Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gtx 680 or 7970

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 26, 2012 10:44:44 PM

what should i get? what is better?

More about : gtx 680 7970

May 27, 2012 12:12:52 AM

already did think ill go with the 7970 680gtx has the edge slightly but 7970 is cheaper and there really isnt much in it anyway
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:15:45 AM

disaster101 said:
already did think ill go with the 7970 680gtx has the edge slightly but 7970 is cheaper and there really isnt much in it anyway

Nice thoughts, but have you known that the GTX 670 is the same as HD 7970 with $70 less?
Related resources
a c 120 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:17:32 AM

If you're gaming at 1080P or lower, or have a compelling need for CUDA or PhysX, go with the 680 if you can find it. If you are gaming at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600, or need DirectCompute, go with the 7970
May 27, 2012 12:19:59 AM

i have a 1920 by 1200 so would that mean go with the 7970?
May 27, 2012 12:21:22 AM

aha gaming primarily ^^
May 27, 2012 12:23:33 AM

ilysaml said:
Nice thoughts, but have you known that the GTX 670 is the same as HD 7970 with $70 less?


If we're talking USD, the 670 is $50 less, not $70.

Anyways, the story is pretty much always the same. If you want to overclock, get the 7970: it overclocks better and will outperform Kepler cards pretty handily when overclocked (it will match match an overclocked GTX 680).

If you are not interested in overclocking at all, get a Kepler card - a GTX 670 or 680 (IMO the 670 is a far better deal).

I would recommend picking up the Powercolor PCS+ 7970. You get a custom PCB with a 19% overclock out of the box (1100 MHz), room left to OC yourself if you desire (should hit 1200 MHz+), and it's cheaper than a GTX 680. So, it will outperform the GTX 680 and it's cheaper to boot. Can't go wrong with that if you have a ~$500 graphics card budget.

Here's the link:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

And here's a review:
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4679/powercolor_pcs_ra...
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:24:37 AM

HD 7970 is a great overclocker, if you'll OC the card get the HD 7970 it will get you in the GTX 680 levels. If you'll run the card at stock speeds get the GTX 670 which is the best bang for buck right now.

For 1080p/1200p the Win goes almost to the GTX series, in 2560x and above AMD takes the lead (be very competitive)
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:27:17 AM

Depends on what brand of GTX 670 to get, almost the reference design cards have a limited OCing ceiling due to the small reference PCB.
May 27, 2012 12:28:02 AM

i think ill go amd then seeings my choice was between these 2 cards and plan to overclock seeings i had a 6970 before and overclocked its gpu to 1040mhz and memory to 1575mhz and before that the 5770 i overclocked that and both great cards so might as well stick with amd plus its a little cheaper thanks for the help guys much appreciated and will be looking into the card that you posted up :) 
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:31:32 AM

BigMack70 said:

If we're talking USD, the 670 is $50 less, not $70.

The only card available for $450 is the Diamond, which I have never seen anyone recommending Diamond cards.

BigMack70 said:
Anyways, the story is pretty much always the same. If you want to overclock, get the 7970: it overclocks better and will outperform Kepler cards pretty handily when overclocked (it will match match an overclocked GTX 680).

True, but also the GTX 680 is overclockable.
May 27, 2012 12:37:19 AM

Yup like I said it will match the 680 OC'd. However, IMO overclocking is better on the 7970 - you don't have to deal with dynamic overclocking and you get full voltage control on the board. That's not going to convince someone who wants a 680 to switch to a 7970, but it's enough, combined with the price & availability advantage, to ensure that the 7970 is the better card for overclockers who don't have a brand preference.

