Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Most balanced GTX 670??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 1, 2012 2:49:16 AM

I am putting together a system list for my new gaming rig I will be building. I am in need of advice on the GPU however. I have gone back and forth but can't seem to decide. By balance i mean high OC's, low temps and noise levels. Obviously. As for what i have mostly been looking at it seems to me the MSI PE OC, ASUS DCII/DCIIT, EVGA FTW and Zotac AMP! Edition are some of the better picks in the line. Possibly the Gigabyte Windforce as well. I know some 670's use the 680 PCB and some don't. Other than the DCIIT and FTW I do not know if any others share the 680's PCB. I know someone told me the MSI either uses a custom or uses the 680 but I don't know which.

So with all that being said I will say I mostly play Skyrim, SWTOR, Diablo 3, Borderlands, Crysis 2, BF3, MP3 and MW3. I will also be playing on a single 27"@2560x1440.

So which 670 would offer me the best performance for the games i play with some high OC's and low temps. Noise is important to me but I will have a good amount of case fans as well, I will also be playing with headphones so the noise shouldn't be too big a problem though I would like the lowest nosie level possible. Just not going to be a deal breaker unless there's jet engine in my case.

Btw I probably should have put this in the Nvidia section, sorry.

More about : balanced gtx 670

September 1, 2012 3:12:11 AM

I have the Gigabyte Windforce and it absolutely wrecks! The overclocking options with that card are excellent. I do not know about the PCB however. The 670 has 2 GBs of RAM so it might not be the best option for 2560x1440. EVGA makes a 4 GB version that might be better for your uses.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 3:13:34 AM

Personally I would be all over that Asus 670 TOP for its high factory overclock, improved cooler,heavily modified PCB, with an efficient VRM design to produce low temperatures, improved voltage regulation circuitry, much better ChiL controller , specially binned chip and voltage control and monitoring support that you won't find on most other non-reference cards. It looks aggressive to me and indeed is quite a monster let's keep it on the real not only does out preform all other 670's it does it without even breaking a sweat.Those are some of the reasons you'll see it get a 10.0 rating at techpowerup, something no other card has ever attained. Source http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670... Quote: "Overall the ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II is the best card I ever tested. I simply can't find anything wrong with it". :o  once you own one of those cards!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Share
Related resources
September 1, 2012 3:33:26 AM

jstanley11 said:
I have the Gigabyte Windforce and it absolutely wrecks! The overclocking options with that card are excellent. I do not know about the PCB however. The 670 has 2 GBs of RAM so it might not be the best option for 2560x1440. EVGA makes a 4 GB version that might be better for your uses.

I think 2GB should be ample, i have seen a Toxic 7970 use a little more than 2GB on 7680x1440 and that was just on the menu screen under fuul load I think it went to around 3.4GHz. So on a single screen it should be fine. Thanks for the concern though. =]
bigcyco1 said:
Personally I would be all over that Asus 670 TOP for its high factory overclock, improved cooler,heavily modified PCB, with an efficient VRM design to produce low temperatures, improved voltage regulation circuitry, much better ChiL controller , specially binned chip and voltage control and monitoring support that you won't find on most other non-reference cards. It looks aggressive to me and indeed is quite a monster let's keep it on the real not only does out preform all other 670's it does it without even breaking a sweat.Those are some of the reasons you'll see it get a 10.0 rating at techpowerup, something no other card has ever attained. Source http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670... Quote: "Overall the ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II is the best card I ever tested. I simply can't find anything wrong with it". :o  once you own one of those cards! ]http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9932/realsanta.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


That review really paints a nice picture of the DCIIT. It really does seem like an amazing part, the best part of it being that it is a 2-slot card unlike the 680 DCIIT. I guess it would be worth the risk besides i am sure there are just some unlucky people recieving cards and if something does go wrong there is always the warranty. Does OCing void the warranty? Hopefully i wont have any problems and won't need to RMA it but it does seem like that will probably be my choice.

