Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

670 vs. 7970 vs. 7950

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 3, 2012 9:35:15 AM

So I plan on playing at 1920x1080 with my new build, but can't make my mind up on the GPU. At first I decided on the 7950 based on bang for buck (which seems to be the best option with that in mind), but after more research, the 670/7970 became more and more tempting. These two cards specifically have me giddy based on what I've read:

670: http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GeForce-GTX-670-DC2T-2GD5-GT...

7970: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

...but I'm looking for suggestions on which brand/card would be best for now/later with higher resolution (I plan on upgrading to anywhere from 1920x1080-2560 a year or two down the road, with a triple monitor setup also being a possibility). If the 7950 is by far the most cost effective, I don't have a problem going with it, though.

More about : 670 7970 7950

a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:00:53 AM

If your going for triple monitor setup and don't care about 3d or PhysX then go for the 7970.
Related resources
September 3, 2012 10:13:44 AM

Honestly, the triple monitor setup I would consider... unlikely. I see myself going for a single 2500x1600 over it eventually, but I will stick to 1080 for awhile.

Sooo with that in mind, is the 7970 worth 20$ more than the 670, even at 1080? Should I just shoot for a 7950?
September 3, 2012 10:14:50 AM

Swolern said:
If your going for triple monitor setup and don't care about 3d or PhysX then go for the 7970.


Why don't you like 3D for the 7970's? I use it all the time.
September 3, 2012 10:18:13 AM

shadyares said:
I would go with this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... can't beat that price and reference cards bios can be flashed to Ghz bios. Unless you don't like the look of reference cards but I would definitely go for the 7970.


Seems like non-reference would be the wiser choice based on what I've read in regards to the 7970, or is that not so?
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:18:46 AM

Stoobs said:
Honestly, the triple monitor setup I would consider... unlikely. I see myself going for a single 2500x1600 over it eventually, but I will stick to 1080 for awhile.

Sooo with that in mind, is the 7970 worth 20$ more than the 670, even at 1080? Should I just shoot for a 7950?
at 1080? No @2500x1600 yes ;) 
September 3, 2012 10:24:50 AM

bigcyco1 said:
at 1080? No @2500x1600 yes ;) 



So are they comparable for the most part @1080, or does one fall behind the other?

Want to make the right decision on this, heh.

It may be worth noting that I will be playing quite a bit of BF3 on this build, though it certainly isn't the only thing I'll be playing. Knowing that BF favors Nvidia, what kind of performance difference in that game would I be looking at?

Also, I've heard a lot of good things about Physx. Is it a big enough plus to be a deal-breaker in this situation?
September 3, 2012 10:35:30 AM

Stoobs said:
Seems like non-reference would be the wiser choice based on what I've read in regards to the 7970, or is that not so?

Clock for clock there performance is the same. The only difference is the non-reference cards run cooler and come with higher clock speeds. But reference 7970s already run cool and can be overclocked plenty.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:42:29 AM

shadyares said:
I would go with this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... can't beat that price and reference cards bios can be flashed to Ghz bios. Unless you don't like the look of reference cards but I would definitely go for the 7970.


Flashing the BIOS doesn't give a 7970 a 7970 GHz Edition's better binned parts. Also, if overclocking is on the table, then why is the 7950 being ignored? It is about equal to the 7970 in overclocking performance, especially the models with good non-reference coolers.

Swolern said:
If your going for triple monitor setup and don't care about 3d or PhysX then go for the 7970.


Even if one cares about PhysX, a 7950 with a GTS 450 or thereabouts in Nvidia performance can undoubtedly run PhysX better than the GTX 670 does. I also see nothing wrong with 3D on AMD graphics cards. It has inferior display support if I remember correctly, but it's still good if you get the right display.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:46:28 AM



Uploaded with ImageShack.us Starting with the popular BF3 we find both GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 680 giving us better performance compared to the Radeon HD 7950. The GeForce GTX 670 is almost 19% faster than the Radeon HD 7950 in this game. Performance between GTX 680 and GTX 670 is relatively close. The GTX 680 is 7% faster than the GTX 670. The Radeon HD 7950 just can't keep up with NVIDIA's GTX 670 and 680 in this game.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Batman continues to show the dominance of the GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 680 over the Radeon HD 7950. In the portion of gameplay with heavy tessellation, between the 196 second and 361 second mark, we see both NVIDIA GPUs perform much better than the HD 7950. On average, the GTX 670 is almost 22% faster than the Radeon HD 7950 in this game. Once again there is only a small difference between GTX 670 and GTX 680, with the GTX 680 being 9% faster than the GTX 670.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Once again both NVIDIA GPUs of this generation hold a huge lead over the Radeon HD 7950 in Skyrim. The GTX 670 is a whopping 30% faster than the Radeon HD 7950 in Skyrim.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Deus Ex is the only game where the difference isn't as large. Still, the GTX 670 does technically hold a 4% advantage.