Strictly speaking, the GTX 670 is only $50 cheaper. Comparing one model to another, you could say that the GTX 670 is $200 cheaper, since the MSI Lightning is going for an insane asking price of $600. You have to compare cheapest card to cheapest card, or an equivalent card to an equivalent card. The only 670 currently on newegg at $400 is a zotac card, and I don't see people flocking to zotac any more than Diamond. It's cherry picking to say that the GTX 670 is $70 cheaper.

a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:49:26 AM

Well the last time I saw the Gigabyte Windforce was priced @ $399 which was a factory overclocked card as well. And going by the fact that all the reputable brands of HD 7970 available right now on newegg are ranged from $479-$500 and the reputable brands of GTX 670 are priced $409-$420, in case you can't do the math 479-409= $70. :p 

Quote:
Yup like I said it will match the 680 OC'd

Clock for clock, GTX 680>HD 7970. And there's a fact that there are some GTX 680s around break the barrier of 1200 MHz too.
May 27, 2012 3:16:12 AM

powercolor AX7970 is $460 and that's a card from a fairly reputable brand with a custom cooler, $460-$410 = $50 :p 

Anyways, clock for clock, the 680 is a *tiny* bit faster than the 7970 - it basically depends what game you're playing. Average OC on the 7970 is a *tiny* bit higher than on the 680, so it evens out. IMO not enough difference to declare a winner between the two.
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 3:44:18 AM

Ok I won't go in a kiddish argument with you but be noted that Powercolor uses some low material components in making their cards, the overall & final finish of the product is not inspiring and appealing as the rest like Sapphire or Asus so it's always the cheapest.

Actually the overall performance of GTX 680 is not that "WOW", only nVidia fanboys will claim that and will relate much bigger. But really I liked the efficiency they made in power consumption with such higher clocks & the price tag, that was the real competition for me.

Yes it depends on the game, but unfortunately most of the great games are TWIMTBP games, makes it shift to nVidia side.

So I guess recommendation may be based on loyalty to the company, though I recommended GTX in the first place while being an AMD fanboy :p 
May 27, 2012 4:12:55 AM

Go for a GTX 670 my friend and save your self some money with amazing performance.
a c 120 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 4:49:24 AM

ilysaml said:
Well the last time I saw the Gigabyte Windforce was priced @ $399 which was a factory overclocked card as well. And going by the fact that all the reputable brands of HD 7970 available right now on newegg are ranged from $479-$500 and the reputable brands of GTX 670 are priced $409-$420, in case you can't do the math 479-409= $70. :p 

Quote:
Yup like I said it will match the 680 OC'd

Clock for clock, GTX 680>HD 7970. And there's a fact that there are some GTX 680s around break the barrier of 1200 MHz too.


Clock for clock is a meaningless argument because they are completely different architectures.
May 27, 2012 10:09:26 AM

ok so the gtx 680 is a bit faster than a 7970 but would it make much difference getting the 2 gb one to the 4gb one?
May 27, 2012 12:24:13 PM

I don't think the 4gb 680 has any relevance except for 680 SLI. If you were gonna get two cards, I'd say get the 4GB model so that you have double the vram, but for a single card, 2gb is fine.

@pinhedd:
Clock for clock is a meaningful argument because they are different architectures which overclock to similar clock speeds (1183 avg 680 OC, 1205 avg 7970 OC).

Anyways @OP, my recommendation I think stands even at 1920x1200/1080 - if you want to OC (not if you're just willing to OC, but if you actually want to OC), the 7970 is going to give you the better experience, because more custom cards are available, they're a bit less money, you have full control of what you're doing, and once you hit your max OC the card will average out to about the same as a 680 OC to the point where it just depends on the game.
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 12:47:17 PM

BigMack70 said:
If you were gonna get two cards, I'd say get the 4GB model so that you have double the vram.

What does this mean?
May 27, 2012 1:01:38 PM

Vram doesn't stack in SLI, so in 680 SLI you still just have 2GB vram. That risks becoming vram limited before you run out of GPU power, and if you're spending so much on a GPU setup, why even take that risk? Just spend a little extra to get 4GB models to make sure you never run out of vram before you need to upgrade your GPU setup.

