/ Sign-up
Your question

Guys help me to buy 7970! witch one is better ?

  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics Cards
April 19, 2012 12:39:39 PM

i like soc cards so i will buy only 1000 mhz version cards from 7970 .... i know msi has 1070 but it costs a lot :( 

help me to choose from that 4 cards .... and note .... im not overlocker ! so i don't care OC potential of cards! i just use stock oc versions !





number 1 is most hcepaer but i never had Sapphire card ... is it good brand or better invest extra 30-40$ to XFX or gigabyte ?

More about : guys buy 7970 witch

April 19, 2012 12:46:36 PM

i can't buy from newegg :(  only amazon ... we don't have paypal in our county .... yes i know it sounds terrible ... but it's true :/ 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 12:54:45 PM

I'd get one of the XFX cards, probably the first one in the list. It looks like the cooler is better than the reference cooler of the second.
April 19, 2012 1:07:24 PM

yeah ... bleack edition looks good :)  secon has reference cooling system and maybe will ahve problem with overhealting i think :) )
April 19, 2012 1:37:10 PM

is Sapphire good brand ? i mean ... it's from china and XFX is from usa ^^
April 19, 2012 1:47:02 PM

XFX also has a good warranty system, I had a quick RMA that took about 1.5 weeks total. Hassle free and little questions asked, I know it has changed for the 7xxx series in terms of length but I think support quality would still be the same. I have had a 6870 RMA through them and have a 6970 that is of good quality (Arctic Accelero to keep it cool)

I say go with XFX first link.
April 19, 2012 1:51:30 PM

I can vouch for the XFX DD BE since I used one for 3 months... it's a nice card.

However, I wouldn't spend $40 more to get that over the custom Sapphire (1st link)... Sapphire is a good brand and there is no difference between the cards, really. Both are reference PCBs with custom coolers on top.
April 19, 2012 2:15:31 PM

yeah ..if there is no point to spent 40$ extra for xfx black edition .. then i will go for Sapphire ... but it's strange... no noe from you have told even a single word about gigabyte :) ))
April 19, 2012 2:16:43 PM

The same logic applies to the Gigabyte... it's a nice card, but it's just a reference PCB with a good cooler (same as the Sapphire) and therefore not worth the price premium over the Sapphire.
April 19, 2012 2:22:23 PM

BigMack70 you have a 7970 .... i know you clock is even highr 1070 but .... 1070 will give you like 2-3 fps more i think .... can you tell me please .. who much minimum fps do you have on battlefield 3 on multiplayer ... kartkand maps ... for example gulf of oman ar sharqi .... tell me please min ... avg .... max fps :)  i hope it has not dips like 680 .... 40 fps or lower ;/
April 19, 2012 2:28:08 PM

Well my info may not be too relevant, but here it is...

I had an XFX DD BE 7970 @ 1200/1710 paired with a Phenom II x6 @ 4.0 GHz, and with that setup I experienced minimum framerates of 35-40 in 64 player BF3 on maps like Karkand / Sharqi. Average fps was I think 60-65 ish with max fps of like 130 ish. (:edit: - all those framerates are for maxed out 1080p)

However, I suspect that my CPU had more to do with those minimum framerates than anything else. I would expect higher minimum framerates on an OC sandy bridge CPU. I currently have my Lightning clocked @ 1225/1600 but do not have BF3 reinstalled to test it. I'm waiting to get my 2nd Lightning before I resume gaming.
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 2:30:53 PM

My Vote goes out to number 4
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 2:37:00 PM

I have a reference 7970 Gigabyte with reference fan, no complaints at all. I used to have a Saphire 5870 aswell, both good brands by me :) .
April 19, 2012 2:38:34 PM

... minimum fps is to low :(  35-40 ? :(  meh ... same has gtx 580 as i know ... and i don't think that Phenom II x6 @ 4.0 GHz, was bottleneck for you :(  is strong enough gpu for BF3 :) 


yeah ! numer 4 looks the coolest :)  only thing worryed me is ... cooling system ^^
April 19, 2012 2:40:30 PM

can anyone tell me min fps on karkand maps with 64 on BF3 on 7970 ??? :o  some people told me that they have even 60-70 fps om 1080P 4x msaa ... and now here i see 35 fps drops ... wtf ? :(  that is so sad
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 2:53:18 PM

60 - 70 fps on ultra settings with 4 x msaa is accurate for single player. The fps you get in multi player (64 player particularly) largly depends on your CPU.
April 19, 2012 2:56:16 PM

hey i have i7 950 at stock 3.0 .. you know that it can self overlock to 3.3 .. i hope it will be enough :)  you have same cpu as me .. just lower stock clock :)  i hope i don't have to oc to 4 ghz ,,,, :) 
April 19, 2012 2:58:16 PM

I told you, my results were limited by CPU.

You can choose to not believe me if you want.

GTX 580 will be doing good to average 40fps at those settings in multiplayer. You will not average 60fps on a single GTX 580 in 64 player multiplayer.
a b U Graphics card
April 19, 2012 3:14:30 PM

darksalvatore said:
hey i have i7 950 at stock 3.0 .. you know that it can self overlock to 3.3 .. i hope it will be enough :)  you have same cpu as me .. just lower stock clock :)  i hope i don't have to oc to 4 ghz ,,,, :) 

My stock speed is 2.66 Mhz, but I haven't tested BF3 64 player at that speed, at 4.0 Mhz I have no probably what so ever.
April 19, 2012 3:20:56 PM

^^ That's a pretty impressive CPU architecture that runs BF3 multiplayer at 4.0 MHz!