GTX 670 vs. GTX 680 vs. HD 7970 at Stock Clocks

Battlefield 3

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Now that we have the Radeon HD 7970 compared.

In BF3, amazingly the new GeForce GTX 670, which is cheaper than the HD 7970, is performing right about on par with HD 7970. The average framerate is so close you can't call either one the "winner." Performance is equal, and that means the less expensive GTX 670 is delivering the same experience as the more expensive HD 7970 video card. The $499 GTX 680 adds a bit more performance, but it too is still rather close to GTX 670 performance.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us In Batman, the new GeForce GTX 670 is actually faster than the Radeon HD 7970! Once again in the parts that really matter, with heavy tessellation between 196 seconds and 346 seconds marks, we see the HD 7970 suffer. GeForce GTX 670 is able to give us above 30 FPS in this area, and the more expensive HD 7970 is not. This is impressive.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Even in Skyrim the less expensive GeForce GTX 670 gives us more performance over the Radeon HD 7970. We are seeing the GTX 670 averaging 9% faster than the Radeon HD 7970. If you look in the graph this means performance consistently above 60 FPS. The GeForce GTX 680 offers us even more in this game, giving us 13% more performance over the GTX 670.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us Once again we see strong performance from the AMD side in this game. The AMD Radeon HD 7970 is 15% faster than the GeForce GTX 670. The GeForce GTX 680 brings performance up closer to the HD 7970. This was the only game to behave this way, all others as you've seen show the GTX 670 coming out ahead or equal to HD 7970.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 10:47:58 AM

This is why only up to date reviews matter, not outdated reviews. Also, I did say well overclocked 7950, not stock 7950. Only when overclocked does the 7950 meet the 7970. They can both hit about the same frequencies and given the same frequencies, the 7950 and the 7970 are on-par.
September 3, 2012 10:56:33 AM

At that res a HD 7850 overclocked is more than enough and its super cheap.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:01:36 AM

GTX 670 vs. GTX 680 vs. HD 7970, All Overclocked

Battlefield 3

Uploaded with ImageShack.us We received a very high overclock on our reference Radeon HD 7970, so it will be interesting to see how it compares now.

The high overclock on the Radeon HD 7970 has pushed performance over the GTX 670 overclocked. The HD 7970 overclocked is 9% faster than the overclocked GTX 670.

However, when we overclock the GTX 680 it seems to be able to match the HD 7970 dead on in this game. That average framerate is crazy, these are exactly the same between the GTX 680 overclocked and HD 7970 overclocked. Even the minimum and maximum FPS are close. It seems during the beginning of the level the HD 7970 overclocked is about 10 FPS faster than the GTX 680 overclocked, but as the level progresses both even out.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us The overclock greatly helped the Radeon HD 7970 in this game. We are finally seeing acceptable tessellation performance at these settings with this overclock. In fact, performance increased so much in other parts of the game without tessellation that the overall average framerate goes to the HD 7970 overclocked here. It is even just slightly faster than the GTX 680 overclocked.

The overclocked Radeon HD 7970 is 13% faster than GeForce GTX 670 overclocked. While the average framerate of the HD 7970 overclocked and GTX 680 overclocked are similar, note that the red line HD 7970 OC does hit and dip a couple times below 30 FPS. GTX 680 overclocked doesn't do this as it stays above 30 FPS, and has less tendency to be close to the 30 FPS bar.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us The overclock on the Radeon HD 7970 also helped it greatly in Skyrim. Performance is now on the level of GTX 670 and 680 in this game with it overclocked. Radeon HD 7970 overclocked is 4.6% faster than GTX 670 overclocked now. However GTX 680 overclocked brings the performance edge back to NVIDIA in this game.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us The AMD Radeon HD 7970 has benefited the most from overclocking and has the highest performance. HD 7970 OC is 23% faster than GTX 670 OC in this game, and even GTX 680 overclocked can't reach HD 7970 overclocked performance in this particular game.

