Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7970 ghz edition 3gb or nvidia 680 4gb

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gaming
  • Monitors
  • Nvidia
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 17, 2012 6:14:41 PM

This is for gaming on a single 1920 x 1080 monitor??

More about : 7970 ghz edition 3gb nvidia 680 4gb

a b U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
August 17, 2012 6:23:03 PM

With that resolution you'll never use 1.5gb.

Gamerkila, you game on that system with integrated graphics? lol
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 17, 2012 6:25:46 PM

At only 1080p, go for the cheapest of the two. You can even get by at 1080p with a 660Ti, 7870 for just about any game I know of.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2012 6:28:56 PM

Maxx_Power said:
At only 1080p, go for the cheapest of the two. You can even get by at 1080p with a 660Ti, 7870 for just about any game I know of.

not if you want to use AA
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2012 6:29:28 PM

geekapproved said:
With that resolution you'll never use 1.5gb.

Gamerkila, you game on that system with integrated graphics? lol

no integrated wouldn't even let me play BF3 at 800x600 lol
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 17, 2012 6:37:41 PM

gamerkila57 said:
not if you want to use AA


Which game is that hard with AA on VRAM or is it ROPS you are referring to ?

The 660Ti and 7870 all comes with 2GB of vram...
August 17, 2012 6:38:34 PM

The 680 is quieter, less Power Consumption,The simplest answer is that the GTX 680 has faster stock clocks on both the memory and CUDA cores.

However, this shouldn't bother you too much because as you can see it's not crushingly out performing the 7970. Also, there so far appears to be better overhead for overclocking the HD 7970s versus the GTX 680 (probably because the 680 has a higher factory overclock to begin with). Another thing to consider is that the GTX 680 gave a lot of ground to the HD 7970 in terms of compute power this generation.

There is also going to be some games that favor one card over the other also the AMD cards value is in its overclocking if your not planing on overclocking the 7970 is not worth buying.

At the end of the day, considering prices, it boils down to a gaming versus compute choice. If you want the best single core, single card solution for gaming, NVIDIA is a compelling choice. If however you also utilize a graphics card for compute tasks, and your willing to overclock HD 7970 is clearly the winner and isn't too far behind NVIDIA on the gaming benchmarks.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 17, 2012 6:40:26 PM

You should be comparing the 680 2gb version. The 4gb version is for running higher resolution than what you are asking for.

Maybe this comparison of gaming benches will help? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/618?vs=555
August 17, 2012 7:33:41 PM

I personally would go with the 4GB 680 but that's because it favors the games i play and i don't like overclocking my cards all the time honestly both are great cards what are you wanting to know about them specifically
August 17, 2012 7:36:09 PM

regina_49 said:
I personally would go with the 4GB 680 but that's because it favors the games i play and i don't like overclocking my cards all the time honestly both are great cards what are you wanting to know about them specifically


i mainly want ot know is that if i overclock them, which one gives best bang for buck, considering the near enough 100 pound price difference with scan on the 680, when taking shipping into account??
August 17, 2012 7:55:06 PM

Well unfortunately there is no overclock that is guarantee out of any video card
August 17, 2012 8:03:09 PM

regina_49 said:
Well unfortunately there is no overclock that is guarantee out of any video card


i'm aware of this, i'm tling about average overclocks.
a c 678 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
a c 468 Î Nvidia
August 17, 2012 8:14:12 PM

August 17, 2012 8:40:18 PM

7970 GHz Edition FTW. Price/Performance You can't beat it. You will use the card on games like BF3 @ 1080P with Ultra settings and AA/AF.
August 17, 2012 8:51:37 PM

I've got the hd7970 ghz edition and it is better than my cousin gtx680 .(we have done some benchmarks)
August 17, 2012 8:54:56 PM

And don't think that the gtx680 has a big memory and is better. THe memory is to play games on high resolution.And HEY there are 3GB of GDDR5 memory that is waitiong for you and SHOULD be enough
August 17, 2012 8:58:13 PM

HD 7970GHz edition is currently the strongest single CPU card on the market with the 12.7 drivers, I believe? However, the GTX 680 has the upper hand with less power consumption, less noise, and more overclocking headroom. However, that all depends on what aftermarket cooling solution you choose.

As far as the VRAM goes, I wouldn't see why 3GB or 4GB would be necessary at 1080p resolution, for the the sake of it, the 7970 support a wider 384-bit memory interface compared to the 680's 256-bit. That allows the 7970 to achieve faster performance even though it has less VRAM. So lets look at the tally

Reviews - HD 7970

VRAM - Tie - GTX 680 has one more GB, but 7970 has a wider memory interface.