Of course, if you're the type of person who is likely to upgrade 680 SLI within the next year or two anyways, then it doesn't matter.
May 27, 2012 1:17:01 PM

Quote:
what you guys are realizing that 'bigmack70' is actually a 'green team' hater and runs CF-X HD 7970's so any card in it's performance range (nVidia)
he will certainly look to bash because of this.
we call it champion his choice in hardware.
of course for every argument about HD Radeon and for nVidia he will counter.
I'm not sure if it's to make himself feel better about his choice in GPU's or what.

but the best thing is to stop getting into a debate or argument about it with him.


:non: 

If I were a green team hater, as you claim, I would be arguing that the 7970 is the better card. I am not. I am arguing that there are some limited situations where the 7970 is a better card. Don't think you seem to be willing to accept that.

Quote:
Yup like I said it will match the 680 OC'd. However, IMO overclocking is better on the 7970 - you don't have to deal with dynamic overclocking and you get full voltage control on the board. That's not going to convince someone who wants a 680 to switch to a 7970, but it's enough, combined with the price & availability advantage, to ensure that the 7970 is the better card for overclockers who don't have a brand preference.
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 1:20:05 PM

Calm down mal, you're an expert and you shouldn't think like that :p . Even if the guy is nVidia fan he's just saying his opinion and you shouldn't get upset at all.

@Bigmack
I'd be lying if I said that I understood what you wrote, actually there's no benefit in getting the 4GB version it's useless and won't boost the performance. Also in SLI/CF is amount of VRAM is not doubled it's mirrored between the GPUs.
May 27, 2012 2:58:57 PM

i only wanted to know what would be the better card to use then come back to this XD well im gonna be sticking to the 7970's and ill be getting the lightning version, nothing against nvidia but ive had ati/ amd since the beginning so im just gonna stick with what i know even if the gtx is slightly better :) 
May 27, 2012 6:34:25 PM

im sure i will too and gonna be purchasing it wednesday ^^ as well as a new motherboard and i5 3570k ^^
May 27, 2012 7:07:15 PM

Quote:
not trying to talk bad about you or start anything but I have noticed your animosity towards all nVidia threads and owners.
even as far back as the pre Kepler release when you got your first HD 7970.
and then one time I caught you unnecessarily nVidia bashing for no reason,
then you replied back you were having a hard time studying for a test or something.....
c'mon man.

suffering from split personalities or something..? :p 

I can understand you sticking up for your purchases / choices in hardware but your quite fickle and very temperamental.
maybe just take a step back and count to 10 before you just start with the bashing
and think about the real reason you are bashing...


I think I've made it pretty clear that I want to return to Nvidia but don't like some of the design/business/marketing decisions they have made surrounding the Kepler cards, therefore I went 7970s. And I stand by all of that; I think Nvidia has some problems and have given consumers the short end of the stick with Kepler. They also don't give anyone with an overclocked AMD setup reason to switch unless you care about performance/watt.

I think I've also made it pretty clear that I think in most cases the 680 is the better buy over the 7970.

I've been up front about all this. Here's the place where I've explained my views most clearly. Not sure that qualifies me as a typical "green hater". More like someone who is at the moment disappointed in Nvidia's recent decisions.

If you think I'm a green hater/temperamental/annoying/whatever, don't read or reply to my posts. Simple. :) 

@ilysaml
Sorry if I made no sense - I simply meant that there may be games in the future which require more than 2GB of vram. If you have 680 SLI, I'm guessing you want your graphics card setup to last several years, so why not go ahead and grab 4GB versions just to make sure they don't get vram limited? I'm assuming that anyone with that much money for graphics cards can afford the price premium, even though there is currently no performance benefit I'm aware of from having more than 2GB vram.
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 7:22:05 PM

One thing that you don't know is that the Actual "GPU" is not capable of handling this amount of VRAM, so after 2 years or even 5 they will be the same, no performance will be gained even if their will be more demanding VRAM games.

Haven't you seen the HD 6950 1GB & 2GB> GTX 580 1.5 GB & 3GB? The additional VRAM gets the card slightly slower;
Quote:
Note that when the additional memory doesn’t make a difference, it reduces performance slightly, a phenomenon already observed with the 1 GB and 2 GB versions of the Radeon HD 6950.

