- Will using a second video card help performance (non crossfire sli)? - Forum
siddharthmukul007 said:
you should remember that a single more powerful card is always better then 2 cards in SLI or CFX.that said you can look at the GTX680 or a GTX770
So says you, I say that two cards in SLi are better!
@OP, I would go for the 2x 660's (I did by the way), better performance than a 680 and cheaper when I bought mine plus you would get twice as many free games so you could recoup some cash by selling the duplicate games making it even cheaper.
m
0
l
siddharthmukul007
August 26, 2013 10:18:26 AM
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:22:41 AM
siddharthmukul007 said:
but you should also bear in mind that some games don't scale well for multi gpus and starting off with 2 cards also greatly reduces you upgradibilitybut if you really want to....go for the GTX660ti s
By your logic, when it's time to upgrade, you would buy a single more powerful card instead of adding another in sli/crossfire because a "single more powerful card is always better then 2 cards in SLI or CFX".
m
0
l
siddharthmukul007 said:
but you should also bear in mind that some games don't scale well for multi gpus and starting off with 2 cards also greatly reduces you upgradibilitybut if you really want to....go for the GTX660ti s
I've yet to find these games that you speak of and I've been running SLi rigs since 2004, would you care to name those games that don't scale well?
m
0
l
siddharthmukul007
August 26, 2013 10:30:19 AM
flexxar said:
siddharthmukul007 said:
but you should also bear in mind that some games don't scale well for multi gpus and starting off with 2 cards also greatly reduces you upgradibilitybut if you really want to....go for the GTX660ti s
By your logic, when it's time to upgrade, you would buy a single more powerful card instead of adding another in sli/crossfire because a "single more powerful card is always better then 2 cards in SLI or CFX".
may be you should read carefully....i said that because starting off with 2 GTX660ti now. you will be able to add one more 660. Instead if you start with a 780...you are free 2 add up more as and when needed
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:31:36 AM
BigMack70 said:
2xGTX 670 would be the minimum I'd recommend for upgrading from 3x GTX 480s. The options in this thread so far will not be much of an upgrade, even 2x7950.When 670's were released, they were slightly faster than 7950's. After some driver updates, 7950's are now faster in most games.
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/...
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:39:12 AM
siddharthmukul007 said:
flexxar said:
siddharthmukul007 said:
but you should also bear in mind that some games don't scale well for multi gpus and starting off with 2 cards also greatly reduces you upgradibilitybut if you really want to....go for the GTX660ti s
By your logic, when it's time to upgrade, you would buy a single more powerful card instead of adding another in sli/crossfire because a "single more powerful card is always better then 2 cards in SLI or CFX".
may be you should read carefully....i said that because starting off with 2 GTX660ti now. you will be able to add one more 660. Instead if you start with a 780...you are free 2 add up more as and when needed
I read it carefully. It's the word "always" that I had a problem with. I can think of plenty of scenarios where it is not true. Therefore, your statement is wrong. I can establish a better argument stating that it is always a better value for someone to buy two midrange cards and crossfire/sli them. When new gen's come out, buy two more mid range cards.
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:40:59 AM
BigMack70 said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
2xGTX 670 would be the minimum I'd recommend for upgrading from 3x GTX 480s. The options in this thread so far will not be much of an upgrade, even 2x7950.When 670's were released, they were slightly faster than 7950's. After some driver updates, 7950's are now faster in most games.
http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/...
Sorry, try again.

That was before the driver updates. There were two driver releases for the 7xxx series where they got 2 boosts of about 15% each. You didn't even visit my link did you?
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:47:09 AM
flexxar
August 26, 2013 10:57:26 AM
BigMack70 said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Nope, that was 6 days ago, across 18 games, with all drivers up to date. Your link is 10 months old. Check your facts, please. The 7950 is meaningfully slower than the 670, unless you overclock it.Where did you find it? I'd like to see where that chart came from
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_760_HAWK/
Already found a big issue on the first page. They are using an 800 mhz card. That was what the clock rate was when the 7950's were first released. I'm pretty sure they don't sell them anymore. When 28nm yields got better they turned up the default minimum. The only 7950's you can find now a days are the boost editions that are clocked around 925 mhz or higher.
m
0
l
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 10:59:13 AM
Is the GTX 480 in SLI really so fast compared to those I suggested?
