Radeon HD 7970 or GTX 680?

[stant1rm]

I ended up selling my 2 XFX Radeon HD 6970's and I am in the market for a very high end single GPU card, with the intention of buying a second one later on for SLI/CrossfireX. I'm mainly looking at a a Geforce GTX 680 or a Radeon HD 7970, but the 7950 and GTX 670 are still on the table. I've seen several benchmarks, but I am just looking for some honest opinions. I don't much care one way or the other, but I have enjoyed my Radeon cards a bit more then my GeForce cards.

Here's the models I'm looking at, and my system is my sig.

7970

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121560

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150632

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102961

7950

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150616

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102991

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127667

GTX 680

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130797

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130768

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121635


GTX 670

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125423

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130782

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127675

 

[Rustyy117]

In my opinion a GTX670 or HD7950 aren't enough of an upgrade from a HD6970 to worth bothering with.

The GTX680 is generally faster than the HD7970 but costs more, As you haven't mentioned a budget then I would say the GTX680 is the best choice.

I really like EVGA products so I would opt for the girst GTX680 in your list, however if you decide to go for the ASUS then make sure your motherboard has good PCI-E spacing as the ASUS card takes up 3 slots (something to consider for SLI)

 

[17seconds]

I agree with the Asus DCUII GTX 680. It's whisper silent at full gaming load. I can't seem to find it, but I saw a really good review of the EVGA Signature 2 where it was leading out several high-end 680's. I actually think I would go with the EVGA.

Really, this decision is not so much about performance, you can pull out any number of scenarios where one beats another, but usually only by a few FPS one way or the other. The big question is whether you place any value on the Nvidia ecosystem. Since AMD does not seem to have anything special they offer with their cards (maybe GCN or MLAA2?), you should decide if you have any interest in the extra available settings and features that come with an Nvidia card. These include PhysX, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, TXAA, good driver support, and good relationships with game developers that mean many new releases are fully supported the day they come out. I look at it this way, by buying an AMD card, you are betting that you will NEVER want to play a game with PhysX, Adaptive VSync, forced FXAA, or TXAA. TXAA, in particular is very promising and such an unknown, I would not want to place a bet against it.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=31233

With the SLI/Crossfire issue, HardOCP did several articles where they made note of driver problems with Crossfire and also noted that Crossfire seems to be less smooth. Take what you want from the articles, here they are:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfirex_drivers_opportunity_lost/
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/9

Lastly, the issue of AMD drivers. Much has been said about the performance of the 12.7 drivers, some has been valid. Despite that, there are several concerns:
- First of all, is the fact that it took 6 months for them to be released, half way through the product cycle, assuming the 8000 series comes out at the end of the year.
- Second, the 12.7 drivers are almost exclusively geared towards performance in the 7000 series cards. As a 6970 owner, you may already be aware of this. Purchasing a 7000 series card seems like you may be setting up for disappointment when the driver focus shifts to the 8000 series towards the end of the year.
- Third, is the fact that AMD has dropped support for it's pre-5000 series cards. Obviously this means that obsolescence is hardwired into the business model. How long it will take before support for the 7000 series is dropped is anyone's guess, but it will happen.
http://benchmark3d.com/amd-catalyst-12-6-whql-12-7-beta-june-26-benchmark/4

In the end, there is more of a gamble with the AMD cards, and virtually none with the Nvidia cards.

 

[gamerkila57]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=555

i recommend getting this and ocing it as it cost less and performs great

Sapphire Vapor-X HD 7970
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202001

 

[redeemer]

7970

 

[blazorthon]

The GTX 670 is nearly identical to the 680 in performance, so the 680 is a fairly stupid purchase now that the 670 is out. The 7970 is faster than the 7950, but only because it has higher clock frequencies. It's mere 256 core count advantage (and respective texture unit and such increase) is irrelevant and meaningless. A 7950 at 925MHz core and 1375MHz memory will be as close to the 7970 as the 670 is to the 680. The 7950 overclocks equally well to 7970s that use the same PCB and cooler, so not only is the 680 a poor purchase, but so too is the 7970.

So, it's pretty much down to 7950 versus 670 and then we also have the 7970 GHz Edition to consider. The over $100 price hike over the 7950 is not worth the minuscule binning advantage IMO. So, I'd say that the 670 and the 7950 are the two main options to choose between for a top end single GPU graphics card. With overclocking, they perform equally well to their bigger brothers (even if you overclock those bigger brothers) and they use less power than those bigger brothers at the same time.