May 27, 2012 7:25:53 PM

ilysaml said:
One thing that you don't know is that the Actual "GPU" is not capable of handling this amount of VRAM, so after 2 years or even 5 they will be the same, no performance will be gained even if their will be more demanding VRAM games.

Haven't you seen the HD 6950 1GB & 2GB> GTX 580 1.5 GB & 3GB? The additional VRAM gets the card slightly slower;
Quote:
Note that when the additional memory doesn’t make a difference, it reduces performance slightly, a phenomenon already observed with the 1 GB and 2 GB versions of the Radeon HD 6950.


Yeah I've seen those phenomena on single card setups. My question is: is that true of CF or SLI setups where the extra vram could be used (for example, 1080p maxed BF3 or Crysis 2)?

Single cards almost always run out of GPU power long before they would need extra vram. Multi-GPU setups are a bit different and at times can become vram limited before they run out of raw processing power.
May 27, 2012 8:04:34 PM

makes no difference too me ill end up upgrading when something more shiny comes out XD so within a couple of years ill probably get another gpu just depending on the demands then sell my one ill have then to get a new one nvidia or amd what ever i choose at the time :) 
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 8:53:40 PM

@ BigMack70
Simply, In multi GPUs setups, SLI doesnt double VRAM, sicne the process requires data to be mirrored between the 2 cards, so both cards have the same data. So whether you have 2 GB or 10 GB the GPU will effectively use the amount it can handle only.

Also,With a multi-GPU solution, you are effectively splitting the workload each graphics card has to do, thus enabling the GPUs to process information much quicker and providing the user with increased frame rates. If SLI/CF were doubling the "GPU Power" you'd have seen double the FPS from the rise of Crossfire or SLI, but the process got better results with the implementation of higher transfer rates (GDDR3/5), No. of shaders, transistors and so...

In fact, the higher the resolution in games, the more VRAM there should be since more textures need to be loaded. Due to technologies such as AA, MSAA, AF, QSCAA..... those really feed on the VRAM depending on the game. However some cards are not powerful enough to use the extra VRAM. You can say that the GPU itself is holding back the VRAM, or in other words when it reaches a certain level there's no benefit from the extra VRAM

That's what I've been understanding so far, I could be wrong but there's no article explaining in details how both technologies work.

From the review of Palit GTX 680 4GB;
Quote:
The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.
Now the setup could benefit from triple monitor setups at 5760x1080 (which is a 6 Mpixels resolution), but even there I doubt if 4 GB is really something you'd need to spend money on

With High End GPUs

With Low End GPUs, look at the HD 5570s

a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 8:55:10 PM

disaster101 said:
makes no difference too me ill end up upgrading when something more shiny comes out XD so within a couple of years ill probably get another gpu just depending on the demands then sell my one ill have then to get a new one nvidia or amd what ever i choose at the time :) 

Ok, you seem to have a pretty knowledge about that and you know what you want.
We were just discussing some stuff out of the topic :p 
GL with your purchase
May 27, 2012 9:19:47 PM

fair enough ill leave you too it seeings i got my information ^^
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 27, 2012 9:50:28 PM

Well, but that doesn't mean you can't close the thread anytime.
May 27, 2012 9:53:06 PM

havent ever closed a thread dont plan to start lol
May 27, 2012 10:14:23 PM

@ilysaml

Not sure I understand you, as my entire point is that vram doesn't double in SLI, so you should buy cards with double vram so that you DO actually have double vram in SLI.

Obviously there's other factors involved, like memory bus width, shaders, etc. However, there are games right now which at 1080p use 2GB memory (BF3, Crysis 2). In 2-3 years, it's very reasonable to expect that there will be games which can use well over 2GB at 1080p+, and that cards with only 2GB vram will be limited as a result.
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 28, 2012 2:45:31 AM

BigMack70 said:
so you should buy cards with double vram so that you DO actually have double vram in SLI.

This sounds ridiculously funny. :lol: 
a c 143 U Graphics card
May 28, 2012 3:06:23 AM

Nice mod though, but the overall look is :pfff: 
!