Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Radeon 7950 Eyefinity vs GTX 680 Surround

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 22, 2012 5:19:01 PM

I have a $500 budget for a GPU and was wondering whether I should get the 7950 or the GTX 680. I am not sure which card would run multimonitors better when SLI'd/Crossfired. I know the GTX 680 is a lot faster, but the 3GB of vRAM on the 7950 might help with higher res (5760x1080) gaming. What do you all think?
a c 124 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 5:39:09 PM

680 for sure. No vanilla game I've seen uses more than 2gb of VRAM (most I saw so far is BF3 at 1.8gb at 5760x1200 max settings).

Score
0
March 22, 2012 5:41:36 PM

Hmm, that changes everything! I might just forgo my love for AMD Graphics and switch to NVIDIA. Too bad I will need more than an 850W PSU. However, if they don't restock, I might have to go with the 7950 cuz I build next week.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 124 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 5:46:01 PM

What? Why would you need more than a 850W PSU? For a single 680 and even an i7 3950k you could do it on a 500W unit.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 5:47:50 PM

I am not too keen when it comes to NVIDIA GPUs so I thought I'd ask. I am too used to hearing that NVIDIA needs a higher wattage PSU and whatnot. Nice to be safe than sorry. :p 
Score
0

Best solution

a c 124 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 5:52:36 PM

Oh, yeah. That was Fermi and yes it was a power hungry mofo. The GTX 480 was especially bad. The 680 though is very efficient, more FPS per watt than any other GPU on the market right now, and it is apparently around 170W max power usage (190W TDP, up to 225W max draw given the two 6 pin connections).

But yes I do agree a solid PSU is important. I've been happily running a 750W Corsair unit for a couple years now with crossfire 5850s and water cooling and many fans and HDDs.
Share
March 22, 2012 5:54:13 PM

Now it all comes down to timing. If the GTX 680 is restocked by next weekend, I will definitely get it! If not, I might just have to pass on it.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 5:56:05 PM

There is stock @ Newegg and Tiger tight now.

Edit.. well, there WAS @ egg a bit ago, lol.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 5:57:02 PM

I added them to cart but they were removed due to insufficient stock. I will check out Tigerdirect.com.
EDIT: Dang! It is in stock! And ships in 2 days! I am getting this so much now!
Score
0
March 22, 2012 6:01:14 PM

Best answer selected by azeem40.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 6:56:12 PM

You can pick up a 6990 for about $600 these days and destroy them both, so the logic isn't there unless you plan on adding a second 680 in SLI later.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 7:45:11 PM

Quote:
Problem is 6990s and GTX 590s have been all sold out for ages.


Hell... There is a couple of 6990's sitting on the selves at the local Fry's right now. I was there the other day. I think there were some of both at Microcenter.
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 7:48:24 PM

A 6990 is more than $100 more than a 680 ($180 more where I am), it's far more power hungry, it's waaay louder and hotter, and it manages to be, what, 10-15% faster? Not to mention multi GPU stutter (possibly).

No thanks...
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 8:02:33 PM

I see what Nvidia did with the GTX 680, they dropped compute power for gaming performance. Hopefully the the next iteration of kepler will have more compute power
Score
0
March 22, 2012 8:50:27 PM

Quote:
Most people do not live by a Fry's or Micro we all do not live in hickville USandA


You just trolled the crap out of this thread. I can't tell if you are trying to insult me or insult your self with this sentence set of words. Are you seriously trying to tell me I'm a hick because I live next to several electronics stores?

Besides the point, it can be found online as well.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 9:01:23 PM

wolfram23 said:
A 6990 is more than $100 more than a 680 ($180 more where I am), it's far more power hungry, it's waaay louder and hotter, and it manages to be, what, 10-15% faster? Not to mention multi GPU stutter (possibly).

No thanks...


Obviously it is all of those things because it is dual GPU. It might be 10-15% faster on a normal resolution setup, but 5760x1080... It's litterally the difference of playable vs. unplayable at decent setttings. I saw the MSI veriety at Fry's this past weekend for $598 (open box).

Although, I wouldn't recommend all of the above. I think I'm going to buy two 7870s when they drop to <$300. Not sure though. The fact that the new Kepler card can power 4 monitors makes me want to switch, but not at the $500 price point for one card. I'm not confident there is 1 card on the planet yet that can power 5760x1080 BF3 at >60Hz frame rate.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 9:04:18 PM

OP, why did you pick the best answer as a discussion post that wasn't related to the post? (Although good information)
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 9:20:00 PM

Holy christ how many bloody accounts do you have?!? And I'm very sure Haliburton would be rather unhappy to find out a buffoon is using their namesake.

As for the 6990, he has a $500 budget. Yes, I do admit it will be fastest at 5760x1080 for a single card solution, but at the same time, he might as well get CF 7850 instead which should be even faster and OC better. Besides, he also was wondering which card would work better when in CF/SLI, and the 680 should be the king in SLI assuming their scaling is on par with everything else these days.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 10:41:53 PM

azeem40 said:
I have a $500 budget for a GPU and was wondering whether I should get the 7950 or the GTX 680. I am not sure which card would run multimonitors better when SLI'd/Crossfired. I know the GTX 680 is a lot faster, but the 3GB of vRAM on the 7950 might help with higher res (5760x1080) gaming. What do you all think?


well compare the 680gtx to the 7970 not the 7950. Also for 3monitor user do you realy want to risk beeing bottleneck by a 2gb GPU ?