7950 versus 670, I'd have to hand it to the 7950 for most games because the 7950 is not nearly as memory-bandwidth bottle-necked as the 670, overclocks a little better, and is significantly cheaper. However, if OP wants the 670 anyway, then go ahead and get it. It's still a great card. The only truly bad choices would be the 680, 7970, and 7970 GHz Edition.

Some people say that the AMD drivers are inferior, but that simply isn't true, at least not with current drivers.

 

[blazorthon]

I agree with the Asus DCUII GTX 680. It's whisper silent at full gaming load. I can't seem to find it, but I saw a really good review of the EVGA Signature 2 where it was leading out several high-end 680's. I actually think I would go with the EVGA.

Really, this decision is not so much about performance, you can pull out any number of scenarios where one beats another, but usually only by a few FPS one way or the other. The big question is whether you place any value on the Nvidia ecosystem. Since AMD does not seem to have anything special they offer with their cards (maybe GCN or MLAA2?), you should decide if you have any interest in the extra available settings and features that come with an Nvidia card. These include PhysX, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, TXAA, good driver support, and good relationships with game developers that mean many new releases are fully supported the day they come out. I look at it this way, by buying an AMD card, you are betting that you will NEVER want to play a game with PhysX, Adaptive VSync, forced FXAA, or TXAA. TXAA, in particular is very promising and such an unknown, I would not want to place a bet against it.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=31233

With the SLI/Crossfire issue, HardOCP did several articles where they made note of driver problems with Crossfire and also noted that Crossfire seems to be less smooth. Take what you want from the articles, here they are:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfirex_drivers_opportunity_lost/
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/9

Lastly, the issue of AMD drivers. Much has been said about the performance of the 12.7 drivers, some has been valid. Despite that, there are several concerns:
- First of all, is the fact that it took 6 months for them to be released, half way through the product cycle, assuming the 8000 series comes out at the end of the year.
- Second, the 12.7 drivers are almost exclusively geared towards performance in the 7000 series cards. As a 6970 owner, you may already be aware of this. Purchasing a 7000 series card seems like you may be setting up for disappointment when the driver focus shifts to the 8000 series towards the end of the year.
- Third, is the fact that AMD has dropped support for it's pre-5000 series cards. Obviously this means that obsolescence is hardwired into the business model. How long it will take before support for the 7000 series is dropped is anyone's guess, but it will happen.
http://benchmark3d.com/amd-catalyst-12-6-whql-12-7-beta-june-26-benchmark/4

In the end, there is more of a gamble with the AMD cards, and virtually none with the Nvidia cards.

PhysX is hardly any better than no PhysX, TXAA is needed by Nvidia to attempt to make up for the low memory bandwidth and doesn't actually look better than MSAA, adaptive V-Sync is a good arguing point, FXAA is crap, and the rest of that first paragraph is not as accurate as you'd like with the drivers and the rest is irrelevant at this point because AMD's cards have been out long enough to solve those problems.

HardwareOCP's review was using the beta driver for the Radeon 7000 cxards. The BETA DRIVER! Of course it didn't work perfectly with a seven month old driver that was made before the 7970 even hit retail.

How long it took for good drivers to be released is irrelevant because they are out now. How geared towards the Radeon 700 cards the 12.7 driver is doesn't matter if OP upgrades to them. Driver focus can shift all it wants because the current driver is incredible. AMD didn't drop support for the pre-5000 cards, they slowed down driver releases for them. Nvidia did the same thing with their older cards too. Try getting an 8800 GT to run with the current newest driver supported by Kepler. AMD won't slow down support for Radeon 7000 cards until 2015 or 2016, by which time they would truly be obsolete as would the GTX 600 cards.

The only good point that you had was that AMD lacks adaptive V-Sync, a feature that often doesn't work anyway, granted that in the future, it could become a great advantage if AMD doesn't get something similar.

If we want to dwell on past problems, then how about the fact that Nvidia had many severe stuttering problems, V-Sync problems, and underclocking problems for more than a month until a few weeks ago when they finally fixed them with a new driver release.

 

[nacos]

I agree with the Asus DCUII GTX 680. It's whisper silent at full gaming load. I can't seem to find it, but I saw a really good review of the EVGA Signature 2 where it was leading out several high-end 680's. I actually think I would go with the EVGA.