I won't lie though the MSI is not far behind right now, though it was in first before that review. lol Anyone else have opinions? I am also considering the Gigabyte but moreso the other two.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 3:38:27 AM

At that resolution, an AMD card is more likely to be a better option. If you want a 670 anyway, then the DCIIT is probably a good way to go.

Technically, overclocking probably voids the warranty, but if you don't tell Asus or whomever else handles the warranty that you overclocked, then they have no way of knowing whether or not overclocking was what damaged the card.

I don't think that you should go for the Gigabyte. The Asus and MSI cards are generally better these days and from what I've read, the GTX 670 models are not an exception to this. Other than those two, EVGA is probably the only other brand that I'd consider buying for a Nvidia card.
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 3:44:24 AM

If I do go with an AMD which would you recommend? i am just looking for the best card i can get for my system. I just went for Nvidia first but AMD is in the running as well. So what model or manufacturer would you suggest in the AMD line? I would even consider a 680 but I am not sure that is worth the price for how little of a boost you get over a 670.

Btw here is the rest of the parts i plan to use in my build.

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit OEM
Case: Antec Eleven Hundred
MoBo: ASRock Z77 OC FORMULA
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LP Black 8GB (2 x 4GB) 1600
CPU: Intel Core i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz Quad-Core
HSF: Noctua NH-D14
SSD: SAMSUNG 830 Series 128GB
HDD: SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB 7200RPM
PSU: SILVERSTONE Strider Gold Evolution 750W
ODD: ASUS DVD Burner OEM
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 3:48:52 AM

Well if you did want a 7970ghz the only one i would even consider just because it's a decent price and oc like a beast http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... i mean i am a fan of both it's just the unique graphics settings that the Nvidia cards offer, particularly PhysX, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, and TXAA. There is nothing unique about the AMD cards that is significant enough to sway a purchase. There is more to consider than performance when cards perform similarly and are priced similarly at least that's my opinion doesn't mean i am right to each their own.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 3:55:06 AM

PhysX is not supported by many games (let alone supported well) and can be used with an AMD card if you get say a GTS 450 to supplement the AMD card, Adaptive V-sync, although good, doesn't always work too well, FXAA is garbage, and TXAA, although great, is only a way for Nvidia to alleviate their memory bandwidth bottle-neck that holds them back with similar picture quality MSAA that AMD can handle exceptionally well. I was considering more than raw performance. AMD also has DirectC features such as advanced lighting and more and Nvidia can't run them on their Kepler GPUs with playable performance because their Direct Compute performance is junk.

Considering that a good Radeon 7950 can go almost as far as a 7970 GHz Edition in overclocking at $100 or even more less money, plenty to pay for a GTS 450 and still be cheaper than a GTX 670 that wouldn't come close in performance with PhysX enabled, this is arguably a much better option.
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 3:59:18 AM

Yeah it sems some of Nvidias features are either not really supported or I have heard they don't always do much in the performance department. Though i have also heard some good things about them too. However the 7970 GHz Vapor-X is a really great card and i have heard it does OC rather well. Plus the extra memory is always a plus and it seems to be the middle ground between the 670 and 680. Really considering the Sapphire 7970 now as well. Hmm, tough decision.

So right now it's between the MSI 670 PE OC, ASUS 670 DCIIT and Sapphire 7970 GHz Vapor-X.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:14:15 AM

any of those three would be a solid choice anyone tells you otherwise is most likely a fanboy of the green team or red team lol
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:14:23 AM

7970 GHz Edition is generally a little better than a 680. There is not really a middle ground between the 670 and the 680. They are extremely close. The 7900 cards usually overclock considerably better (especially the 7970 GHz Edition), but it's still not a huge difference except in some situations.
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 4:15:34 AM

Well I have quite the choice to make then. How is CFX vs SLI? This will be my firt big GPU purchase so just trying to cover all the bases.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:17:01 AM

blazorthon said:
PhysX is not supported by many games (let alone supported well) and can be used with an AMD card if you get say a GTS 450 to supplement the AMD card, Adaptive V-sync, although good, doesn't always work too well, FXAA is garbage, and TXAA, although great, is only a way for Nvidia to alleviate their memory bandwidth bottle-neck that holds them back with similar picture quality MSAA that AMD can handle exceptionally well. I was considering more than raw performance. AMD also has DirectC features such as advanced lighting and more and Nvidia can't run them on their Kepler GPUs with playable performance because their Direct Compute performance is junk.

