Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Evga 680 GTX or wait?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Gtx
  • EVGA
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 12, 2012 12:28:51 AM

Hey guys,

My 5970 is about died and i dont know what to get.

I was thinking...

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

What do you guys think?

Would i see a big increase? Or should i attempt to find another 5970 for cheap?

Thanks for the help guys!

Glen

More about : evga 680 gtx wait

a c 147 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 12:35:49 AM

afaik a single 680 already faster than 5970. not to mention with 5970 you need the crossfire to properly work to make good use of both gpu inside.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 1:21:36 AM

Yeah, I meant that particular version of the 670
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:04:38 AM

Which card?
Basically it boils down to budget first and the NVidia vs AMD features. At the lower pricing AMD has arguably better value. NVidia has PhysX, Adaptive VSYNC, TXAA, and perhaps better driver support.

Forget the HD5970 completely and focus on one of these:
HD7850/70, HD7950/70, GTX660Ti, GTX670, GTX680

On the lower end you can find some quality HD7850 2GB cards for about $200.

On the high end, there's the ASUS GTX680 TOP edition for $540 at NCIX.

Some games won't benefit above the HD7850 and some will look best with the GTX680.

POINTS:
1) Get at least 2GB of VRAM regardless of card (some have only 1GB)
2) Get a quality brand with a good cooling solution (Gigabyte, Sapphire Tech, Asus)
3) I was going to add MSI but I'm concerned about the above link re overvolting.
4) The GTX680 should be paired with an i5-750 CPU or better. Most games won't benefit from a better CPU but some will. Overclocking the i5-750 or similar CPU seems to be sufficient for the few games that need more CPU power.

5) NCIX and Newegg are good places to start
6) Investigate if Borderlands 2 is still being offered with the GTX660Ti and higher NVidia cards.

Here's a list of some games that look best with a GTX680:
- Witcher 2
- BF3
- Skyrim (HD Texture Pack/mods)
- Batman AC (disable PhysX and DX11 to prevent stutter though)
- Total War Shogun 2
- Bulletstorm
- Metro 2033

That's just some of the games, however there is a much LONGER list of games that even an HD7850 2GB card can max out completely at 1920x1080 and 60FPS or can almost max out.

So again, it comes down to your budget and the games you wish to play. I absolutely love my ASUS GTX680 TOP card. I'm now playing Witcher 2 and it's just able to achieve 60FPS about 90% of the time with everything max at 1920x1080 (only ubersampling is disabled.)

Investment notes:
- People who buy the more expensive card, on average don't upgrade their cards as often
- My TOTAL internet, PC electricity, average hardware and game cost over a THREE YEAR PERIOD is about $3000
- The difference between an HD7850 and GTX680 is approximately $300
- So the difference in cost for me was about 10% of my overall gaming expense, not only that I got more enjoyment, and finally I would likely would end up upgrading sooner if I'd gotten "only" and HD7850.

Everyone is different though. And HD7850 2GB card is just fine for Diablo 3, Skyrim and many other games and there isn't a single game that exists that won't still look good with this card.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:10:43 AM

^ Agreed, I can't wait to upgrade my 7850 to an 8970 maybe with a DCII cooler once it comes out.

If I had a 670/680 or a 7950/7970, I would've waited to upgrade until the 8**/9*** cards to come out.
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:11:10 AM

*The Asus GTX680 TOP card is $540 and is a far, far better card than the EVGA you linked. That 4GB that adds to the cost is pointless for every game except Skyrim. Even then, I have SKYRIM plus the official HD texture pack and max out at 1.5GB VRAM usage.

Adding one or multiple high-res HD packs or other mods to Skyrim also drives down the frame rate. Just because people have used 3GB of VRAM also doesn't mean a 2GB card won't perform as good. Most of the textures can quickly be swapped with System RAM. When you have lots of VRAM it doesn't bother.

Long story short, if you have the money for that EVGA card, you'll be far happier with an Asus GTX680 TOP:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

If you want the BEST gaming experience the above ASUS 680 is arguably it (I avoid multiple GPU's due to micro-stutter. Plus the 680 is plenty for a single monitor.) Actually the absolute BEST would be to have another 660Ti or higher dedicated for a PhysX but I'm not spending $300 just for a PhysX card.

Speaking of which, apparently Borderlands 2 is one of the few games that gets PhysX done correctly. A GTX670 can max out the game visuals with PhysX on high and still get a solid 60FPS whereas several titles have PhysX so demanding that you need two end cards to use it and still get 60FPS (I'm looking at YOU Mafia 2).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:14:36 AM

^ The 680 TOP is a very heavy card, and a three slot card. Most motherboards which support two way SLI/Xfire wouldn't be able to effectively cool two of those, because they will most likely be sandwiched together.