Temps - GTX 680 (Subjcet to Change)

Noise - GTX 680 (Subject to Change)

Overclocking - Subject to change.

It's a pretty even split, to be honest, the truth lies in the aftermarket solution you choose.
August 17, 2012 9:02:47 PM

bctande1 said:
HD 7970GHz edition is currently the strongest single CPU card on the market with the 12.7 drivers, I believe? However, the GTX 680 has the upper hand with less power consumption, less noise, and more overclocking headroom. However, that all depends on what aftermarket cooling solution you choose.

As far as the VRAM goes, I wouldn't see why 3GB or 4GB would be necessary at 1080p resolution, for the the sake of it, the 7970 support a wider 384-bit memory interface compared to the 680's 256-bit. That allows the 7970 to achieve faster performance even though it has less VRAM. So lets look at the tally

Reviews - HD 7970

VRAM - Tie - GTX 680 has one more GB, but 7970 has a wider memory interface.

Temps - GTX 680 (Subjcet to Change)

Noise - GTX 680 (Subject to Change)

Overclocking - Subject to change.

It's a pretty even split, to be honest, the truth lies in the aftermarket solution you choose.



basically its between this one http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX... and this one http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX... and the annoying thing is that i can't afford the card until next wednesday, when the deal will probably be gone on the HIS card.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
August 17, 2012 9:16:34 PM

Listen everyone should know that the 7970 is fastest single card right now, but that doesnt mean very much if your only 1080p. Grab yourself a 660 or a 7870 instead leave the 680 and 7970 for 2560 resolutions.
August 17, 2012 9:29:56 PM

Whatever you do, do NOT get a 4GB card to play at 1080p.

Nothing - and I mean NOTHING - not even 3x1600p screens - needs 4GB vram:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForc...

And currently 1GB is still basically enough for 1080p:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7850_Roya...

So, even if you got a 680 2GB card, you'd have plenty of vram for future games at that resolution.

The GHz is faster and cheaper than the 680, so I'd say get that unless you care about PhysX or are a nut about power draw/noise (in which case I'd tell you to get a custom 670 rather than a 680).

If you plan to dump a ton of time into one of the few games that will use PhysX well, go ahead and get the 680 2GB. If you just want the better all around performer, get a nice 7970 GHz edition and save some $$. The XFX 7970 GE for $440 is a nice deal.
August 17, 2012 10:17:31 PM

Guys our prices points mean nothing as op has different pricing so those points kinda mean nothing in this situation
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2012 10:25:09 PM

My vote goes to the 7970 Ghz edition.
August 17, 2012 11:17:51 PM

Well i am not sure op is taking votes but if they are then on a single 1920 x 1080 monitor my recommendation would be GTX 670 DirectCu II TOP if you like to overclock you'll love that card it's a monster hehehe
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 17, 2012 11:29:59 PM

BigMack70 said:
And currently 1GB is still basically enough for 1080p:

:pfff: 
August 18, 2012 2:57:21 PM

^^ ??

I haven't seen a review showing quantifiable benefits to more than 1GB vram at 1080p resolution. Quote from TPU's review:
The Club3D HD 7850 RoyalQueen comes with only 1 GB memory, whereas most other HD 7850 cards on the market have 2 GB. When I first got the card, I was extremely sceptical whether such capacity could provide enough performance for the latest and greatest titles. Now, after finishing the review, I am impressed. At resolutions up to, and including, 1920x1200, the card is just as fast as the HD 7850 with 2 GB, if not a little bit faster. Only at resolutions of 5760x1080 (Eyefinity), and at 2560x1600 in some games, did we see a performance penalty from the smaller frame buffer. Personally, I don't consider this an issue, because a single HD 7850 is just too slow for these resolutions anyway.

Sure there are things that can FILL UP 3GB vram at 1080p (I'm thinking modded skyrim may even be able to fill 6GB), but there still don't seem to be performance hits for having just 1GB.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 3:09:02 PM

MSAA itself is a big hit of VRAM. The new Max Payne 3 which I've been fond of for a long time is the best example of VRAM limit. When enabling 4X MSAA it consumes around 1.5 GB of VRAM. If you want the best gaming experience with 8X MSAA you'll need to have a 2GB+ card.

Also, the new game which called Sleeping Dogs was found to be taxing a lot of VRAM, so a 2GB card is must nowadays for playing @ 1080P with high textures enabled.
August 18, 2012 3:22:32 PM

Like I said, lots of things will fill up the extra vram.

But until I see benchmarks showing a difference between a 1GB and 2GB card, I think arguing for the necessity of >1GB vram for 1080p is nothing but theorycrafting.