Really, this decision is not so much about performance, you can pull out any number of scenarios where one beats another, but usually only by a few FPS one way or the other. The big question is whether you place any value on the Nvidia ecosystem. Since AMD does not seem to have anything special they offer with their cards (maybe GCN or MLAA2?), you should decide if you have any interest in the extra available settings and features that come with an Nvidia card. These include PhysX, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, TXAA, good driver support, and good relationships with game developers that mean many new releases are fully supported the day they come out. I look at it this way, by buying an AMD card, you are betting that you will NEVER want to play a game with PhysX, Adaptive VSync, forced FXAA, or TXAA. TXAA, in particular is very promising and such an unknown, I would not want to place a bet against it.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=31233

With the SLI/Crossfire issue, HardOCP did several articles where they made note of driver problems with Crossfire and also noted that Crossfire seems to be less smooth. Take what you want from the articles, here they are:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/01/17/amd_crossfirex_drivers_opportunity_lost/
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/9

Lastly, the issue of AMD drivers. Much has been said about the performance of the 12.7 drivers, some has been valid. Despite that, there are several concerns:
- First of all, is the fact that it took 6 months for them to be released, half way through the product cycle, assuming the 8000 series comes out at the end of the year.
- Second, the 12.7 drivers are almost exclusively geared towards performance in the 7000 series cards. As a 6970 owner, you may already be aware of this. Purchasing a 7000 series card seems like you may be setting up for disappointment when the driver focus shifts to the 8000 series towards the end of the year.
- Third, is the fact that AMD has dropped support for it's pre-5000 series cards. Obviously this means that obsolescence is hardwired into the business model. How long it will take before support for the 7000 series is dropped is anyone's guess, but it will happen.
http://benchmark3d.com/amd-catalyst-12-6-whql-12-7-beta-june-26-benchmark/4

In the end, there is more of a gamble with the AMD cards, and virtually none with the Nvidia cards.

Really?
PhysX is worthless and if you seriously want to sacrifice your fps for some pebbles being kicked around or some tearing cloth then be my guest.
Adaptive vsync is completely useless for a high end card.
FXAA is a complete joke. (Quality is horrible compared to MSAA)
TXAA is very new and has not been picked up by devs and will not be commonly utilized for a long while.
Crossfire scaling is better with 7970s than SLI scaling with 680s.
AMD Tahiti has great compute performance while Nvidia kepler has abysmal compute performance.
At an average price of $430, the 7970s will remain a great value even at the release of the 8970s which will most likely start at around $550-$600.
Lastly, AMD did not release the 12.7 drivers for a long while because before the kepler series, they dominated every other card on the market. The fact that the 7000 series which was made to destroy the gtx 500 series can still beat the gtx 600 series which was released a matter of months after should tell you all you need to know about Tahiti gpus.

 

[blazorthon]

Really?
Adaptive vsync is completely useless for a high end card.
FXAA is a complete joke. (Quality is horrible compared to MSAA)
TXAA is very new and has not been picked up by devs and will not be commonly utilized for a long while.
Crossfire scaling is better with 7970s than SLI scaling with 680s.
AMD Tahiti has great compute performance while Nvidia kepler has abysmal compute performance.
At an average price of $430, the 7970s will remain a great value even at the release of the 8970s which will most likely start at around $550-$600.
Lastly, AMD did not release the 12.7 drivers for a long while because before the kepler series, they dominated every other card on the market. The fact that the 7000 series which was made to destroy the gtx 500 series can still beat the gtx 600 series which was released a matter of months after should tell you all you need to know about Tahiti gpus.

As much as I am in favor of OP buying an AMD card in this scenario, I have to call you out for making poor points in support of AMD or else be a hypocrit.

TXAA isn't as poorly supported as you might think because the drivers can now force it in many games. Crossfire scaling with the 7900 cards is not really much better than SLI scaling with the GTX 600 cards. This sometimes seems this way because of 7900's memory bandwidth advantage, but is not actually true. Compute performance, although very important for some people, is not something that everyone cares a whole lot about. It is supposedly going to become more important in future games, so it's a good thing to mention it, but the fact that it is only supposedly going to be important years from now should be mentioned as well.