Considering that a good Radeon 7950 can go almost as far as a 7970 GHz Edition in overclocking at $100 or even more less money, plenty to pay for a GTS 450 and still be cheaper than a GTX 670 that wouldn't come close in performance with PhysX enabled, this is arguably a much better option.
And that's your opinion which is fine to each their own ;) 
m
1
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:17:23 AM

bigcyco1 said:
And that's your opinion which is fine to each their own ;) 


No, FXAA being garbage is my opinion. The rest is fact.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:20:16 AM

blazorthon said:
No, FXAA being garbage is my opinion. The rest is fact.
:lol:  if you say so i don't feel like going there today to tired for the fanboy talk :whistle: 
m
1
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:21:40 AM

MX5J6 said:
Well I have quite the choice to make then. How is CFX vs SLI? This will be my firt big GPU purchase so just trying to cover all the bases.


With current drivers, CF versus SLI generally has no big difference in scaling and stutter between the two with the GTS 600 and Radeon 7000 cards with two GPUs, although I think that with three and four, CF takes the win. However, Nvidia's poor memory bandwidth becomes more of a problem with SLI configurations.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:22:11 AM

I would decide like this if your planing on overclocking and playing on a three monitor set up get the 7970ghz on a single monitor 1920x1200 and lower res get 670 if higher res like 2560x1440 and up get the 7970ghz
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:26:06 AM

bigcyco1 said:
:lol:  if you say so :whistle: 


At stock, the 7970 has more than 600% more dual-precision compute performance. As a result, DirectC features on Nvidia Kepler are unplayable whereas AMD handles them quite well.

PhysX is only supported by a few games and most that support it don't support it well. Games such as Borderlands 2 and Batman AC are among the few that support it well, but Batman is coded like crap in other ways and I'm not sure about Borderlands 2 (I've heard better news about it).

My opinion of FXAA is also based on it being a blur effect that is like putting things behind a foggy window. It's not even real AA. Sure, it smooths things out a little, but at a cost in clarity. That's a fact. My opinion of it is that it isn't worth the performance loss.

TXAA is only supported by a few games.

I could go on. Unless otherwise stated, these are facts, not opinions.

EDIT: This isn't fanboy talk. It doesn't take a fanboy to tell you things like these and considering that you can go anywhere such as a few Tom's or Anand or more to confirm them, you're out of luck in proving me wrong because I am right.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:28:56 AM

blazorthon said:
At stock, the 7970 has more than 600% more dual-precision compute performance. As a result, DirectC features on Nvidia Kepler are unplayable whereas AMD handles them quite well.

PhysX is only supported by a few games and most that support it don't support it well. Games such as Borderlands 2 and Batman AC are among the few that support it well, but Batman is coded like crap in other ways and I'm not sure about Borderlands 2 (I've heard better news about it).

My opinion of FXAA is also based on it being a blur effect that is like putting things behind a foggy window. It's not even real AA. Sure, it smooths things out a little, but at a cost in clarity. That's a fact. My opinion of it is that it isn't worth the performance loss.

