Is it worth shelling out the extra $$ for non reference cards? 670gtx

[alexander0884]

Hi,

I have made my mind to get a GTX 670, I am currently on HD 5770 and I want to try nVIDIA for a change in scenery. ALso because I will be playing Planetside 2 which supports PhysX or w/e.

I live in the UK so very unfortunate as prices and supply are absolute rubbish. I Have stumbled across this MSI card at the lowest price available in the whole UK:

http://www.ebuyer.com/368329-msi-gtx-670-2gb-gddr5-dual-dvi-hdmi-displayport-pci-e-graphics-card-n670gtx-pm2d2gd5-oc

It is the same price as a reference card. Would you think I should get this or dish out an extra £50 and get a DIRECT CU top? Bearing in mind I can get a DIRECT CU TOP GTX 680 on ebay for roughly £380 via direct pickup.

On a latter note. I looked at the benchmarks and it appears that the GTX 680 on average only gives 17.5-18.3% performance gain over the GTX 670 for a roughly 20-25% price gain. IMO Not worth it unless I get a sweet deal second hand card.

Further to this I note that cards such as DIRECT CU and WINDFORCE give a measly 5-7% Performance boost compared to a roughly 7.5-12.5% Price Gain.

My QUESTION:

Does it matter if I get a "special" non reference card such as DIRECT CU TOP/WINDFORCE etc? I dont expect to keep the card longer than 2 years, and I plan to overclock it at a maximum safe level without buying cusum coolers or anything.

In this case, if I get a reference card and overclock it to highest potential, would that be a better deal for me? To save the extra £50-100 and use it on a SLI set up sometime in the future perhaps?


Oh btw I plan toplay all my games on highest settings 1080HD.

 

[theLiminator]

Normally whatever is cheapest will actually provide the highest performance to price ratio. Even when overclocked, these aren't fermi chips that dished out a crap ton of heat. Kepler so far seems quite a bit more moderate in power and temperature.

 

[alexander0884]

Normally whatever is cheapest will actually provide the highest performance to price ratio. Even when overclocked, these aren't fermi chips that dished out a crap ton of heat. Kepler so far seems quite a bit more moderate in power and temperature.

Here is the price listing of the cheapest gtx 670 in the UK, you will note that this MSI card I linked is not only non reference but its actually 2nd cheapest (roughly £3 more than a reference PNY or w/e).

Do you think this is the ebst VALUE/PERFORMANCE card for me as of this moment? Or, having looked at the list, would you recommend any other card, and if so, why?

My difficulty lies in the fact that all the benchmarks are taken at stock speeds. Ergo, these are irrelevant for me as I plan to overclock anyway. If I can overclock the card linked above even further than factory OC and beat a direct CU at boost levels I will be happy, but no data to show this?

 

[DM186]

Right now both cards will allow you to OC and play all the games on high or higher settings. In the bench marks the 670 is real close to the 680 and at those %'s are not that much difference.

So if your budget allows you either card or if your budget is set for the 670 I would get the 670. Because it is cheaper and it OC's very well. But again if money is not a problem then get the 680.

You probably have seen this one bench mark before but look at how close the benches are. In my opinion the 670 is the best deal for the money vs preformance since the 680 is ony a bit better. Good luck to you.

670 vs 680
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/598?vs=555

 

[alexander0884]

I understand thanks, however is it worth getting a non reference version or a just stick to plain old reference?

Thats my question.