Radeon 7000 wasn't made to kill GTX 500. It was made to replace Radeon 6000. It killed GTX 500 because it is a whoel generation ahead of GTX 500. It also doesn't really kill GTX 600. GTX 600 competes quite well, although it could be better. Also keep in mind that the Tahiti GPU is not nearly as fast as the GK104 GPU for gaming, It only competes because of GK104's huge memory bandwidth bottle-neck holding back the very fast GPU.

 

[mocchan]

Just because of the price, and how well the 7970's are hanging on with the recent driver updates, 7970 gets my vote.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1273746/radeon-7970-will-outperform-gtx-680-with-catalyst-12-7/100#post_17618444

 

[dyc4ha]

I am giving my vote for the 7970 just because the performance difference is no longer wide enough to justify the $70 premium of the 680. Sure you can compare it to the 670, but the extra 1GB of vram is enough to convince me that for a mere $10 dollar difference, it is worth it. BF3 is using close to 2GB of vram already, an extra GB for extra futureproof-ing

EDIT: Scaling is better on the radeon cards, and if you are using multi-monitor setups, the extra vram is definitely worth it.

 

[17seconds]

PhysX is hardly any better than no PhysX, TXAA is needed by Nvidia to attempt to make up for the low memory bandwidth and doesn't actually look better than FXAA, adaptive V-Sync is a good arguing point, FXAA is crap, and the rest of that first paragraph is not as accurate as you'd like with the drivers and the rest is irrelevant at this point because AMD's cards have been out long enough to solve those problems.

HardwareOCP's review was using the beta driver for the Radeon 7000 cxards. The BETA DRIVER! Of course it didn't work perfectly with a seven month old driver that was made before the 7970 even hit retail.

How long it took for good drivers to be released is irrelevant because they are out now. How geared towards the Radeon 700 cards the 12.7 driver is doesn't matter if OP upgrades to them. Driver focus can shift all it wants because the current driver is incredible. AMD didn't drop support for the pre-5000 cards, they slowed down driver releases for them. Nvidia did the same thing with their older cards too. Try getting an 8800 GT to run with the current newest driver supported by Kepler. AMD won't slow down support for Radeon 7000 cards until 2015 or 2016, by which time they would truly be obsolete as would the GTX 600 cards.

The only good point that you had was that AMD lacks adaptive V-Sync, a feature that often doesn't work anyway, granted that in the future, it could become a great advantage if AMD doesn't get something similar. You also ignored the fact that Nvidia was the one having driver problems recently, not AMD. Nvidia had stuttering problems and underclocking problems for months that they finally fixed with one of their driver releases a few weeks ago.

So your whole argument is "no it isn't". Honestly, it's hard to take the word of an AMD user when it comes to writing about the things that come with an Nvidia card.

But see, the real problem is that your argument should be: "well, here's what AMD has, and it's better". And I've asked this repeatedly: what does AMD offer the gamer that's unique and adds value? I'm wondering if you were to stack up the pros and cons of each, what exactly would you list as pros for AMD? If anyone can answer this, I know it's you (said with respect).

"PhysX is hardly any better than no PhysX"
A preview of the PhysX effects in Borderlands 2. The reviewers from Gamespot, Eurogamer, and Destructoid would seem to disagree with your assessment:
http://physxinfo.com/news/7865/borderlands-2-will-be-enhanced-with-gpu-physx-effects/

"TXAA is needed by Nvidia to attempt to make up for the low memory bandwidth and doesn't actually look better than FXAA"
You would need to provide an example of this rather than just state it.

"FXAA is crap"
Really, where do you come by this information? Why is it increasingly being used by game developers, and why do reviews state: "What Is FXAA, And Why Has It Made Anti-Aliasing As We Know It Obsolete?"
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/12/what-is-fxaa/

"HardwareOCP's review was using the beta driver for the Radeon 7000 cxards. The BETA DRIVER!"
So you're okay if reviews use the 12.7 beta drivers, but not under other circumstances if it doesn't serve your purposes? The problems with Crossfire drivers is certainly not a big secret.

"Try getting an 8800 GT to run with the current newest driver supported by Kepler"
Sorry, but all the latest WHQL drivers from Nvidia not only support the 8800's, they also support the 7800's.