a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:02:43 AM

Your first three game benchmarks there are the three most Nvidia favoring modern games available, just so you know. Also, can you simply give a link to where you got those pictures? I can't trust benchmarks that I can't look into.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:03:09 AM

blazorthon said:
Your first three game benchmarks there are the three most Nvidia favoring modern games available, just so you know. Also, can you simply give a link to where you got those pictures? I can't trust benchmarks that I can't look into.
lol give me a break like i rig these up or something :sarcastic:  here your link http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/05/14/geforce_680_6...
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:03:48 AM

blazorthon said:
This is why only up to date reviews matter, not outdated reviews. Also, I did say well overclocked 7950, not stock 7950. Only when overclocked does the 7950 meet the 7970. They can both hit about the same frequencies and given the same frequencies, the 7950 and the 7970 are on-par.
So where are the up to date reviews?
September 3, 2012 11:04:13 AM

blazorthon said:
Flashing the BIOS doesn't give a 7970 a 7970 GHz Edition's better binned parts. Also, if overclocking is on the table, then why is the 7950 being ignored? It is about equal to the 7970 in overclocking performance, especially the models with good non-reference coolers.



Even if one cares about PhysX, a 7950 with a GTS 450 or thereabouts in Nvidia performance can undoubtedly run PhysX better than the GTX 670 does. I also see nothing wrong with 3D on AMD graphics cards. It has inferior display support if I remember correctly, but it's still good if you get the right display.


Tru but you still get the stock perfomance of a GHz Edition card. The 3D for the AMD cards will actually work on any 3D display and convert almost any game to 3D but the down side is you need third party software to use it.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:07:12 AM

blazorthon said:
May is too old. I'll get you some more up to date benchmarks to look at.
o.k.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 11:31:13 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...

This one lacks the 680, but it shows the 7970 against the 670.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-...

This one is a little older, but the system hardware and drivers are the same, so it's still useful. We now have another new driver since these reviews, Catalyst 12.8, so they can be said to be out of date, but I'm pretty sure that 12.8 isn't a big performance changer. I've read a few reviews of it and it didn't seem to change much of anything other than a few minor glitch fixes and one or two stability improvements.
September 3, 2012 11:44:11 AM

blazorthon said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-660-ti-...

This one lacks the 680, but it shows the 7970 against the 670.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-...

This one is a little older, but the system hardware and drivers are the same, so it's still useful. We now have another new driver since these reviews, Catalyst 12.8, so they can be said to be out of date, but I'm pretty sure that 12.8 isn't a big performance changer. I've read a few reviews of it and it didn't seem to change much of anything other than a few minor glitch fixes and one or two stability improvements.


Based on those benchmarks, the 7970 seems like the easy choice... PhysX not considered (unless I'm missing something else here Nvidia has over AMD?).

So I guess I need to decide if that alone is worth getting the 670 over the 7970 ... but then again, the 3gb of vram and superiority at higher res is even more of an advantage with the 7970.

Bah.



Thanks for all the help/discussion btw, guys!

September 3, 2012 12:11:17 PM

Testing green or red honestly its much of a muchness and will be like that as long as both companies agree to step releases and anti-competition tactics.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 12:15:19 PM

Imo you couldn't go wrong either way i trust TechPowerUp benchmarks more than TH tomshardware is not a good site to judge overall relative performance their benchmark suite is way too small.And seems always favoring amd i may be paranoid who knows but i just prefer to use many reliable trust worthy sites and compare which seem most consistent.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 12:22:57 PM

Stoobs said:
Based on those benchmarks, the 7970 seems like the easy choice... PhysX not considered (unless I'm missing something else here Nvidia has over AMD?).

So I guess I need to decide if that alone is worth getting the 670 over the 7970 ... but then again, the 3gb of vram and superiority at higher res is even more of an advantage with the 7970.

Bah.



Thanks for all the help/discussion btw, guys!


For PhysX, 7950 plus GTS 450 or GTX 550 TI or GTX 560 SE (depending on pricing) as a dedicated PhysX card would be the obvious choice IMO. That should outperform the 670 in PhysX significantly at about the same price, albeit higher power consumption due to the second card (although not necessarily less power efficient, that'd be something worth looking into in greater detail).

AMD also has DirectC lighting features. Nvidia Kepler cards can't run them with playable performance due to their crap compute performance (however, they do technically support them despite not having the performance for them). The 7950 just blinks at such features in performance. Such is the result an ~650% (not exaggerating nor lying, the advantage is that huge over the 670) dual-precision compute performance advantage.