You would also probably need a GPU bracket to stop the card bending your PCIe slot.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:16:20 AM

The 680 TOP is just a waste of money like any other 680 compared to the 670s, but even worse because of its ridiculous cooler.
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 5:24:26 AM

I prefer the 7970 or maybe get a 7990?
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:28:37 AM

luciferano said:
The 680 TOP is just a waste of money like any other 680 compared to the 670s, but even worse because of its ridiculous cooler. Besides, the much cheaper good 7970s overclock better than it anyway. The 680 is too held back by its memory bus to let its GPU frequencies scale performance properly.


Sorry, but I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

The GTX680 and HD7970 GHz card are back and forth depending on the game. Here's Crysis 2 for example:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

The Asus GTX680 TOP is getting almost 84FPS average compared to a stock HD7970 which gets almost 70FPS and the HD7970 GHz card which gets 74FPS.

Their are some games that favour the HD7970 GHz card.

If you're going to make claims then back them up. Benchmarks don't lie. Also, there are NVidia specific features like:
- PhysX
- TXAA (upcoming Unreal 4 engine default AA method)
- Adaptive VSYNC

Ridiculous Cooler? Sure it's big, but the larger heatsink helps keep it quieter than any other card at this performance level. It mounts in my case solidly, I don't need the extra card slot it hides so where's the downside?

Not to start a war or anything, but I don't see how you can claim this is a waste of money. FYI, your statement about the memory bandwidth is completely wrong. There's some truth with the GTX660/660Ti but not the GTX670 and 680.

Overclocking the HD7970:
There was a little truth to that, but not necessarily enough to trounce the GTX680 on a regular basis. Also the heat went up significantly causing much more fan noise. You also need to be careful and have quality power components and good cooling to do this properly which adds to the price. There's a reason OC versions cost more.

I challenge you to show me an HD7970 that is:
a) cheaper than a GTX680, and
b) can beat a GTX680 in most benchmarks, and
c) also match the LOAD NOISE level of a GTX680

(and again, there's the NVIDIA specific features. FYI, Adaptive VSYNC is pretty useful, maybe AMD will add it to their drivers at some point... )

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:34:38 AM

PhysX is not a reason to buy a Nvidia card, you can easily do it if you have a AMD master card and a GTS 450.

AMD cards will be superior in the upcoming Unreal Engine 4, they have much more GPGPU power.

Adaptive VSync can be added in a driver update as well.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:38:41 AM

And how do you know if those benchmarks are using the 12.7 drivers?
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:44:41 AM

JJ1217 said:
PhysX is not a reason to buy a Nvidia card, you can easily do it if you have a AMD master card and a GTS 450.

AMD cards will be superior in the upcoming Unreal Engine 4, they have much more GPGPU power.

Adaptive VSync can be added in a driver update as well.


a) PhysX is simply a BONUS feature. Your suggestion of adding PhysX is to get an NVIDIA CARD? And of course you need the hacked drivers as well. Hardly a situation for everyone.

b) AMD is better for Unreal 4 due to better GPGPU? You better investigate that again because it's dead wrong. Tim Sweeney even stated that at this point the only cards optimized for the Unreal 4 engine are the Kepler ones.

Also, Kepler cards have the TXAA anti-aliasing support that the UNREAL 4 engine uses. It's a much more efficient AA method. Current AMD cards would have to use a different method therefore lowering frame rates.

Here's one link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Kepler-Nvidia-Tim-Swee...

By the way, the single KEPLER card referenced at the end that the UNREAL 4 engine is optimized for is the GTX680.

c) Adaptive VSYNC: Sure Adaptive VSYNC can be added by AMD to their drivers. I even said so. Being ABLE to do a thing and having DONE a thing are completely different.

This is fun.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 5:51:58 AM

Another thing about those benchmarks:

They are technically running at stock settings(only the reviewed card get some OC benchmarking):

HD7970 comes with a 925 Mhz stock clock(Ghz obviously have a higher stock clock)

GTX 670(stock clock =915Mhz) comes with at least 980 standard boost clock, most card comes with 1050 and up, the ASUS Top card's out of the box boost can top 1200Mhz depend on the card( your actual boost Mhz is between 70-110 higher than what's listed on the box, this is known as a "Kepler Boost" on Overclock.net).

So it is not surprising that GTX 670 out of the box can equal 7970 and Top can beat 7970, since Nividia cards were running at much higher than their stock clock.

HD7970 with its unlocked voltage average 1200+Mhz on clock when overclocked-> that's 31%+ Overclock.

and ASUS TOP would run at least 1150 Mhz out of the box, 1400 Mhz Overclock on those cards are very rare due to voltage locks->and that's only a 21% Overclock.