"AMD lacks adaptive V-Sync, a feature that often doesn't work anyway"
Again, where do you get this stuff?
According to HardOCP: "As a gamer, I personally prefer to play with no screen tearing, but also want the best performance possible up to my refresh rate. The answer for me is clear, I want Adaptive VSync technology."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/3

 

[nacos]

So your whole argument is "no it isn't". Honestly, it's hard to take the word of an AMD user when it comes to writing about the things that come with an Nvidia card.

But see, the real problem is that your argument should be: "well, here's what AMD has, and it's better". And I've asked this repeatedly: what does AMD offer the gamer that's unique and adds value? I'm wondering if you were to stack up the pros and cons of each, what exactly would you list as pros for AMD? If anyone can answer this, I know it's you (said with respect).

"PhysX is hardly any better than no PhysX"
A preview of the PhysX effects in Borderlands 2. The reviewers from Gamespot, Eurogamer, and Destructoid would seem to disagree with your assessment:
http://physxinfo.com/news/7865/borderlands-2-will-be-enhanced-with-gpu-physx-effects/

"TXAA is needed by Nvidia to attempt to make up for the low memory bandwidth and doesn't actually look better than FXAA"
You would need to provide an example of this rather than just state it.

"FXAA is crap"
Really, where do you come by this information? Why is it increasingly being used by game developers, and why do reviews state: "What Is FXAA, And Why Has It Made Anti-Aliasing As We Know It Obsolete?"
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/12/what-is-fxaa/

"HardwareOCP's review was using the beta driver for the Radeon 7000 cxards. The BETA DRIVER!"
So you're okay if reviews use the 12.7 beta drivers, but not under other circumstances if it doesn't serve your purposes? The problems with Crossfire drivers is certainly not a big secret.

"Try getting an 8800 GT to run with the current newest driver supported by Kepler"
Sorry, but all the latest WHQL drivers from Nvidia not only support the 8800's, they also support the 7800's.

"AMD lacks adaptive V-Sync, a feature that often doesn't work anyway"
Again, where do you get this stuff?
According to HardOCP: "As a gamer, I personally prefer to play with no screen tearing, but also want the best performance possible up to my refresh rate. The answer for me is clear, I want Adaptive VSync technology."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/3

Adaptive VSync only helps when you drop below your refresh rate. I never drop below my refresh rate. I also never use vsync because the screen tearing is only a mild drawback compared to the input lag that comes with vsync. FXAA is not anti aliasing. FXAA is a blur effect used to disguise the problem, not fix it.
Let me tell you what AMD has. AMD has very powerful graphics cards that are kept at very reasonable price points because they do not charge 15% more for sprinkles on the cake.

 

[17seconds]

Adaptive VSync only helps when you drop below your refresh rate. I never drop below my refresh rate. I also never use vsync because the screen tearing is only a mild drawback compared to the input lag that comes with vsync. FXAA is not anti aliasing. FXAA is a blur effect used to disguise the problem, not fix it.
Let me tell you what AMD has. AMD has very powerful graphics cards that are kept at very reasonable price points because they do not charge 15% more for sprinkles on the cake.

Now that I can get behind. Thanks.
Both of you.

 

[blazorthon]

So your whole argument is "no it isn't". Honestly, it's hard to take the word of an AMD user when it comes to writing about the things that come with an Nvidia card.

But see, the real problem is that your argument should be: "well, here's what AMD has, and it's better". And I've asked this repeatedly: what does AMD offer the gamer that's unique and adds value? I'm wondering if you were to stack up the pros and cons of each, what exactly would you list as pros for AMD? If anyone can answer this, I know it's you (said with respect).

"PhysX is hardly any better than no PhysX"
A preview of the PhysX effects in Borderlands 2. The reviewers from Gamespot, Eurogamer, and Destructoid would seem to disagree with your assessment:
http://physxinfo.com/news/7865/borderlands-2-will-be-enhanced-with-gpu-physx-effects/

"TXAA is needed by Nvidia to attempt to make up for the low memory bandwidth and doesn't actually look better than FXAA"
You would need to provide an example of this rather than just state it.

"FXAA is crap"
Really, where do you come by this information? Why is it increasingly being used by game developers, and why do reviews state: "What Is FXAA, And Why Has It Made Anti-Aliasing As We Know It Obsolete?"
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/12/what-is-fxaa/

"HardwareOCP's review was using the beta driver for the Radeon 7000 cxards. The BETA DRIVER!"
So you're okay if reviews use the 12.7 beta drivers, but not under other circumstances if it doesn't serve your purposes? The problems with Crossfire drivers is certainly not a big secret.