Glad to help.
September 3, 2012 12:28:46 PM

As before a overclocked 7850 is good enough at 19:10 res to max out at well over playable and is cheap enough to CFX which beats both cards.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 12:33:44 PM

sarinaide said:
As before a overclocked 7850 is good enough at 19:10 res to max out at well over playable and is cheap enough to CFX which beats both cards.


Max out texture quality at 1080p, yes. Max out AA and tessellation at 1080p, not in most DX11 and otherwise intense games.

Yes, two 7850s are better than a 7950 and even a 7970 GHz Edition, but they're much more expensive than a 7950 and are less expandable.
September 3, 2012 12:40:21 PM

8X MSAA is still doable on a single 7850 but thats about its limits, fully clocked its about GTX 580/7870 level of performance which is not a bad showing from what is the bare minimum of mainstream gaming. Just sayin its really all you need anything more is just how much eye candy you want. I would honestly say save buck and go with a 7870 now that its cheaper, it offers enough performance at a lower cost.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 12:44:31 PM

sarinaide said:
8X MSAA is still doable on a single 7850 but thats about its limits, fully clocked its about GTX 580/7870 level of performance which is not a bad showing from what is the bare minimum of mainstream gaming. Just sayin its really all you need anything more is just how much eye candy you want. I would honestly say save buck and go with a 7870 now that its cheaper, it offers enough performance at a lower cost.


That'll depend on the game. Some can't handle that much AA with the 7850. I think that 4X MSAA would be the limit for even a highly overclocked 7850 (over 1200MHz core and over 1500-1600MHz memory) in some games.

I do agree in that the 7850 and the 7870 are great cards right now for their prices. Nvidia has nothing that competes with them in the GTX 600 series (yet) and they beat the previous gen AMD and Nvidia cards in performance per dollar so much that it's incredible IMO. I personally own a 7850 tat I've modded and overclocked well above recommended levels and I couldn't be happier with it (mostly because of my low budgets; a 7950 would have been even better).

Unlike the 7970 versus the 7950, the 7870 is both stock and overclocked better than the 7850 and at its current price, is a good deal. However, when telling PhysX lovers and/or people who want borderlands 2 that AMD can be a better alternative to the 660 TI, the 7870 is too expensive even now to get a decent Nvidia card to run as a dedicated PhysX card for it to compete with the 660 TI in PhysX performance.

However, outside of those situations, the 7870 is easily worth the money over the 7850, especially when on sale, not that the 7850 isn't still one of the best cards for the money at that price in a kinda long time. What other card can reach for incredible 1080p performance at a near $200 price tag (sometimes at $200 and a few can get under it with MIRs and other occasional deals)?
September 3, 2012 12:59:23 PM

I have tried a GTX 550ti as a dedicated Physx card along with variable nvidia and AMD solutions, its the only reason why the HD 7850 is so appealing but if a person wants highest end then Tahiti or 670 is where to start, I think the GTX 680 has become sort of redundant now.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:14:46 PM

sarinaide said:
I have tried a GTX 550ti as a dedicated Physx card along with variable nvidia and AMD solutions, its the only reason why the HD 7850 is so appealing but if a person wants highest end then Tahiti or 670 is where to start, I think the GTX 680 has become sort of redundant now.


You've tried it? Can you tell me how it worked (details, plz)? I've been talking about it for a while, but I don't have a Nvidia card around worth trying it with except maybe for my GTX 295 (I have two of them, not using them much right now), but it's a DX10.1 card and I don't have a PSU than can handle both it and another card (not even my 7850) in my usual computer at this time.

Also, if it's not too much to ask, do you still have that 550 TI? Cleeve tells me that it's not quite as good as a GTS 450 (I've been to lazy to check, I know, shame on me), but it should be close enough for a good comparison if you still have it and a good graphics card to act as a primary.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:17:39 PM

blazorthon said:
You've tried it? Can you tell me how it worked (details, plz)? I've been talking about it for a while, but I don't have a Nvidia card around worth trying it with except maybe for my GTX 295 (I have two of them, not using them much right now), but it's a DX10.1 card and I don't have a PSU than can handle both it and another card (not even my 7850) in my usual computer at this time.