First I,m not sure yet the 680gtx can run bf3 at ultra with 4aa in multiplayer :http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/L/320025/original/BF3%20...

well first compare the 7970 not the 7950.

Personaly I won,t go with the 680gtx for my 3monitor PC even if I'm a fan of Nvidia. Personaly I'm going with 2x GPU so I can still run the next big game at max quality with 4aa. Nvidia with his 2gb might not be able to perform that.
Score
0
March 22, 2012 10:58:28 PM

Quote:
Ya I said it yesterday just prior to the GTX 680 release that 256bits memory bus and only 2GB Vram are really going to limit the GTX 680 to one monitor but then again Nvidia understands that only like less than 3% of PC gamers are running three monitors so there rational is on the right track but there conservatism might come back and bite them in the ass and i mean it is after all supposed to be a high end card.


I totaly agree that 3monitor user are a minority but the same can be said with 2560x1600 user and if your just playing in 1080p your realy wasting your money if you buy a 500$GPU.

Making that gtx680 a 3G card would have attracked both the 30inch monitor user and the tripple monitor user. Now we're torn apart.

But I guess that some 1080p user will dot he same mistake as I did and will overpay for a GPU.
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 1:59:09 AM

2gb is fine for eyefinity. I've proven this multiple times across multiple threads so I don't really feel like finding the sources again. Instead, how about you prove 2gb is not enough?
Score
0
March 23, 2012 4:03:11 AM

He is the only one who directly answered my question. Hal is barely helping me and just using one video as a one-all be-all reply to which one is better. I've seen his countless video spams in most threads regarding the 680 and the 7950.
Score
0
March 23, 2012 5:03:05 AM

I have read 6 reviews, and all of them say the card holds no bottlenecks at 5760x1080.
Score
0
March 23, 2012 5:32:01 AM

Considering the 680 is cheaper, uses the same power, and runs multimonitors just as good, I stand firm on the decision of getting the GTX 680.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 12:10:38 PM

I think someone needs an IP ban...
Score
0
March 23, 2012 1:47:54 PM

azeem40 said:
Considering the 680 is cheaper, uses the same power, and runs multimonitors just as good, I stand firm on the decision of getting the GTX 680.


Thanks for linking that hardocp page. Impressive results from the 680. I'd would LOVE to see a comparison of surround/eyefinity gaming of a single 680 vs crossfire 7850s since they are about the same price. Then I could make the decision on whether or not to get two 7870s. I'm betting the 7870s will win, but I'm not sure and would love to see results before I shell out $500+ dollars.
Score
0
a c 124 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 5:45:49 PM

Here's a thread full of people reporting their VRAM usage.

Keep in mind that anybody running SLI/CF/dual GPU card need to have their number divided by the amount of GPUs present (for example my 5850s hit 1960mb, that means it's 980mb used since GPUs mirror the same data)

http://www.overclock.net/t/1151904/bf3-actual-vram-usag...

The highest amount is the second post at just under 1900mb on a 7970. This corresponds pretty close to what HardOCP got at 5760x1200:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/12/22/amd_radeon_hd...

"RAM Usage

Now, our VRAM results in Eyefinity resolutions for your information.

Galaxy MDT GTX 580 - At Highest Playable Settings, total VRAM usage was 1.422GB. This is the same as it was at single-display resolutions, indicating this is reaching the limits of VRAM on the video card.

Radeon HD 7970 - At Highest Playable Settings, total VRAM usage was 1.851GB. This is just slightly more than in single-display mode.

Radeon HD 6970 - At Highest Playable Settings, total VRAM usage was 1.475GB. This is just slightly lower than in single-display resolutions.

Once again, not breaking past 2GB on the HD 7970, but VRAM usage is something we are going to keep an eye out more in the future on with games and we will see if any break past 2GB. "
Score
0
March 23, 2012 8:19:40 PM

Quote:
http://i1150.photobucket.com/albums/o607/headspin146/Screenshotat2012-03-23143711.png
Opp sorry I clicked on your message by accident oh well I will leave this graph I was going to link to my massage stating that GTX 680 consumes less power than 7970 ;-) Whats this about an IP ban is this on topic LOL ?


I don't think anyone argued with your comment. You are trying to convince yourself. We all know the 680 is efficient. It's in the same range as the AMD card he was talking about because they are effienient too. Who cares about a 25W difference? (It's not even that much)
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 8:41:04 PM

Quote:
"russwood1488 wrote : I think someone needs an IP ban..." right under my comment that said I think 680 uses 30watts less even. Then I think I might be getting trolled on so I look at "russwood1488" rig description and he has two 6990s and a 6970 he is clearly a Flaming Radeon bigot and I like Red Team to but I have enough logic to give credit were credit is do and the GTX 680 is a solid card bravo Nvidia.



[:russwood1488:9] I said nothing about the 680... Honestly, it's a cool card but completely lacking compute power and is something relevant. In this regard nVidia took two steps backwards.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/review/2162193/nvid...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/directcompute-openc...



Score
0
a b U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 10:14:25 PM

[:pyree] User banned for trolling. Close thread.
Score
0
!