But will I get the same performance by bying a GTX 680 For than it's just not the money worth it. . .
I get pretty good Fps in most games. . but will be willing to pay that extra for the price of those cards. (I know that the best will be to buy a faster card and then add one later.)
but with that said would I not see any difference by Going after the GTX 660 ti instead of my 3x GTX480?
But will I get the same performance by bying a GTX 680 For than it's just not the money worth it. . .
I get pretty good Fps in most games. . but will be willing to pay that extra for the price of those cards. (I know that the best will be to buy a faster card and then add one later.)
but with that said would I not see any difference by Going after the GTX 660 ti instead of my 3x GTX480?
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 11:14:45 AM
BigMack70 said:
flexxar said:
Already found a big issue on the first page. They are using an 800 mhz card. That was what the clock rate was when the 7950's were first released. I'm pretty sure they don't sell them anymore. When 28nm yields got better they turned up the default minimum. The only 7950's you can find now a days are the boost editions that are clocked around 925 mhz or higher.7950 =/= 7950 Boost
And you can buy 7950s with clock speeds anywhere from 800 MHz to 925 MHz.
The 7950 needs to be clocked to about 950-975 MHz to match a stock GTX 670.
I see 12 7950's listed on newegg. I saw 1 of them that was clocked at 800 mhz. 11/12 were 840mhz or higher. I just bought a second sapphire 7950 boost 925 mhz for $200 from newegg last week. I even overclocked it to 1150mhz core/1400mhz mem without touching voltage. I don't think any card on earth can match that value.
m
0
l
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 11:21:40 AM
BigMack70 said:
DennisDK said:
Is the GTX 480 in SLI really so fast compared to those I suggested? But will I get the same performance by bying a GTX 680 For than it's just not the money worth it. . .
I get pretty good Fps in most games. . but will be willing to pay that extra for the price of those cards. (I know that the best will be to buy a faster card and then add one later.)
but with that said would I not see any difference by Going after the GTX 660 ti instead of my 3x GTX480?
A GTX 480 is just slightly slower than an HD 7870... 3 of them should be in the performance ballpark of a GTX 780 and just slightly slower than a GTX 690.
okay. . But I think my Motherboard don't fully support the 3xsli. because two of them under the SLI option is in SLI and the third one there is a mark with PhysX just like in this PIC http://postimg.org/image/mu3r3089t/
that's why I ask about the 2 cards. in SLI or crossfire.
m
0
l
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Nope, that was 6 days ago, across 18 games, with all drivers up to date. Your link is 10 months old. Check your facts, please. The 7950 is meaningfully slower than the 670, unless you overclock it.Where did you find it? I'd like to see where that chart came from
TechPowerUp is one of the top 5 review sites on the web. They are the inventors of GPU-Z and are probably the #1 site on the web in terms of reliability. Why? They use 18 gaming benchmarks, far more than any other website, and they use the latest drivers. When you factor in the latest/most popular games and the latest drivers, relative performance results tend to shift over time. In this case, performance has shifted decisively over time in favor of Nvidia cards. Even so, there's never been a chart that showed the 7950 on par with a GTX 670.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
Crossfire versus SLI is the ultimate no-brainer. Most of us are aware of the long history of AMD's frame pacing problem and the recent Phase 1 "fix" in their 13.8 drivers. However, those drivers did not fix the issue for DirectX 9 games, OpenGL games, and multiple monitors. The drivers also provided only a software fix, which adds CPU overhead, for something that Nvidia corrected years ago and now addresses through its hardware. That means Nvidia hardware-based frame pacing works in all circumstances with no performance impact.