Also, if it's not too much to ask, do you still have that 550 TI? Cleeve tells me that it's not quite as good as a GTS 450 (I've been to lazy to check, I know, shame on me), but it should be close enough for a good comparison if you still have it and a good graphics card to act as a primary.
Come'on tell us the truth you don't have a Nvidia period because you ride that redteam hardcore :na:  jk. ;) 
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:26:05 PM

bigcyco1 said:
Come'on tell us the truth you don't have a Nvidia period because you ride that redteam hardcore :na:  jk. ;) 


My last card from Nvidia was a GTX 560 Ti. Unfortunately, it's fan was damaged by a large insect (horrible luck) and I didn't have a warranty anymore. I replaced it with my 7850. Right before the 560 TI, I had two GTX 295s (a downgrade in performance, I know), but my PSU worried me with them (not enough wattage to run them) and I got a 560 TI real cheap. Adequate performance and reaonable power consumption. Before the GTX 295s (I almost got them for free; yeah, I'm a low budget buyer when I get stuff for myself), I wasn't much of a gamer and had mostly low end cards from both Nvidia and Ati.

To be honest, as a company, I personally prefer AMD over Nvidia, but I try to keep that out of my recommendations as much as possible. AMD makes that pretty easy sometimes (The 7900 launch was sad for me in several ways), but it took them a while to get good drivers and reasonable prices all-around.

Nvidia seems to like to make cards that need to be upgraded often or you have to juggle settings around after a while if you get new games often.

For example, with GTX 500, the 570 has way too low memory capacity, the 550 TI was overpriced back then, and anything below it was even more overpriced. The 560 TI, overall, was the best Nvidia card of the series IMO. The 580 isn't much better in memory capacity at a mere 1.5GB, but that's often at least workable.

With GTX 600, now that more games are using DirectC/OpenCL features, Nvidia has abandoned compute performance. They also gave the GTX 600 cards a very unbalanced match of GPU and memory performance while also reducing the tessellation efficiency and other performance advantages that they had.

Nvidia just seems like they're always out to screw their customers in some way whereas AMD just seems to be out to make a few bucks while playing a somewhat more honest route (although not completely clean). AMD doesn't seem to rely on hyping up their cards right now (the 660 TI is really a very hyped up card, it's not as good as the hype tends to say that it is and that's for many reasons).

I really don't like Kepler. It's like Nvidia took many of Fermi's greatest strengths, cut them down, and didn't improve many of the weaknesses. Fermi had great memory bandwidth, great tessellation, great compute, and so much more. Kepler is worse in all of those. Power consumption is improved dramatically, but efficiency falls short of where it should be when you push things uch as tessellation, AA, and more.

However, I'm not saying that AMD is perfect. AMD should have had drivers at least as good as Catalyst 12.6 out within two months of the 7970's launch at the latest. They had pretty poor drivers for a while. I could deal with or even alleviate and fix mot of the issues, but CF (especially CF in Eyefinity) was still problematic for many and that was just the start of the issues.

AMD also should have made some good reference coolers by now. They kinda all suck. At least Nvidia can make some decent reference coolers.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:39:16 PM

blazorthon said:
My last card from Nvidia was a GTX 560 Ti. Unfortunately, it's fan was damaged by a large insect (horrible luck) and I didn't have a warranty anymore. I replaced it with my 7850. Right before the 560 TI, I had two GTX 295s (a downgrade in performance, I know), but my PSU worried me with them (not enough wattage to run them) and I got a 560 TI real cheap. Adequate performance and reaonable power consumption. Before the GTX 295s (I almost got them for free; yeah, I'm a low budget buyer when I get stuff for myself), I wasn't much of a gamer and had mostly low end cards from both Nvidia and Ati.

To be honest, as a company, I personally prefer AMD over Nvidia, but I try to keep that out of my recommendations as much as possible. AMD makes that pretty easy sometimes (The 7900 launch was sad for me in several ways), but it took them a while to get good drivers and reasonable prices all-around.

Nvidia seems to like to make cards that need to be upgraded often or you have to juggle settings around after a while if you get new games often.

For example, with GTX 500, the 570 has way too low memory capacity, the 550 TI was overpriced back then, and anything below it was even more overpriced. The 560 TI, overall, was the best Nvidia card of the series IMO. The 580 isn't much better in memory capacity at a mere 1.5GB, but that's often at least workable.

With GTX 600, now that more games are using DirectC/OpenCL features, Nvidia has abandoned compute performance. They also gave the GTX 600 cards a very unbalanced match of GPU and memory performance while also reducing the tessellation efficiency and other performance advantages that they had.