For example, Techpowerup just reviewed the 4GB GTX 680 and found that Max Payne 3 maxed out with 4xAA at 5760x1080 was only using a little over 1.5GB vram...

I've become pretty convinced that huge vram amounts are just a nice luxury, but far from a necessity. Benchmarks just don't show an advantage to huge frame buffers until you get to triple screen resolution.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 3:32:01 PM

Even @ triple screen setups, the extra VRAM of GTX 680 didn't help
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.


Quote:
But until I see benchmarks showing a difference between a 1GB and 2GB card, I think arguing for the necessity of >1GB vram for 1080p is nothing but theorycrafting.

It doesn't need any benches, run the game and try to enable 4x MSAA with your 1Gb card you'll get the VRAM error message. With 4X MSAA it gets 1475 MB out of 2GB exactly on my HD 6950, If I set MSAA to 8x it consumes 2038 MB but the game lags and produces 15 FPS only. That's why 2GB of VRAM is a must.
August 18, 2012 3:37:43 PM

Makes no sense then why it's reporting (according to TPU) ~1.5GB vram use at triple screen resolution maxed out with 4xMSAA. Also, 15fps could be due to the card being just not strong enough to handle a smooth framerate at those settings - it may not be because of the framebuffer.
a c 678 U Graphics card
a b 4 Gaming
a b C Monitor
a c 468 Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 3:45:27 PM

Title of article:
"Do Graphics Cards Need 4 GB of Memory? - EVGA GeForce GTX 670 4 GB Superclocked+ Review"
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-...

It includes VRam usage for all the games in their test suite.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 3:48:49 PM

BigMack70 said:
Also, 15fps could be due to the card being just not strong enough to handle a smooth framerate at those settings - it may not be because of the framebuffer.

Exactly, but this means also, to run with 8x MSAA and have those edges very smooth for best gaming visuals you need another 500 MB of free VRAM to render those textures with that quality.

EDIT: Techspot reviewed Max Payne 3 and ran all the test settings on 2X MSAA due to the fact of the limiting VRAM,
August 18, 2012 4:08:18 PM

I don't have MP3, so I can't test things myself unfortunately. However, often games will say "these settings need X amount of vram" when in reality that's a load of BS.

Example: Doom 3's ultra setting said that it needed a 512MB graphics card to run, but my 320MB 8800GTS chewed through that game like butter. (And my 256Mb X800 Pro also did very well in that game on ultra settings).

Often, games overestimate the amount of vram you really need. That's why until I see benchmarks, I just don't believe it. Maybe that's just being stubborn - and if it were me, I certainly wouldn't buy a 1GB card now for 1080p - but I think that it's a useful point to show how far ahead graphics cards are than games in terms of vram use/amount.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 5:42:17 PM

You're arguing without a clue. Youtube MP and see how guys can't even turn up settings. The game required a certain amount of VRAM to run it's specified setting so we can't say that these amount is overstated or just a marketing scheme. The game is a real implementation of DX11 and high texture pack, you can't compare it to Doom3 or an older title.
August 18, 2012 5:48:41 PM

You still haven't explained that 1.5GB vram use in the TPU article... it's the second to last peak here:


Unless that's explained, the simplest explanation is that MP3 is doing what Doom 3 and I think GTA4 did - imposing artificial vram requirements that don't really mean anything. I'm guessing that the game will whine about needing way more vram than 1.5GB at that resolution/setting, and yet it doesn't actually need it.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 5:59:41 PM

What article? And what does this graph represent? it shows the amount of vram consumed at a given resolution so what's the problem? And what settings were on those benches? Did it include MP3?
Quote:
You will notice at the bottom of the video setting menu it shows your "Video Memory." It lists the total VRAM on the video card (to the right of the slash) and the required amount the game will take up with the settings selected (to the left of the slash). If you look in the second menu screenshot above we have selected 8X MSAA on the 3GB Radeon HD 7970 and you will see that with the highest settings plus 8X MSAA it exceeds the total VRAM of the video card. We found that in order to keep the VRAM in check at 8X MSAA, you'd have to lower either the Texture Quality, or go down to 4X MSAA which is within the limit. In the final video screenshot above we have the highest settings plus 8X MSAA selected on GeForce GTX 680 SLI


Bigmack, I don't know what's your problem :p 

EDIT: Did you check the article posted by matto? Your only justification in this case would be the higher resolution above 1080P.
August 18, 2012 6:20:57 PM

From this review:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForc...

They say they bench Max Payne 3 at highest settings with 4xAA, so I assume that's consistent with those memory benchmarks.

I read the xbit labs article but wasn't sure what it meant other than you don't really need that much vram unless you're doing triple screen resolutions.