Those game incompatibilities mentioned earlier on up are predominantly Crossfire problems. Again, TechPowerUp out of their 18 gaming benchmarks found the following 6 games to scale poorly or display negative scaling in SLI: Assassin's Creed 3, Batman: Arkham City, F1 2012, StarCraft II, Skyrim, and World of Warcraft. And note, these are extremely popular games that have been around for a long time with still no proper driver support. As TPU said:
"So either AMD does not care or can't fix CrossFire support with these games millions of people play."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/31.html
SLI doesn't suffer in the same way from a lack of game support, and if they did history suggests it would be a short-term issue before a driver fix was forthcoming. Nvidia even has Nvidia Update software to deliver the latest game profiles the moment they are released. HardOCP has written about this for years, and Guru3d made note of it in their recent review of GTX 760's in SLI:
"...over time NVIDIA has done a great job, micro-stuttering is a thing of the past and there are hardly any driver issues. And with triple A game titles, NVIDIA will have a driver for you at launch day ensuring your multi-GPU solution is supported."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_sl...
And again, just to give an example of real-world frustrations with Crossfire, here's a guy on this thread (link below) that went and got himself a very expensive 7990 and now has to use a frame limiter just to be able to play Far Cry 3. Let me repeat, he has to limit his FPS to 40 with a 7990 in order to get smooth performance using the latest 13.8 frame pacing drivers. And no, this is not a one-off isolated case.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1777649/870-7990-c...
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 11:25:40 AM
BigMack70 said:
Don't move the goalposts. Your claim was this:Quote:
When 670's were released, they were slightly faster than 7950's. After some driver updates, 7950's are now faster in most games.And it's not true. Even if you bought the fastest factory OC'd 7950 on newegg, it is slower than a stock 670 on average. You need to overclock the 7950 - even a boost edition 7950 - to have it beat a 670.
And obviously the 7950 is the best value out there if you manually OC it. But that's not what I was talking about.
Holy crap! The cheapest 670 on newegg is $310. Why are we even having this conversation? Compare it to a 7970 for a fair price comparison.
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 11:28:20 AM
17seconds said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Nope, that was 6 days ago, across 18 games, with all drivers up to date. Your link is 10 months old. Check your facts, please. The 7950 is meaningfully slower than the 670, unless you overclock it.Where did you find it? I'd like to see where that chart came from
TechPowerUp is one of the top 5 review sites on the web. They are the inventors of GPU-Z and are probably the #1 site on the web in terms of reliability. Why? They use 18 gaming benchmarks, far more than any other website, and they use the latest drivers. When you factor in the latest/most popular games and the latest drivers, relative performance results tend to shift over time. In this case, performance has shifted decisively over time in favor of Nvidia cards. Even so, there's never been a chart that showed the 7950 on par with a GTX 670.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
Crossfire versus SLI is the ultimate no-brainer. Most of us are aware of the long history of AMD's frame pacing problem and the recent Phase 1 "fix" in their 13.8 drivers. However, those drivers did not fix the issue for DirectX 9 games, OpenGL games, and multiple monitors. The drivers also provided only a software fix, which adds CPU overhead, for something that Nvidia corrected years ago and now addresses through its hardware. That means Nvidia hardware-based frame pacing works in all circumstances with no performance impact.
Those game incompatibilities mentioned earlier on up are predominantly Crossfire problems. Again, TechPowerUp out of their 18 gaming benchmarks found the following 6 games to scale poorly or display negative scaling in SLI: Assassin's Creed 3, Batman: Arkham City, F1 2012, StarCraft II, Skyrim, and World of Warcraft. And note, these are extremely popular games that have been around for a long time with still no proper driver support. As TPU said:
"So either AMD does not care or can't fix CrossFire support with these games millions of people play."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/31.html
SLI doesn't suffer in the same way from a lack of game support, and if they did history suggests it would be a short-term issue before a driver fix was forthcoming. Nvidia even has Nvidia Update software to deliver the latest game profiles the moment they are released. HardOCP has written about this for years, and Guru3d made note of it in their recent review of GTX 760's in SLI:
"...over time NVIDIA has done a great job, micro-stuttering is a thing of the past and there are hardly any driver issues. And with triple A game titles, NVIDIA will have a driver for you at launch day ensuring your multi-GPU solution is supported."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_sl...
And again, just to give an example of real-world frustrations with Crossfire, here's a guy on this thread (link below) that went and got himself a very expensive 7990 and now has to use a frame limiter just to be able to play Far Cry 3. Let me repeat, he has to limit his FPS to 40 with a 7990 in order to get smooth performance using the latest 13.8 frame pacing drivers. And no, this is not a one-off isolated case.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1777649/870-7990-c...