I could go on. Unless otherwise stated, these are facts, not opinions.
I am to tired today give me a break you win :lol:  ;) 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:29:54 AM

Too tired, so I win? Too proud to outright admit that I'm right? Tom's and many other sites confirm this.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:31:06 AM

blazorthon said:
Too tired, so I win? Too proud to outright admit that I'm right? Tom's and many other sites confirm this.
Honestly to tired i am a fan of both so not sure where your going with your non sense
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 4:37:19 AM

So getting back to my decision. XD If I have a single high res monitor youd suggest the 7970, correct? Even if i don't go multi monitor?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:38:01 AM

MX5J6 said:
So getting back to my decision. XD If I have a single high res monitor youd suggest the 7970, correct? Even if i don't go multi monitor?


If you play at 1080p, then the difference between Radeon 7900 and the GTX 670 is less pronounced. If you play at over 1080p, regardless of monitor count, then AMD pulls ahead considerably.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:39:28 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Honestly to tired i am a fan of both so not sure where your going with your non sense


This isn't nonsense. Most games don't support PhysX very well. Even for those that do, AMD can use it without a performance impact if they have a decent Nvidia card supplementing them. The GTS 450 is an excellent card for this.

FXAA is not AA. It is a blur effect and because of this, it has a much smaller impact on performance, but the difference between it and AA can be obvious if you're sensitive to that sort of thing (a lot of people, including myself, are).

TXAA, unlike FXAA, is truly AA and is great. It has by far the best quality to performance ratio of any form of AA that I'm aware of. However, most games don't support it. It has less support than PhysX does.

Kepler GPU's CUDA cores aren't capable of dual-precision work at all. Nvidia removed this functionality completely to optimize for gaming performance per watt. Kepler GPUs have a small number of dual-precision capable CUDA cores to be capable of it, but all of the cores in a GCN GPU are capable of dual-precision work and at a very high speed that leaves even Fermi in the dust. Nvidia stepped back greatly in dual-precision performance where as AMD stepped up even more greatly in it.

Would you like me to go on?

Also, no, I'm not a fanboy. I've owned more Nvidia cards than AMD and my last one was a GTX 560 TI.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:41:14 AM

MX5J6 said:
So getting back to my decision. XD If I have a single high res monitor youd suggest the 7970, correct? Even if i don't go multi monitor?
If your asking me than i am to tired to explain right not and not trying to get banned from this guy trying to start something with me It's understandable that you would be confused. There are a few issues: 1) People make claims without backing it up with proof, 2) People make blanket statements, when the reality is that certain games favor certain hardware, 3) People make a few FPS advantage seem like a "win", when it usually falls within the margin of error and makes no difference in terms of performance.


Your best bet is to always do your own research using the many review websites and don't always believe everything reported by random anonymous posters on a public forum. ;) 
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 4:47:42 AM

I will read a few more reviews and try to find some more bemnchmarks and see hpow things go. I will report back with my decision and any questions I have after that. Thanks for the advice and opinions.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:52:03 AM

bigcyco1 said:
If your asking me than i am to tired to explain right not and not trying to get banned from this guy trying to start something with me It's understandable that you would be confused. There are a few issues: 1) People make claims without backing it up with proof, 2) People make blanket statements, when the reality is that certain games favor certain hardware, 3) People make a few FPS advantage seem like a "win", when it usually falls within the margin of error and makes no difference in terms of performance.


Your best bet it to always do your own research using the many review websites and don't always believe everything reported by random anonymous posters on a public forum. ;) 


Look at any review of any Kepler GPU-based graphics card that has the above things worked with. The Radeon 7970, for example, has about 5.5 times higher dual-precision performance (over 600%, or about 650% to be more accurate). Seriously, ANY REVIEW that has this info shows this. Tom's has several reviews that show it and the GTX 670 review is an excellent example.

I don't need to back up common knowledge. That's why it is common knowledge. If you don't like it, then check for yourself rather than then making hypocritical statements such as that I'm wrong when you have no clue.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 4:55:30 AM

MX5J6 said:
I will read a few more reviews and try to find some more bemnchmarks and see hpow things go. I will report back with my decision and any questions I have after that. Thanks for the advice and opinions.