"Try getting an 8800 GT to run with the current newest driver supported by Kepler"
Sorry, but all the latest WHQL drivers from Nvidia not only support the 8800's, they also support the 7800's.

"AMD lacks adaptive V-Sync, a feature that often doesn't work anyway"
Again, where do you get this stuff?
According to HardOCP: "As a gamer, I personally prefer to play with no screen tearing, but also want the best performance possible up to my refresh rate. The answer for me is clear, I want Adaptive VSync technology."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/16/nvidia_adaptive_vsync_technology_review/3

Actually, I use both AMD and Nvida cards. I owned a GTX 560 TI up until it died earlier this year and I replaced it with a Radeon 7850. I also build computers for many people and I've worked with some GTX 600 cards lately. What AMD has that's better with 7950 versus 670 (seeing as how I've already explained why the 7970, 680, and 7970 GHz Edition aren't worth buying) is price, overclocking performance, much more memory bandwidth (helping future proofing a lot in this scenario), and it also has the 1GB VRAM capacity advantage which also helps future proofing, albeit not as much as the bandwidth advantage.

Sure, FXAA isn't really crap, but it is not an advantage. I've used it and it is a much lighter form of AA (if even AA at all) in both performance and quality. TXAA is not an advantage strictly because of Kepler's huge memory bandwidth bottle-encks. It is very light in performance, but heavy in quality, a great combination. It would be an advantage if not for the memory bandwidth of Kepler being so low that Radeon 7900 MSAA can still outperform GTX 600 TXAA in many situations, especially in very high end setups. For what it does here, it does very well. If not for TXAA, any time that the memory bandwidth and/or capacity becomes too problematic for MSAA on Kepler, Nvidia users would have to resort to lower quality FXAA or no AA at all.

I get adaptive V-sync not working quite often fom my own tests and having helped several forum members who have problems with it (I'm almost in the double digits from helping people with adaptive V-Sync problems) as well as there having been a Tom's article that partially addressed this. The numerous Nvidia forums full of people having problems was also a clue as to it happening. The problems have improved greatly, but it is still not perfect. When it is, like I said before, it will be one of Nvidia's greatest advantages. I have no doubt in that this won't take much longer. Nvidia is usually pretty good at fixing problems such as this quickly and effectively.

Maybe an 8800 GT will work with current drivers, I don't have one to test it with. However, my 8500GT does not. It needed an older driver and that did not make me happy, to say the least.

 

[blazorthon]

Please tell me your not going to be using them on a puny 1080p screen. Tell me you have 3 screens or a 30 inch 2560 x 1600 one anything less than what I mentioned is a waste for those cards. I say a 680 or 2 but Im biased right now.

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i145/Soldier36/20120726_221503.jpg

1080p with settings maxed out and some AA can bring even the GTX 670 and RAdeon 7900 cards under 60FPS averages in several games.

 

[blazorthon]

Well OP, here are the arguments for each card. This is the particular 7950 model that I'd recommend:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161407&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&PageSize=10&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&IsFeedbackTab=true#scrollFullInfo

I have friends whom have this card and have compared it to several other 7950s and it was the best in every way except for its cooler taking up a little more space than other coolers need. The current top review of this card is actually from one of my friends and I consider it quite reliable and useful.

 

[bystander]

If you are going to go on and on about how the 7970 has more bandwidth, at least show some benchmarks to proove it. I see nothing in these to show there is any advantage, and I can't find anything that shows an advantage. They trade blows.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/05/14/geforce_680_670_vs_radeon_7970_7950_gaming_perf/2
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/05/14/geforce_680_670_vs_radeon_7970_7950_gaming_perf/3
(The 2nd link shows OC'ed comparisons)

Anyways, FXAA is most comparable to MLAA, but much better, but I haven't tried MLAA 2.0, which could be improved. It's useful in 2 ways. It doesn't require much power to use, and it works on any game, even when other forms of AA doesn't work.

We don't know much about TXAA, because only 1 game has it, and it's an MMO I've never tried.

PhysX isn't often useful, but if you do play some of these games, it may have appeal to you.

3D Vision can be useful too, if you want 3D (I do, and the reason I have Nvidia cards).