Frame pacing was fixed in amd's latest beta drivers. And like i stated, compare the 670 to 7970 because they are similarly priced. Leave the 7950 out of this.
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 11:32:20 AM
BigMack70 said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Don't move the goalposts. Your claim was this:Quote:
When 670's were released, they were slightly faster than 7950's. After some driver updates, 7950's are now faster in most games.And it's not true. Even if you bought the fastest factory OC'd 7950 on newegg, it is slower than a stock 670 on average. You need to overclock the 7950 - even a boost edition 7950 - to have it beat a 670.
And obviously the 7950 is the best value out there if you manually OC it. But that's not what I was talking about.
Holy crap! The cheapest 670 on newegg is $310. Why are we even having this conversation? Compare it to a 7970 for a fair price comparison.
We're having this comparison because YOU decided to try and pick on my recommendation without checking your facts.
No, we're having it because you said don't buy 7950's, buy 670's. Well, what you should have said is don't buy 7950's or 670's, buy 7970's.
m
0
l
flexxar said:
17seconds said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Nope, that was 6 days ago, across 18 games, with all drivers up to date. Your link is 10 months old. Check your facts, please. The 7950 is meaningfully slower than the 670, unless you overclock it.Where did you find it? I'd like to see where that chart came from
TechPowerUp is one of the top 5 review sites on the web. They are the inventors of GPU-Z and are probably the #1 site on the web in terms of reliability. Why? They use 18 gaming benchmarks, far more than any other website, and they use the latest drivers. When you factor in the latest/most popular games and the latest drivers, relative performance results tend to shift over time. In this case, performance has shifted decisively over time in favor of Nvidia cards. Even so, there's never been a chart that showed the 7950 on par with a GTX 670.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
Crossfire versus SLI is the ultimate no-brainer. Most of us are aware of the long history of AMD's frame pacing problem and the recent Phase 1 "fix" in their 13.8 drivers. However, those drivers did not fix the issue for DirectX 9 games, OpenGL games, and multiple monitors. The drivers also provided only a software fix, which adds CPU overhead, for something that Nvidia corrected years ago and now addresses through its hardware. That means Nvidia hardware-based frame pacing works in all circumstances with no performance impact.
Those game incompatibilities mentioned earlier on up are predominantly Crossfire problems. Again, TechPowerUp out of their 18 gaming benchmarks found the following 6 games to scale poorly or display negative scaling in SLI: Assassin's Creed 3, Batman: Arkham City, F1 2012, StarCraft II, Skyrim, and World of Warcraft. And note, these are extremely popular games that have been around for a long time with still no proper driver support. As TPU said:
"So either AMD does not care or can't fix CrossFire support with these games millions of people play."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/31.html
SLI doesn't suffer in the same way from a lack of game support, and if they did history suggests it would be a short-term issue before a driver fix was forthcoming. Nvidia even has Nvidia Update software to deliver the latest game profiles the moment they are released. HardOCP has written about this for years, and Guru3d made note of it in their recent review of GTX 760's in SLI:
"...over time NVIDIA has done a great job, micro-stuttering is a thing of the past and there are hardly any driver issues. And with triple A game titles, NVIDIA will have a driver for you at launch day ensuring your multi-GPU solution is supported."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_sl...
And again, just to give an example of real-world frustrations with Crossfire, here's a guy on this thread (link below) that went and got himself a very expensive 7990 and now has to use a frame limiter just to be able to play Far Cry 3. Let me repeat, he has to limit his FPS to 40 with a 7990 in order to get smooth performance using the latest 13.8 frame pacing drivers. And no, this is not a one-off isolated case.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1777649/870-7990-c...
Frame pacing was fixed in amd's latest beta drivers. And like i stated, compare the 670 to 7970 because they are similarly priced. Leave the 7950 out of this.