It's always good to look at more reviews, but you must look at them with great scrutiny. Some reviews are made to try to trick people who don't look into the details to specifically into getting incorrect conclusions from them.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:05:47 AM

blazorthon said:
Look at any review of any Kepler GPU-based graphics card that has the above things worked with. The Radeon 7970, for example, has about 5.5 times higher dual-precision performance (over 600%, or about 650% to be more accurate). Seriously, ANY REVIEW that has this info shows this. Tom's has several reviews that show it and the GTX 670 review is an excellent example.

I don't need to back up common knowledge. That's why it is common knowledge. If you don't like it, then check for yourself rather than then making hypocritical statements such as that I'm wrong when you have no clue.
hypocritical statements such as that you are wrong or have no clue get over yourself my god your ego is a bit to much it was meant as in general rather it be you me or joe blow from Texas honestly you need a chill pill anyway i am done here OP hope you get whatever is best for you in the end that's all that matters :hello: 
m
-1
l
September 1, 2012 5:33:04 AM

Blazorthon, and Bigcyco1, stop bickering.

You wanted a review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev... scroll down to the bottom of the page, I quote from the article

Quote:
"Based on the complete benchmark analysis, we know that Nvidia’s design does best at 1680x1050, while AMD competes most aggressively at 2560x1600. Using 1920x1080 again gives us a good gauge of playable performance at the native resolution of many popular panels.


Nvidia’s architecture establishes a distinct lead in Crysis 2, DiRT 3, and WoW. Its advantage is less pronounced in Battlefield 3 and Skyrim. AMD jumps ahead in Metro 2033.


Of course, you could add games to this list all day long, and the balance would undoubtedly shift. In our suite, though, the GTX 670 averages more than 13% faster. If you leave all of the test results alone and shift that World of Warcraft score to 2560x1600, favoring the Radeon a little more, the average drops to 11.4% faster—still a notable advantage for a card that is expected to sell for $80 less."


Blazorthon, your sole argument of dual precision point, is one valid point, whereas Nvidia probably takes a different bench. Illregardless, based on the above, the 670 stock is slightly faster than the 7970, and relatively cheaper.

Back on topic -- MX5J6, you can easily get a stock 670 and overclock it to the settings of a higher priced card, and save the money. Its not hard, if you have questions please use the forums again and someone will probably be eager to help you. Just make sure you pick a card that has adequate cooling. (example: more than 1 fan)

EDIT: I put the whole articles section of the 7970 vs 670 in quotes.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:35:14 AM

For gaming performance, that review is useless today because it is outdated and is no longer correct.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:37:46 AM

2771901,30,1040297 said:
Blazorthon, and Bigcyco1, stop bickering.

You wanted a review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev... scroll down to the bottom of the page, I quote from the article "Of course, you could add games to this list all day long, and the balance would undoubtedly shift. In our suite, though, the GTX 670 averages more than 13% faster. If you leave all of the test results alone and shift that World of Warcraft score to 2560x1600, favoring the Radeon a little more, the average drops to 11.4% faster—still a notable advantage for a card that is expected to sell for $80 less."

Blazorthon, your sole argument of dual precision point, is one valid point, whereas Nvidia probably takes a different bench. Illregardless, based on the above, the 670 stock is slightly faster than the 7970, and relatively cheaper.

Back on topic -- MX5J6, you can easily get a stock 670 and overclock it to the settings of a higher priced card, and save the money. Its not hard, if you have questions please use the forums again and someone will probably be eager to help you. Just make sure you pick a card that has adequate cooling. (example: more than 1 fan)[/quotemsg :lol:  i am not the one read the thread and you'll see ;) 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:38:57 AM

bigcyco1 said:
:lol:  i am not the one read the thread and you'll see ;) 


You started this mess. I simply failed to be the bigger person by not letting it slide.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:40:52 AM

bigcyco1 said:
Didn't start it i simply gave my opinion and you felt the need to attack it is more like it but i am not trying to keep this petty bs going so let's both give it a rest :) 


" if you say so i don't feel like going there today to tired for the fanboy talk "