This is why 7970 is a better overclocker, and when both are Overclocked 7970 edges out OCed 670 with 10%+ more overclock..
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 6:08:21 AM

We could discuss this whole HD7970 vs GTX680 all day I guess. Most of my games run at maximum quality and I was more sold on the FEATURES that NVidia had. If GPGPU is critical than AMD wins there but I have no need of it. Even my video transcoding is done on the CPU solely.

I did try to find any information that proved an HD7970 was better than a GTX680 once overclocked but it was hard to find reliable data. Again, my GTX680 (Asus TOP) is optimized for noise and overclocking the HD7970's above factory defaults has a massive impact on fan noise.

One of the articles I read on overclocking summarized this:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd...

"AMD also states that the AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition is "Retaking the Performance Crown," but with the highest stable overclock the performance was not better than an overclocked NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 as we showed here and here... "

Anyway, I love my 680, and if you get an HD7970 it's not like you'll be disappointed. Once performance is similar I recommend people look to FEATURES (NVidia-> PhysX/A-VSYNC, UNREAL 4 optimized, AMD-> GPGPU etc) and LOAD NOISE.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 6:19:53 AM

photonboy said:
Sorry, but I don't believe you know what you are talking about.

The GTX680 and HD7970 GHz card are back and forth depending on the game. Here's Crysis 2 for example:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

The Asus GTX680 TOP is getting almost 84FPS average compared to a stock HD7970 which gets almost 70FPS and the HD7970 GHz card which gets 74FPS.

Their are some games that favour the HD7970 GHz card.

If you're going to make claims then back them up. Benchmarks don't lie. Also, there are NVidia specific features like:
- PhysX
- TXAA (upcoming Unreal 4 engine default AA method)
- Adaptive VSYNC

Ridiculous Cooler? Sure it's big, but the larger heatsink helps keep it quieter than any other card at this performance level. It mounts in my case solidly, I don't need the extra card slot it hides so where's the downside?

Not to start a war or anything, but I don't see how you can claim this is a waste of money. FYI, your statement about the memory bandwidth is completely wrong. There's some truth with the GTX660/660Ti but not the GTX670 and 680.

Overclocking the HD7970:
There was a little truth to that, but not necessarily enough to trounce the GTX680 on a regular basis. Also the heat went up significantly causing much more fan noise. You also need to be careful and have quality power components and good cooling to do this properly which adds to the price. There's a reason OC versions cost more.

I challenge you to show me an HD7970 that is:
a) cheaper than a GTX680, and
b) can beat a GTX680 in most benchmarks, and
c) also match the LOAD NOISE level of a GTX680

(and again, there's the NVIDIA specific features. FYI, Adaptive VSYNC is pretty useful, maybe AMD will add it to their drivers at some point... )


I specifically said with overclocking, not at stock. That's true because most 7970 GHz Edition cards and even many great 7970s can hit around 1.3GHz or higher on the core with a little overvoltage and at that point, AMD generally wins. They most certainly would trounce that overclocked 680 on a regular basis. You don't need extravagant power delivery nor cooling to work with the 79xx cards. Better cooling and power delivery, yes, but not by much. The difference between a decent 500W and 600W PSU in price is extremely minimal and any case that someone would buy with a 680 would be plenty for a 7970 too.

Not many 7970s aren't cheaper than the 680s.

Excluding reference any probably a few crap non-reference cards, the 7970s and especially the great 7970s and 7970 GHz Editions are simply better at overclocking than even that 680 TOP.

At the prices of the 680, you might as well get a great 7950 and this water/hybrid cooler:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

I'm also willing to bet that its not loud, based on my experience with its counterpart.

TXAA is supported in ONE game. It's great competition for MSAA, but it's simply not supported well enough.

Adaptive V-Sync was made pretty much irrelevant by virtual V-Sync with HyperFormance.

PhysX sucks performance that the AMD cards can put to use elsewhere, so it's hardly an advantage, just a different setting to enable (one that most games can throw onto the CPU anyway) for personalizing the experience according to how you like it. Besides, AMD has their own advantages too. They have OpenCL and more commonly Direct Compute features that Kepler cards simply can't play like the 79xx cards can. So long as TXAA is poorly supported, they have a distinct advantage in MSAA since it hardly impacts AMD's performance in comparison to Nvidia's.

I'm not trying to downplay what Nvidia has, the 680 is still a very great card, but you're making it difficult not to when you're acting as if Nvidia has such heavy advantages when it's simply not true.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 6:21:23 AM

photonboy said:
We could discuss this whole HD7970 vs GTX680 all day I guess. Most of my games run at maximum quality and I was more sold on the FEATURES that NVidia had. If GPGPU is critical than AMD wins there but I have no need of it. Even my video transcoding is done on the CPU solely.

