Most balanced GTX 670??

[MX5J6]

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.

 

[jstanley11]

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.

 

[bigcyco1]

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_Direct_Cu_II/ 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". once you own one of those cards!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[MX5J6]

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. =]

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_Direct_Cu_II/ 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". once you own one of those cards! [url]http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9932/realsanta.jpg[/URL]

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.

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[MX5J6]

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

 

[bigcyco1]

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=N82E16814202001 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.

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[MX5J6]

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.

 

[bigcyco1]

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

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[MX5J6]

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.

 

[bigcyco1]

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

 

[blazorthon]

And that's your opinion which is fine to each their own

No, FXAA being garbage is my opinion. The rest is fact.

 

[bigcyco1]

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

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[bigcyco1]

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

 

[blazorthon]

:lol: if you say so

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.

 

[bigcyco1]

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:

 

[blazorthon]

Too tired, so I win? Too proud to outright admit that I'm right? Tom's and many other sites confirm this.

 

[bigcyco1]

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

 

[MX5J6]

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?

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[blazorthon]

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.

 

[bigcyco1]

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.