It would be great if some site did a comprehensive look at vram use and how much is needed at different resolutions... haven't seen one in a couple years.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 6:38:26 PM

Ok, even if you can disable "just the message or the option limitation" the question is how the game will look like with 4X MSAA and 1GB, anybody tried it?

EDIT: VRAM has a drastic effect on performance.
August 18, 2012 6:41:47 PM

The video in that link seems to indicate that it's OK. I'm currently trying to find out if anyone has tried to run it with 560ti SLI with 4x or 8xAA and what their experience was like...
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 6:41:57 PM

BigMack70 said:
From this review:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForc...

They say they bench Max Payne 3 at highest settings with 4xAA, so I assume that's consistent with those memory benchmarks.

All those cards are able to run the game @ 4X MSAA. The minimum is GTX 580 which is 1.5 GB

BigMack70 said:
I read the xbit labs article but wasn't sure what it meant other than you don't really need that much vram unless you're doing triple screen resolutions.

It would be great if some site did a comprehensive look at vram use and how much is needed at different resolutions... haven't seen one in a couple years.


It doesn't depend only on resolution, it depends on the game and it's engine, specs, bla bla bla
August 18, 2012 6:49:06 PM

^^ I think that strong lower vram cards would do fine so long as they bypass the artificial vram limitation.

I know that it depends on a lot of things - that's why it would be helpful for someone to do an in-depth look at it. Just creating tables of how much vram is used (you can find this a bunch of places) doesn't really help figure out how much vram is needed.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b Î Nvidia
August 18, 2012 7:16:36 PM

At least they are 1.5 GB of VRAM not 1GB. The most important note you should get from all of these is that 1 GB is not enough for 1080P at least for today's games.
August 18, 2012 7:21:22 PM

The problem with that is that reviews continually show 1GB cards performing as well as their 2GB siblings.

The absolute worst case scenario for a 1GB card is that you can't crank MSAA up to a certain level in one or two games. And I doubt even that, as the video above shows 4xMSAA running just fine on a 560ti in Max Payne 3.

Like I said, I certainly wouldn't purchase a new 1GB card right now for 1080p (though the 560ti and 7850 are interesting cases where the GPU is weak enough that I'm not sure it can take advantage of 2GB vram). However, that has more to do with where things are going within the next year or two rather than where things are now. If there weren't a new console generation inbound (which should help push graphics further along), I'd guess that 1GB would continue to be fine.
August 18, 2012 7:54:47 PM

7970 Ghz edition would be my pick if you do not plan to overclock. I just purchased an xfx black edition 7970 as the ghz editions do not overclock that well and have a goofy boost function that can annoy you if you are into overclocking. Some ghz cards have issues with gpu voltage changes as well - standard factory overclocked cards do not have these issues. A good GPU on say a black edition, sapphire or other should be able to hit 1250mhz without issue with a little voltage tweaking... Ghz cards are irritating to say the least to push that hard.

Other factory overclocked 7970's like the sapphire and gigabyte are top choices depending on what you like. I am partial to XFX as they have done well for me so that was my choice. Tiger has the xfx black edition 7970 for $424 after rebate with 3 free games (Dirt, Deus and Nexuiz, good deal.
August 18, 2012 10:58:38 PM

Well even though I own a 680 myself, I'd say at the moment the best deal is a 7970, better if it's the Ghz version. Even though the 7970 reclaimed it's throne thanks to an amazing driver released by ati , anyway since the hardware world is the way it is there's maybe a chance (most likely) that the future drivers from nvidia could do give the 680's tittle back. It's all up to you, the 680 is of course the best nvidia card and it's an awesome card, I was about to make it sli but I considered it is unessesary, there's no current game that wont run awesome (60fps) at 1080p, so a 680 is kinda an overkill. On second tought the 680 is cheaper tho! Regards
August 18, 2012 11:22:57 PM

17seconds said:


That is simply PhysX on and off. On my old setup for example on Arkham City with everything railed (6950 2gb card) and physx maxed, I still ran playable framerates on my smaller monitors. If you turn it on, the CPU takes over if you do not have a separate dedicated video card to run it. While an nvidia rig setup properly will run physx a lot nicer than an AMD rig, there is a huge misconception with so many that you cannot run phyxs at all unless you run nvidia.
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2012 11:42:56 PM

I am currently considering MSI/Gigabyte's 670 OC version or a 7970 Ghz version in the 450 range.

Which one is better for BF3 gameplay on a 27" 120Hz monitor(ASUS VG278H for Nvidia, Samsung S27A950D for ATI, I like the ASUS monitor a bit better)?

p.s I will SLI/CLX a month after putting this rig together to get the most out of my monitor.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!