 

[17seconds]

Well OP, here are the arguments for each card. This is the particular 7950 model that I'd recommend:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161407&SortField=0&SummaryType=0&PageSize=10&SelectedRating=-1&VideoOnlyMark=False&IsFeedbackTab=true#scrollFullInfo

I have friends whom have this card and have compared it to several other 7950s and it was the best in every way except for its cooler taking up a little more space than other coolers need. The current top review of this card is actually from one of my friends and I consider it quite reliable and useful.

It's not a good time to buy a 7950, or any card really, just a couple days before the GTX 660 Ti gets released.

 

[blazorthon]

It's not a good time to buy a 7950, or any card really, just a couple days before the GTX 660 Ti gets released.

The 660 TI is a 670 with a 33% cut in memory interface width and maybe some frequency changes. It can't compete with the 7950 when overclocking is considered, if even when it's not. The 660 TI, at best, would be able to compete with the 7870 when overclocking is considered. I would agree with you if OP was considering the 7870, but not the 7950 or above.

 

[17seconds]

The 660 TI is a 670 with a 33% cut in memory interface width and maybe some frequency changes. It can't compete with the 7950 when overclocking is considered, if even when it's not. The 660 TI, at best, would be able to compete with the 7870 when overclocking is considered. I would agree with you if OP was considering the 7870, but not the 7950 or above.

That's contradicted by the advance reviews and leaked benchmarks. But still, the logic stands, the release of the GTX 660 Ti will likely either be a card that beats the 7950 for less money, and/or will cause the prices of the 7950 to drop.

 

[stant1rm]

Thats... A lot of information. Thanks guys. Quick couple of questions.

Is it worth saving my money for a Radeon 8000 or GTX 700 series card? With school starting up in a week and a half, and being as I'm a third year premed student with a very difficult course load coming up, I won't have very much time left for gaming. I could easily put my machine aside until December. I'd just stick my old GTX 460 in there so it's operable.

Is it worth waiting or should I just jump on a pair of GTX 680's?

 

[17seconds]

Thats... A lot of information. Thanks guys. Quick couple of questions.

Is it worth saving my money for a Radeon 8000 or GTX 700 series card? With school starting up in a week and a half, and being as I'm a third year premed student with a very difficult course load coming up, I won't have very much time left for gaming. I could easily put my machine aside until December. I'd just stick my old GTX 460 in there so it's operable.

Is it worth waiting or should I just jump on a pair of GTX 680's?

Personally, I'm waiting out this round because the jump in performance is not enough to justify the upgrade from a GTX 580. If you can get by with a GTX 460, which is still a good card for gaming, then wait.

I do think that it's more likely that the 8000 series will be released by the end of this year, and less likely that the GTX 780 will. All the same, the GK110 is sitting in a lab somewhere being prepped for whatever comes next. It's also a good bet that Nvidia will unleash it to counter the 8000 cards. I guess the bottom line is, you just never know what will be released and when in terms of the next generations. Maybe an argument for getting the two 680's now?

 

[bystander]

Personally, I'm waiting out this round because the jump in performance is not enough to justify the upgrade from a GTX 580. If you can get by with a GTX 460, which is still a good card for gaming, then wait.

I do think that it's more likely that the 8000 series will be released by the end of this year, and less likely that the GTX 780 will. All the same, the GK110 is sitting in a lab somewhere being prepped for whatever comes next. It's also a good bet that Nvidia will unleash it to counter the 8000 cards. I guess the bottom line is, you just never know what will be released and when in terms of the next generations. Maybe an argument for getting the two 680's now?

You may be right about a lot of that, but I believe the GK110 has already been slated to be their workstation card. It doesn't have the GPGPU parts cut out, and I believe they plan to continue to keep that out of their gaming cards. I'm expecting a whole new arch for the 700 series.

 

[17seconds]

You may be right about a lot of that, but I believe the GK110 has already been slated to be their workstation card. It doesn't have the GPGPU parts cut out, and I believe they plan to continue to keep that out of their gaming cards. I'm expecting a whole new arch for the 700 series.

My thinking, don't know if it's true, is that the GK110 can be adopted for either workstation or gaming, as I believe it was originally intended. The success of the mid-range GK104 chip really took the pressure off and now they have the luxury of perfecting the GK110 and holding on to it until just the right time. If you recall the release of the 6970 was a dud because Nvidia came out of nowhere with the GTX 580 and caught everyone by surprise. I can see the same happening this time too.