According to that link the guy with the 7990 is using the latest beta 2 driver and he still has problems so it would seem as though the driver hasn't fixed everything.
m
0
l
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 11:37:37 AM
BigMack70 said:
DennisDK said:
BigMack70 said:
DennisDK said:
Is the GTX 480 in SLI really so fast compared to those I suggested? But will I get the same performance by bying a GTX 680 For than it's just not the money worth it. . .
I get pretty good Fps in most games. . but will be willing to pay that extra for the price of those cards. (I know that the best will be to buy a faster card and then add one later.)
but with that said would I not see any difference by Going after the GTX 660 ti instead of my 3x GTX480?
A GTX 480 is just slightly slower than an HD 7870... 3 of them should be in the performance ballpark of a GTX 780 and just slightly slower than a GTX 690.
okay. . But I think my Motherboard don't fully support the 3xsli. because two of them under the SLI option is in SLI and the third one there is a mark with PhysX just like in this PIC http://postimg.org/image/mu3r3089t/
that's why I ask about the 2 cards. in SLI or crossfire.
I still stick to my recommendation that the minimum you should be considering is two 670s. For 120 Hz 1080p, I think the ideal would be to sell your trio of 480s and pick up a pair of 770s. Total cost to you should only be $300-400 after the sale of your 480s.
If i can get them sold
they are some hungry monsters and are running so hot. . (another reason to replace them) but witch one of the 770 2GB or the 4GB
one thing is for sure. I have to sell my 3 GTX 480 before buying 2 new 770 they are so Expensive in Danmark :S (about 573$ for the 770 4GB)
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 11:38:32 AM
Mousemonkey said:
flexxar said:
17seconds said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Nope, that was 6 days ago, across 18 games, with all drivers up to date. Your link is 10 months old. Check your facts, please. The 7950 is meaningfully slower than the 670, unless you overclock it.Where did you find it? I'd like to see where that chart came from
TechPowerUp is one of the top 5 review sites on the web. They are the inventors of GPU-Z and are probably the #1 site on the web in terms of reliability. Why? They use 18 gaming benchmarks, far more than any other website, and they use the latest drivers. When you factor in the latest/most popular games and the latest drivers, relative performance results tend to shift over time. In this case, performance has shifted decisively over time in favor of Nvidia cards. Even so, there's never been a chart that showed the 7950 on par with a GTX 670.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
Crossfire versus SLI is the ultimate no-brainer. Most of us are aware of the long history of AMD's frame pacing problem and the recent Phase 1 "fix" in their 13.8 drivers. However, those drivers did not fix the issue for DirectX 9 games, OpenGL games, and multiple monitors. The drivers also provided only a software fix, which adds CPU overhead, for something that Nvidia corrected years ago and now addresses through its hardware. That means Nvidia hardware-based frame pacing works in all circumstances with no performance impact.
Those game incompatibilities mentioned earlier on up are predominantly Crossfire problems. Again, TechPowerUp out of their 18 gaming benchmarks found the following 6 games to scale poorly or display negative scaling in SLI: Assassin's Creed 3, Batman: Arkham City, F1 2012, StarCraft II, Skyrim, and World of Warcraft. And note, these are extremely popular games that have been around for a long time with still no proper driver support. As TPU said:
"So either AMD does not care or can't fix CrossFire support with these games millions of people play."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/31.html
SLI doesn't suffer in the same way from a lack of game support, and if they did history suggests it would be a short-term issue before a driver fix was forthcoming. Nvidia even has Nvidia Update software to deliver the latest game profiles the moment they are released. HardOCP has written about this for years, and Guru3d made note of it in their recent review of GTX 760's in SLI:
"...over time NVIDIA has done a great job, micro-stuttering is a thing of the past and there are hardly any driver issues. And with triple A game titles, NVIDIA will have a driver for you at launch day ensuring your multi-GPU solution is supported."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_sl...
And again, just to give an example of real-world frustrations with Crossfire, here's a guy on this thread (link below) that went and got himself a very expensive 7990 and now has to use a frame limiter just to be able to play Far Cry 3. Let me repeat, he has to limit his FPS to 40 with a 7990 in order to get smooth performance using the latest 13.8 frame pacing drivers. And no, this is not a one-off isolated case.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1777649/870-7990-c...