Nvidia just seems like they're always out to screw their customers in some way whereas AMD just seems to be out to make a few bucks while playing a somewhat more honest route (although not completely clean). AMD doesn't seem to rely on hyping up their cards right now (the 660 TI is really a very hyped up card, it's not as good as the hype tends to say that it is and that's for many reasons).

I really don't like Kepler. It's like Nvidia took many of Fermi's greatest strengths, cut them down, and didn't improve many of the weaknesses. Fermi had great memory bandwidth, great tessellation, great compute, and so much more. Kepler is worse in all of those.
o.k. fair enough ;) 
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:40:26 PM

Here is blazorthon view on it Red Team FTW!

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:50:21 PM

I think I'd say that my point is that AMD seems to try to improve. They don't do it for the customer IMO, but they try to improve. Nvidia doesn't seem that way.

For example, I'll take a look back at the Radeon 5000 and 6000 cards. The 5000s had really bad tessellation performance. So, what does AMD do? They improve tessellation with their 6000 cards. The VLIW architecture is bad for some types of compute performance (most, if I'm not mistaken). So, AMD makes GCN, the best GPU architecture yet for compute performance.

AMD's driver woes began with Ati. AMD has slowly but steadily improved the drivers from when they first got Ati. With Catalyst 12.6 and up, I'd go as far as calling they're drivers great.

Nvidia had great drivers (most of the time) for a while now, but with Kepler, they had several severe problems for quite a while too. They got lazy with their drivers.

AMD seems to be out to make a few dollars. Nvidia seems out to take every dollar that they can get their hands on. That doesn't mean that someone can't be happy with a GTX 600 card. It doesn't mean anything like that. However, Nvidia seems to be getting sloppy in the name of profits. GTX 600 not only looks like a generation designed to not last long without upgrades, but also a profit-maximizing generation. Small PCB, fewer memory chips, smaller GPUs, and all with sacrifices that get ignored through the hype.

OK, I'll stop with this now, no need to get off topic with my rants.
September 3, 2012 1:53:52 PM

blazorthon said:
You've tried it? Can you tell me how it worked (details, plz)? I've been talking about it for a while, but I don't have a Nvidia card around worth trying it with except maybe for my GTX 295 (I have two of them, not using them much right now), but it's a DX10.1 card and I don't have a PSU than can handle both it and another card (not even my 7850) in my usual computer at this time.

Also, if it's not too much to ask, do you still have that 550 TI? Cleeve tells me that it's not quite as good as a GTS 450 (I've been to lazy to check, I know, shame on me), but it should be close enough for a good comparison if you still have it and a good graphics card to act as a primary.


550ti is a terrible card in every sense, but it was laying about, I did use a GTX 560ti for it before, which did help out a bit in Arkham City but not much else my issue is heat and power consumed to drive a physx engine, it goes back to the age old debate if physx is someones thing just get a dedicated Nvidia setup.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:54:30 PM

sarinaide said:
550ti is a terrible card in every sense, but it was laying about, I did use a GTX 560ti for it before, which did help out a bit in Arkham City but not much else my issue is heat and power consumed to drive a physx engine, it goes back to the age old debate if physx is someones thing just get a dedicated Nvidia setup.


So, the 550 TI was insufficient as a dedicated PhysX card to supplement another card? What was the other card? This seems to go against what I've been told, but if it's true, then I might have to rework my recommendations.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 1:57:19 PM

For me truthfully AMD i am not sure i only recently became a fan of them since they are providing good driver support these days i like them now back in the day i considered their cards garbage but the past two years i really grown to love amd.
September 3, 2012 2:00:15 PM

blazorthon said:
So, the 550 TI was insufficient as a dedicated PhysX card to supplement another card? What was the other card? This seems to go against what I've been told, but if it's true, then I might have to rework my recommendations.


It was an over ambitions 6990+6970 setup, the amount of heat and power consumed was just insane, its not that it doesn't work it will give a synthetic level increase in performance but you need to have a card and extra power all for $120 is not worth it. I will need to organize a proper bench test as to performance but I will honestly say that a single GTX 670 will beat a HD 7850 or possibly a 7870 + 550ti in physx engine games and cost really close to each other.

a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:01:31 PM

bigcyco1 said:
For me truthfully AMD i am not sure i only recently became a fan of them since they are providing good driver support these days i like them now back in the day i considered their cards garbage but the past two or three years i really grown to love amd.