Ah yes, just giving opinion. You didn't know what you were talking about and you decided to insult my words over it. I let things rest when they are settled. Forgetting about something is not settling it. I'm not being any more petty than you were, although I admit that that is not proper justification for what I've now said.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:41:40 AM

blazorthon said:
You started this mess. I simply failed to be the bigger person by not letting it slide.
Didn't start it i simply gave my opinion and you felt the need to attack it is more like it but i am not trying to keep this petty bs going so let's both give it a rest :) 
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:46:27 AM

blazorthon said:
" if you say so i don't feel like going there today to tired for the fanboy talk "

Ah yes, just giving opinion. You didn't know what you were talking about and you decided to insult my words over it. I let things rest when they are settled. Forgetting about something is not settling it.
:lol:  if you say so whatever oh mighty god of knowledge of the gpu please forgive me :(  :na: 
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 5:47:34 AM

blazorthon said:
For gaming performance, that review is useless today because it is outdated and is no longer correct.


It is hardly useless, a bit outdated I will agree with. But by no means useless. Driver updates typically only see small refinements somewhere in the range of 5-15% increase in performance. Therefore both cards would be close to where they are now.

Anandtech comparison:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=598

Here you can see that the 670 wins on some games, and the 7970 wins on others. There is no clear cut winner. You're seeking validation that the 7970 is a clear cut winner, you'll never achieve that, no matter how much emphasis you put on "dual precision point", one part of a GPU. Every review will go back and forth as their ment to compete with one another. This isn't 6-7 years ago when AMD ruled over Nvidia, this is now, where both companies have comparable products. Now I await your disagreement, as you'll point out one small flaw in my message and take it the wrong way.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:48:55 AM

Anand's comparison tool is truly useless because it is as outdated as it can get. If you want good comparisons, then do so with current drivers or at least with drivers that have identical performance. I wouldn't use anything older than the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition reviews and GTX 660 TI reviews.

I never said that the 7900 cards always win, only that they generally win. The dual-precison performance difference pretty much only matters when advanced lighting features that take advantage of it are used, but when they are, Nvidia's Kepler cards are unplayable with it. They can't handle it. Also, it's floating point, not point. Floating point is the type of math used by GPUs and the FPU components of CPUs.

Also, the Catalyst 12.7 driver has a significant performance improvement over the previous AMD drivers. This is part of what makes the old reviews useless as points of reference in gaming performance. That some games have different performance characteristics from several months ago also makes a big deal.
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 5:54:52 AM

blazorthon said:
If you want good comparisons, then do so with current drivers or at least with drivers that have identical performance. I wouldn't use anything older than the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition reviews and GTX 660 TI reviews.


I see where your misinformation is occurring, you're comparing a 7970 Ghz edition to a 660 GTX. THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

7950 = 660
7970 = 670

With this being said, you're also comparing a 7970 Ghz Edition to a STOCK 670. Of course it'll win. You're fudging the reviews to validate your arguments, you're no better than a lawyer or politician.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 5:57:16 AM

blazorthon said:
Anand's comparison tool is truly useless because it is as outdated as it can get. If you want good comparisons, then do so with current drivers or at least with drivers that have identical performance. I wouldn't use anything older than the Radeon 7970 GHz Edition reviews and GTX 660 TI reviews.

I never said that the 7900 cards always win, only that they generally win. The dual-precison performance difference pretty much only matters when advanced lighting features that take advantage of it are used, but when they are, Nvidia's Kepler cards are unplayable with it. They can't handle it. Also, it's floating point, not point. Floating point is the type of math used by GPUs and the FPU components of CPUs.

Also, the Catalyst 12.7 driver has a significant performance improvement over the previous AMD drivers. This is part of what makes the old reviews useless as points of reference in gaming performance. That some games have different performance characteristics from several months ago also makes a big deal.


melharts said:
I see where your misinformation is occurring, you're comparing a 7970 Ghz edition to a 660 GTX. THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

7950 = 660
7970 = 670

With this being said, you're also comparing a 7970 Ghz Edition to a STOCK 670. Of course it'll win. You're fudging the reviews to validate your arguments, you're no better than a lawyer or politician.