April 19, 2012 4:18:21 PM


... wait wait ... you mean that i7 920 even at stock clocks 2.66 ghz can run BF3 on 7970 with 60-70 fps ? in multy probably 50-60 ya ?
April 19, 2012 4:35:42 PM

@OP - I'm not sure what your expectations are, but if you want minimum fps rates of 50+, you need to be getting average framerates close to 80. I don't think there's any single card setup that can do that yet (not even an OC'd 680 or 7970)
April 19, 2012 4:59:21 PM

i can get gtx 580 3gb for 410$ or radeon 7970 for 500$ or even for less 470$ ... i think it't better choice .... and gtx 680 costs now like 630$ so *** that :) ))

joedjnpc had 60-70 .. so i don't think o multy i will get less then 45 ... i hope so .... and it will be still smooth i think :)  no need to have constant 60
April 19, 2012 5:29:35 PM

does 580 has same perfomance as 7970 in bf3 ? :o O :p 
April 19, 2012 5:45:14 PM

no... the GTX 580 is not even close to the 7970 in BF3

I'm re-downloading BF3 on my new setup now. I will do some fraps runs on Karkand when it's finished, and post results for you to see.

Found my old FRAPS files; they are from 10 minute FRAPS benchmarks in 64 player multi, but I can't remember which runs are from which map. They may all be from Karkand, but I also had some Sharqi benchmarks somewhere too... I dunno

Run 1:
min: 40
max: 143
avg: 66.1

Run 2:
min: 40
max: 129
avg: 65.05

Run 3:
min: 42
max: 152
avg: 83.7

Will post what my new rig gets as well, which should show if the CPU makes a difference and if so, how much.
April 19, 2012 6:02:04 PM

yeah please dont forget .... 40 drops ar not so bad dude .... i can paly on 40-60 and won't notice any lag :)  i think there wont be big difference with your new cpu :)  i think like 45 dips vs 40 on old cpu .. but hope you get 50+ :)  okay im waiting for your banchmark and thank you :) 
April 19, 2012 6:10:45 PM

I know that 40fps drops aren't bad... IMO 40fps (and higher) minimum framerates what you want to see for a "smooth" gameplay experience...

You had seemed disappointed with the idea that a 7970 couldn't hit higher minimum framerates than that.

My guess is that a stock GTX 580 would have minimum framerates around 25 ish fps.
April 19, 2012 6:28:39 PM

huh :) )) 25 is a bit low but i heard that 580 has 30 fps drops on karkand maps :) )) i can't notice lag even below 40 .... i only notice after 30 and less fps :)  ... it's not so dissapoint at all ... as i know gtx 680 has sometimes even worse fps drops then 7970 ....

as i know if compare 680 vs 7970 .. it's like .....

max fps = winner 680 avg fps = winner 680 min fps = winner 7970 .... i allways care about minimum fps ... 100 or 120 on screen is not impressive for me :) ))
April 19, 2012 7:13:52 PM


how much left to run bf3 ^^ ? downloaded already ? ^^
April 19, 2012 8:29:21 PM

April 19, 2012 8:46:36 PM

looks like not too much changes... minimum fps increases a bit to 45, average stays pretty consistent around 65, max is 120-140

it feels a bit smoother, but that doesn't mean much since the rigs aren't running side by side

So an overclocked 7970 + capable CPU looks like it gives you ~40-45fps minimum, ~65fps average on 64 player karkand
April 19, 2012 8:59:10 PM

hehe :) )) as i expected .. told ya ... on my i7 950 no bottleneck i think .... and one more thing ... 680 has same dips ya ? or am i wrong ? i saw likne 39-40 fps on some vids with 680 :)  with i7 2600k and even overclocked to 1250 mhz ... so if compare that cards .. amd is beter with minimum fps ya ? or am i wrong ? :p 
April 19, 2012 10:04:45 PM

As a long time AMD/ATI customer, I have to seriously recommend getting a GTX 680. Better stock performance and its cheaper, at around $500. As I said above, previously, i have only bought AMD graphics cards due to the higher prices on the Nvidia side. But this time around, Nvidia is cheaper, and has better performance. Why wouldn't you get it? :D 

***Edit*** It isn't cheaper anymore since AMD price dropped, but i would still recommend the GTX 680 over the 7970, especially if you will play BF3.
April 19, 2012 10:41:30 PM

Stock GTX 680 will be better than a stock 7970. I have a 30% overclock applied on my 7970, and it will at that point trade blows with an OC GTX 680 (which typically only OC ~15% ish). BF3 is a title that the 680 tends to win on, but I dunno how the min/max/avg break down.

Also, @Gamer_Pollution, Nvidia is no longer cheaper.
April 19, 2012 10:44:02 PM

BigMack70 said:
Stock GTX 680 will be better than a stock 7970. I have a 30% overclock applied on my 7970, and it will at that point trade blows with an OC GTX 680 (which typically only OC ~15% ish). BF3 is a title that the 680 tends to win on, but I dunno how the min/max/avg break down.

Also, @Gamer_Pollution, Nvidia is no longer cheaper.

yeah, i just noticed now that the 7970 is cheaper about 15 minutes ago on Newegg when checking if there was stock. Thanks anyway. :D 
April 20, 2012 5:05:26 AM

i can't buy on Newegg ... so only way for me is amazone ..... saphire 1000mhz edition costs 470$ when the cheapest used gtx 680 costs 550$ :(  ... so wait for may and price drops of 680 ??? anyone knows min/max/avg fps of 680 on multiplayer ? i want to know does it worth to wait ....