Frame pacing was fixed in amd's latest beta drivers. And like i stated, compare the 670 to 7970 because they are similarly priced. Leave the 7950 out of this.
According to that link the guy with the 7990 is using the latest beta 2 driver and he still has problems so it would seem as though the driver hasn't fixed everything.
Stuttering is not the same thing as frame pacing. They are beta drivers after all. 13.4 was around 120mb. 13.8 beta 2 was around 240mb. They have some work to do still. I think most of their issues will be ironed out when they are released.
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 11:40:24 AM
BigMack70 said:
flexxar said:
No, we're having it because you said don't buy 7950's, buy 670's. Well, what you should have said is don't buy 7950's or 670's, buy 7970's.Perhaps you should read my recommendation again before making a fool of yourself any further.
Two 670s are the minimum upgrade that I believe to be worth it over 480s.
Considering that 7970's are faster and cheaper on average, 670's shouldn't even be an option.
m
0
l
flexxar said:
Mousemonkey said:
flexxar said:
17seconds said:
flexxar said:
BigMack70 said:
Nope, that was 6 days ago, across 18 games, with all drivers up to date. Your link is 10 months old. Check your facts, please. The 7950 is meaningfully slower than the 670, unless you overclock it.Where did you find it? I'd like to see where that chart came from
TechPowerUp is one of the top 5 review sites on the web. They are the inventors of GPU-Z and are probably the #1 site on the web in terms of reliability. Why? They use 18 gaming benchmarks, far more than any other website, and they use the latest drivers. When you factor in the latest/most popular games and the latest drivers, relative performance results tend to shift over time. In this case, performance has shifted decisively over time in favor of Nvidia cards. Even so, there's never been a chart that showed the 7950 on par with a GTX 670.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_6...
Crossfire versus SLI is the ultimate no-brainer. Most of us are aware of the long history of AMD's frame pacing problem and the recent Phase 1 "fix" in their 13.8 drivers. However, those drivers did not fix the issue for DirectX 9 games, OpenGL games, and multiple monitors. The drivers also provided only a software fix, which adds CPU overhead, for something that Nvidia corrected years ago and now addresses through its hardware. That means Nvidia hardware-based frame pacing works in all circumstances with no performance impact.
Those game incompatibilities mentioned earlier on up are predominantly Crossfire problems. Again, TechPowerUp out of their 18 gaming benchmarks found the following 6 games to scale poorly or display negative scaling in SLI: Assassin's Creed 3, Batman: Arkham City, F1 2012, StarCraft II, Skyrim, and World of Warcraft. And note, these are extremely popular games that have been around for a long time with still no proper driver support. As TPU said:
"So either AMD does not care or can't fix CrossFire support with these games millions of people play."
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7990/31.html
SLI doesn't suffer in the same way from a lack of game support, and if they did history suggests it would be a short-term issue before a driver fix was forthcoming. Nvidia even has Nvidia Update software to deliver the latest game profiles the moment they are released. HardOCP has written about this for years, and Guru3d made note of it in their recent review of GTX 760's in SLI:
"...over time NVIDIA has done a great job, micro-stuttering is a thing of the past and there are hardly any driver issues. And with triple A game titles, NVIDIA will have a driver for you at launch day ensuring your multi-GPU solution is supported."
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_sl...
And again, just to give an example of real-world frustrations with Crossfire, here's a guy on this thread (link below) that went and got himself a very expensive 7990 and now has to use a frame limiter just to be able to play Far Cry 3. Let me repeat, he has to limit his FPS to 40 with a 7990 in order to get smooth performance using the latest 13.8 frame pacing drivers. And no, this is not a one-off isolated case.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1777649/870-7990-c...
Frame pacing was fixed in amd's latest beta drivers. And like i stated, compare the 670 to 7970 because they are similarly priced. Leave the 7950 out of this.
According to that link the guy with the 7990 is using the latest beta 2 driver and he still has problems so it would seem as though the driver hasn't fixed everything.
Stuttering is not the same thing as frame pacing. They are beta drivers after all. 13.4 was around 120mb. 13.8 beta 2 was around 240mb. They have some work to do still. I think most of there issues will be ironed out when they are released.