You see no such thing. I never compared the 7970 GHz Edition to the 660 TI. I simply said that both reviews use recent drivers. Both reviews have many other cards tested. Seriously, nice job completely misunderstanding what I'm talking about and then mocking me for your incorrect assumptions. You also made the mistake of confusing the 660 TI with the yet to be released 660. The 7950 is generally better than the 660 TI and the 660 probably won't beat the 7870. Also ,that's at stock. If you overclock, then the 660 TI falls behind. By a lot. It has very little headroom.
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 6:00:00 AM

MX5J6 said:
Well I think I made my decision despite all the destracting vibrations of my phone going off everytime someone argues something that I don't really care about. =p After all my research and comparing reviews and benchmarks I have decided to go with the...wait for it...ASUS 670 DCIIT. It is slightly faster than the MSI, comsumes less power and is quieter, though the MSI is slightly cooler but only be a few C. the ASUS averages better frame rates than the MSI but it is listerally by a hairline. Based on the games I play and will play it is about .78 FPS faster than the MSI but the fact that is cis less power hungry and quieter won it over for me. So there you have it, my decision. I thank everyone who helped me come to this decision. Now you can complain amongst yourselves. =p


I'm glad you could make a choice with our distractions. You won't be disappointed. Enjoy your gaming!
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 6:00:27 AM

Well I think I made my decision despite all the destracting vibrations of my phone going off everytime someone argues something that I don't really care about. =p After all my research and comparing reviews and benchmarks I have decided to go with the...wait for it...ASUS 670 DCIIT. It is slightly faster than the MSI, comsumes less power and is quieter, though the MSI is slightly cooler but only be a few C. the ASUS averages better frame rates than the MSI but it is listerally by a hairline. Based on the games I play and will play it is about .78 FPS faster than the MSI but the fact that is cis less power hungry and quieter won it over for me. So there you have it, my decision. I thank everyone who helped me come to this decision. Now you can complain amongst yourselves. =p

Btw the 7970 was also in that run but the 670's seemed to pull out a little ahead of the 7970 from what I have seen so I decided to go with the 670 and then chose between the two and ended up picking the ASUS. So think this was very worth it.

Secnd edit, when I say the 670's took over a little I mean mostly OC'd even though the 7970 may be able to OC a little higher the 670's typically ranged higher FPS, but only slightly and not all the time. However the ASUS is still the quietest of the 3 from what I could see and consumed less power.
m
1
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 6:01:32 AM

Simple way to end this petty bs OP both cards are top notch and you really couldn't go wrong either way unless you were gaming on a three or more monitors or a single monitor above 2560 in that case the 7970ghz would be way better it's also worth checking which games you prefer to play when picking a card certain games favor certain hardware.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 6:03:17 AM

blazorthon said:
You see no such thing. I never compared the 7970 GHz Edition to the 660 TI. I simply said that both reviews use recent drivers. Both reviews have many other cards tested. Seriously, nice job completely misunderstanding what I'm talking about and then mocking me for your incorrect assumptions. You also made the mistake of confusing the 660 TI with the yet to be released 660. The 7950 is generally better than the 660 TI and the 660 probably won't beat the 7870. Also ,that's at stock. If you overclock, then the 660 TI falls behind. By a lot. It has very little headroom.