I think that I can go as far as saying that I am a fan of AMD, but I'd be more than willing to use Nvidia if they'd do a better job of designing the GPUs and other aspects of their cards better than they market them. I may prefer AMD as a company, but if Nvidia actually does an all-around better job and it's time to upgrade, then I'd consider their products. Unfortunately, I doubt that they plan on changing their apparent business strategy of screw their customers in some way while pretending not to. At least they're better than Apple.
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:05:37 PM

blazorthon said:
I think that I can go as far as saying that I am a fan of AMD, but I'd be more than willing to use Nvidia if they'd do a better job of designing the GPUs and other aspects of their cards better than they market them. I may prefer AMD as a company, but if Nvidia actually does an all-around better job and it's time to upgrade, then I'd consider their products. Unfortunately, I doubt that they plan on changing their apparent business strategy of screw their customers in some way while pretending not to. At least they're better than Apple.
:whistle:  i look at it like this which ever gives me better bang for my buck and has solid driver support and favors the games i play that will be the card i pick when i buy one rather it be amd or Nvidia makes no difference to me i favor my wallet :lol: 
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:10:24 PM

sarinaide said:
It was an over ambitions 6990+6970 setup, the amount of heat and power consumed was just insane, its not that it doesn't work it will give a synthetic level increase in performance but you need to have a card and extra power all for $120 is not worth it. I will need to organize a proper bench test as to performance but I will honestly say that a single GTX 670 will beat a HD 7850 or possibly a 7870 + 550ti in physx engine games and cost really close to each other.


To be fair, a 6990 plus 6970 isn't very comparable to a 7850 or 7870 and the GTS 450 is supposed to be better than the GTX 550 TI. IT might need some overclocking, but I think that it could manage.

If you don't mind doing it, would you be able to test this? A 6970 or so should be sufficient for a replacement of a stock or near stock 7850 if you don't have one and a GTX 550 TI should be able to overclock well enough to handle the workload. I've read that a dedicated PhysX graphics card only needs to be about half as powerful as the main card does for gaming and a 550 TI should be almost good enough at stock for a stock 6970.
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:11:29 PM

bigcyco1 said:
:whistle:  i look at it like this which ever gives me better bang for my buck and has solid driver support and favors the games i play that will be the card i pick when i buy one rather it be amd or Nvidia makes no difference to me i favor my wallet :lol: 


I don't let the brand, Nvidia nor AMD, get in the way of getting the better card. Lately, Nvidia has seemed lackluster in overall quality compared to AMD.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:12:43 PM

7970 for tripple monitors later, and higher resolutions. That card is better for your future upgrades. The 670 is a good card too, similar performance in some aspects but Amd scales better at multi monitor and higher resolutions.
September 3, 2012 2:13:38 PM

blazorthon said:
To be fair, a 6990 plus 6970 isn't very comparable to a 7850 or 7870 and the GTS 450 is supposed to be better than the GTX 550 TI. IT might need some overclocking, but I think that it could manage.

If you don't mind doing it, would you be able to test this? A 6970 or so should be sufficient for a replacement of a stock or near stock 7850 if you don't have one and a GTX 550 TI should be able to overclock well enough to handle the workload. I've read that a dedicated PhysX graphics card only needs to be about half as powerful as the main card does for gaming and a 550 TI should be almost good enough at stock for a stock 6970.


I was thinking about trying it with a GTX 640
a c 185 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:15:12 PM

blazorthon said:
I don't let the brand, Nvidia nor AMD, get in the way of getting the better card. Lately, Nvidia has seemed lackluster in overall quality compared to AMD.
my next card will be the Asus 670 Top or SAPPHIRE Vapor-X 7970ghz i won't buy either till price drops though i am to poor :lol: 
a c 86 U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:21:23 PM

sarinaide said:
I was thinking about trying it with a GTX 640


I don't know of any GTX 640. I know of several GT 640s and none of them are very good, although the GT 640 GDDR5 might be decent. I don't think that it'd be better than a GTX 550 Ti nor a GTS 450 for PhysX performance and the GDDR5 version is OEM, not retail, so it's usually hard to find.
a b U Graphics card
September 3, 2012 2:21:40 PM

When have they re-released the 670 TOP version of those cards. I have heard that in mid September maybe. They have been out of stock since May/June and only ones available are used.
!