I think you'll find that it is exactly the same thing, calling it something different doesn't make it something different.
m
0
l
BigMack70 said:
flexxar said:
Considering that 7970's are faster and cheaper on average, 670's shouldn't even be an option.That's a very interesting claim considering that, as the chart shows above, the 7970 and 670 perform pretty much exactly the same, and the cheapest 670s and cheapest 7970s are the same price.
I smell a fanboy.
I would have thought that the moving of the goalposts was a sure sign...
m
0
l
Raheel Hasan
August 26, 2013 11:50:00 AM
BigMack70 said:
Don't move the goalposts. Your claim was this:Quote:
When 670's were released, they were slightly faster than 7950's. After some driver updates, 7950's are now faster in most games.And it's not true. Even if you bought the fastest factory OC'd 7950 on newegg, it is slower than a stock 670 on average. You need to overclock the 7950 - even a boost edition 7950 - to have it beat a 670.
And obviously the 7950 is the best value out there if you manually OC it. But that's not what I was talking about.
Some people dont surrender even after seeing the facts so after giving the facts there is no reason to argue with them
m
0
l
Raheel Hasan
August 26, 2013 11:52:16 AM
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 11:55:40 AM
I think I will stay with SLI what I can read about SLI and Crossfire (and I have SLI now and that is working with no problems and great speed)
so to finish this I understand that I minimum have to grab GTX670 or higher to see a real Difference in games. . even though my Z77 MB is not fully support by the 3 SLI (last of them is only used for PhysX )
Still think the GTX 650 Ti boost is selling at a real good price. . but if it's just waste of money I would not buy them....
so to finish this I understand that I minimum have to grab GTX670 or higher to see a real Difference in games. . even though my Z77 MB is not fully support by the 3 SLI (last of them is only used for PhysX )
Still think the GTX 650 Ti boost is selling at a real good price. . but if it's just waste of money I would not buy them....
m
0
l
Of course, GTX 760's are considerably cheaper than 670's and run at just under their performance level. A pair of those MSI GTX 760 Hawk's in SLI would be very nice. But if you are in the budget range of a pair of GTX 650 Ti Boosts, then your next step up would be a pair of GTX 660's, which would then get you a free copy of Splinter Cell Blacklist, which the 650 Ti Boosts do not offer.
m
0
l
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 12:11:38 PM
hehe
and that's for sure not worth the money!! because I can turn off the heat when I game a whole night
Think I will stay with the GTX480 a while and put some money a'side to grab the GTX 770 at a good price
one last quastion? should I go for the 770 2 Gb or the 4 Gb (2gb is ofcourse a bit cheaper)
and that's for sure not worth the money!! because I can turn off the heat when I game a whole night
Think I will stay with the GTX480 a while and put some money a'side to grab the GTX 770 at a good price
one last quastion? should I go for the 770 2 Gb or the 4 Gb (2gb is ofcourse a bit cheaper)
m
0
l
On a single screen, 2GB is enough.
Here's what Hardware Canucks had to say about it in their review of the Galaxy GTX 770 GC 4GB:
"If I can veer a bit off course for a moment, the realities of today’s games and tomorrow’s applications need to be discussed before going too far into the GC 4GB’s successes and failures. With the optimizations in DX11, even the most demanding games are requiring less frame buffer capacity than ever. Next generation DX11.1 equipped console development will bring the focus towards a further streamlining of game engines, so highly detailed environments won’t require memory hogging, inefficient high resolution texture maps. As many game developers have already stated on and off the record, this will lead to an increase in the amount of raw processing power required to render a scene and a significant drop in the local memory requirements. What does a situation like this mean to cards like the GC 4GB? Now and in the future, its core processing performance will likely become a bottleneck long before more than 2GB of 7Gbps memory is required to provide a smooth gaming experience.
Naturally, the GC’s primary selling point is that 4GB of GDDR5 which panders to an odd theory some have that more memory is always better. The additional allotment may arguably be beneficial to framerates at even higher multi monitor and 4K resolutions but we’d beg to differ. As we’ve seen again and again, increased memory size will hardly ever allow a card to return completely playable framerates where the reference version could not. The reason for this is simple: the architecture itself becomes a bottleneck long before framebuffer limitations are reached.