MX5J6 said:
Well I think I made my decision despite all the destracting vibrations of my phone going off everytime someone argues something that I don't really care about. =p After all my research and comparing reviews and benchmarks I have decided to go with the...wait for it...ASUS 670 DCIIT. It is slightly faster than the MSI, comsumes less power and is quieter, though the MSI is slightly cooler but only be a few C. the ASUS averages better frame rates than the MSI but it is listerally by a hairline. Based on the games I play and will play it is about .78 FPS faster than the MSI but the fact that is cis less power hungry and quieter won it over for me. So there you have it, my decision. I thank everyone who helped me come to this decision. Now you can complain amongst yourselves. =p


Sorry for hijacking your thread. I just can't stand being told that I'm wrong by people who don't know what they're talking about. You'll probably be happy with your choice.
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 6:03:28 AM

No worries to you all, I just ignored my phone after a while and got to work which is what I needed someone or somepeople to force me to do, which you guys did. So thanks.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 6:05:49 AM

MX5J6 said:
Well I think I made my decision despite all the destracting vibrations of my phone going off everytime someone argues something that I don't really care about. =p After all my research and comparing reviews and benchmarks I have decided to go with the...wait for it...ASUS 670 DCIIT. It is slightly faster than the MSI, comsumes less power and is quieter, though the MSI is slightly cooler but only be a few C. the ASUS averages better frame rates than the MSI but it is listerally by a hairline. Based on the games I play and will play it is about .78 FPS faster than the MSI but the fact that is cis less power hungry and quieter won it over for me. So there you have it, my decision. I thank everyone who helped me come to this decision. Now you can complain amongst yourselves. =p

Btw the 7970 was also in that run but the 670's seemed to pull out a little ahead of the 7970 from what I have seen so I decided to go with the 670 and then chose between the two and ended up picking the ASUS. So think this was very worth it.
Good choice not just remember there is a downfall every time you are gaming using that card this comes in your head http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djj7jW6ny2M&feature=rela... :na:  joking ;) 
m
0
l
September 1, 2012 6:08:13 AM

blazorthon said:
Sorry for hijacking your thread. I just can't stand being told that I'm wrong by people who don't know what they're talking about. You'll probably be happy with your choice.


I just can't stand being told that I'm wrong by people who refuse to link references to support their arguments. Oh, and being insulted, saying I don't know what i'm talking about when I gave references. Thank you for being the better person! (That was sarcasm if you didn't notice)
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 6:11:09 AM

melharts said:
I just can't stand being told that I'm wrong by people who refuse to link references to support their arguments. Oh, and being insulted, saying I don't know what i'm talking about when I gave references. Thank you for being the better person! (That was sarcasm if you didn't notice)


...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-rev...

Drivers can't change hardware problems. It doesn't matter what driver version you use, Kepler GPUs have crap compute perfomrance compared to GCN, especially in dual-precision. I shouldn't need to link things like these. They are common knowledge.

Also, saying that you two don't know what you're talking about in this situation isn't an insult, it's simply admitting the truth. I meant no offense by it, although I suppose I was stupid to think that it would be interpreted that way considering that it is an offensive way to say that. Sorry about that. Also, I never claimed to be the better person, I simply said that what I said is correct and giving references dos not mean that you know what you're talking about, especially when they are too outdated to be relevant.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 6:12:25 AM

MX5J6 said:
No worries to you all, I just ignored my phone after a while and got to work which is what I needed someone or somepeople to force me to do, which you guys did. So thanks.
Your very welcome! GTX 670 =

Uploaded with ImageShack.us :lol:  take care enjoy! :hello: 
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
September 1, 2012 6:17:31 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhysX#PhysX_in_video_games

Look at how few modern games support PhysX. Three modern DX11 games support it and a few modern DX9/10 games support it, but even then, most of them don't make much use of it, let alone effective use, especially with the older games. It's not a bad feature like FXAA is, but it is simply not a well-supported feature. That a Radeon 7950 and a GTS 450 can do PhysX (better than a GTX 670, too) together at about the same price as a GTX 670 does not do Nvidia any good. Heck, Fermi had better PhysX efficiency than Kepler does. Yet another issue with Kepler's reduced dual-precision compute performance. That Physics can be processed by the CPU in many games does Nvidia even less good.

Would you all like more links? I can probably get some more.
m
0
l
!