In the grand scheme of things, at ultra high single monitor resolutions, the 4GB of memory really doesn’t make all that much of a difference in average framerates. However, in some rare instances like Crysis 3, it prevents framerates from plunging down into unplayable territory every now and then and that makes a huge difference in perceptual onscreen performance. That’s actually quite important since a sense of fluidity can be maintained without resorting to higher clock speeds."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
Here's what Hardware Canucks had to say about it in their review of the Galaxy GTX 770 GC 4GB:
"If I can veer a bit off course for a moment, the realities of today’s games and tomorrow’s applications need to be discussed before going too far into the GC 4GB’s successes and failures. With the optimizations in DX11, even the most demanding games are requiring less frame buffer capacity than ever. Next generation DX11.1 equipped console development will bring the focus towards a further streamlining of game engines, so highly detailed environments won’t require memory hogging, inefficient high resolution texture maps. As many game developers have already stated on and off the record, this will lead to an increase in the amount of raw processing power required to render a scene and a significant drop in the local memory requirements. What does a situation like this mean to cards like the GC 4GB? Now and in the future, its core processing performance will likely become a bottleneck long before more than 2GB of 7Gbps memory is required to provide a smooth gaming experience.
Naturally, the GC’s primary selling point is that 4GB of GDDR5 which panders to an odd theory some have that more memory is always better. The additional allotment may arguably be beneficial to framerates at even higher multi monitor and 4K resolutions but we’d beg to differ. As we’ve seen again and again, increased memory size will hardly ever allow a card to return completely playable framerates where the reference version could not. The reason for this is simple: the architecture itself becomes a bottleneck long before framebuffer limitations are reached.
In the grand scheme of things, at ultra high single monitor resolutions, the 4GB of memory really doesn’t make all that much of a difference in average framerates. However, in some rare instances like Crysis 3, it prevents framerates from plunging down into unplayable territory every now and then and that makes a huge difference in perceptual onscreen performance. That’s actually quite important since a sense of fluidity can be maintained without resorting to higher clock speeds."
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...
m
0
l
DennisDK
August 26, 2013 12:47:21 PM
17seconds said:
Of course, GTX 760's are considerably cheaper than 670's and run at just under their performance level. A pair of those MSI GTX 760 Hawk's in SLI would be very nice. But if you are in the budget range of a pair of GTX 650 Ti Boosts, then your next step up would be a pair of GTX 660's, which would then get you a free copy of Splinter Cell Blacklist, which the 650 Ti Boosts do not offer.The difference between the 660 and 760 how big is that? because the price in diffrerence is only 107$ pr. card so is the extra money worth it?
okay. I will not! buy the GTX 650 ti boost. that's for sure
m
0
l
flexxar
August 26, 2013 1:11:49 PM
Related resources
- SolvedWhat SLI/Crossfire setup should I buy for my new build? Forum
- SolvedNeed Help: SLI / Crossfire support. ASUS M5A97 R2.0 and MSI GTX 760 Forum
- SolvedDo I need a more powerful CPU every time I add a new card for SLI/Crossfire? Forum
- SolvedGTX 680 SLI or 7970 CrossFire?! PLEASE HELP! Forum
- SolvedHelp choosing a GPU: SLI, CrossFire, or Single? Forum
- SolvedSLI or Crossfire or new HD7850 Forum
- SolvedHD 7950 crossfire or buy new Graphics card? HELP!!! Forum
- SolvedSLI or Crossfire - Need help! Forum
- SolvedGPU upgrade options; I need some help. (Crossfire versus new GPU?) Forum
- SolvedNew build - Need help choosing PSU and is Crossfire worth it? Forum
- Need help with SLI/Crossfire Forum
- 670' Sli or 7970's Crossfire for a new PC? Forum
- SolvedNew SSD~ASUS_P5NE_SLI_mobo~Shows in Bios~Not in Win7~HELP? Forum
- SLI, Crossfire, or a single GPU. Please help. Forum
- SolvedNew 7950 Crossfire Setup. Could use some help. Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!