I did try to find any information that proved an HD7970 was better than a GTX680 once overclocked but it was hard to find reliable data. Again, my GTX680 (Asus TOP) is optimized for noise and overclocking the HD7970's above factory defaults has a massive impact on fan noise.

One of the articles I read on overclocking summarized this:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd...

"AMD also states that the AMD Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition is "Retaking the Performance Crown," but with the highest stable overclock the performance was not better than an overclocked NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 as we showed here and here... "

Anyway, I love my 680, and if you get an HD7970 it's not like you'll be disappointed. Once performance is similar I recommend people look to FEATURES (NVidia-> PhysX/A-VSYNC, UNREAL 4 optimized, AMD-> GPGPU etc) and LOAD NOISE.


That link was from June and the overclock that they managed on it was not very good at all. It was a mere reference card, probably the reason for the poor overclock for a 7970 GHz Edition. Heck, I've known some excellent 7950 models to overclock a little better than that.
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 6:51:35 AM

dragon5677 said:
I prefer the 7970 or maybe get a 7990?


i think it will be very hard to get your hands on '7990'. AFAIK only power color and club 3D did offering 7990 to the market as of now.

JJ1217 said:
PhysX is not a reason to buy a Nvidia card, you can easily do it if you have a AMD master card and a GTS 450.


IMO for people that really wants physx it is easier for them directly using nvidia cards. yes you can combine the two but for people with only one PCI-E slots such an option is not possible. also to make the dedicated physx card really working you're going to need hacked driver for it. that's why the easiest way for people that really want to experience physx it is better to opt for nvidia cards. even better the most recent nvidia gpu are powerful enough to handle physx without the aid of dedicated physx card.

for people that already radeons but want physx they can add nvidia gpu as a dedicated physx. to me that's ok because they already have radeon in their pc. but for people that are looking for new gpu and want physx it is better for them to get nvidia card directly rather than dealing with radeon + nvidia for physx. for all it's worth physx did not change the gameplay or how will you're going to play. they just add more eye candy to the game. so i think folks with radeon definitely shouldn't feel bad just because they can't have extra eye candy provided by nvidia physx.

JJ1217 said:
AMD cards will be superior in the upcoming Unreal Engine 4, they have much more GPGPU power.


we haven't seen unreal engine 4 in action in real games yet so you can't say so unless you have real source for this. for all i know epic has always working closely with nvidia and with unreal engine 4 they will integrate physx into the engine just they did with unreal engine 3
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 7:02:09 AM

UNREAL 4 and PHYSX:

UNREAL 4, like Unreal 3 will be used by many different game makers. The decision to use PhysX or not will be done by them. I'm not certain if Unreal 4 will have its own physics engine or not. Considering we have Havok as well, I suspect not.

Other:
I agree with your other PhysX comments.

HD7990:
I assume this is a dual-GPU like the GTX690. Therefore it will also have the same micro-stutter issue that even NVidia admits is a problem. The problem is that the GPU's end up rendering the frames at slightly different speeds so even at 60FPS the actual time difference between individual frames is different.

So if you had a CAR travelling right to left at a constant velocity, rather than having the same distance travelled between frames it would vary and that issue can be vary annoying. Also, at times where you don't move around much (and don't buffer new data) micro-stutter is mostly gone but then the transition once you start moving is jarring.

It's funny to see NVidia employees interviewed who say "Yeah, I'm getting a GTX680 SLI solution because I want the best gaming experience" and then see an NVidia employee get interviewed and discuss the problem.

Maybe GTX800 will bring the magic (NVidia did state they're actively researching a hardware fix for future cards. A partial fix exists in the GTX690 called Frame Rate Metering.)
m
0
l
October 12, 2012 7:19:27 AM

+1
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 7:34:17 AM

i know what kind of physic engine used in game will be determined by it's developer. i just mention that the upcoming unreal engine will come integrated with physx. the option to use or incorporating other physic engine with UE4 might be optional. no official words yet but there are indications that the upcoming UE4 will indeed integrating nvidia physx into the engine. i could be wrong though :p . if some how i was wrong then i will stand corrected :) 

http://physxinfo.com/news/7771/gdc-2012-physx-and-apex-...

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/pcmruo/nvidia--gdc-2...

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 10:05:51 AM

i'm confused about physx, some people say that physx effects can be calculated by the cpu. then why would i need a gpu for it?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 10:45:33 AM

technoholic said:
i'm confused about physx, some people say that physx effects can be calculated by the cpu. then why would i need a gpu for it?


The GPU can usually do a little more than the CPUs can in the few supporting games and it's also helpful for people with weaker CPUs. Also, not all games support CPU physics (most games don't support GPU PhysX either, let alone support it properly, but still).
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 12:52:54 PM

technoholic said:
i'm confused about physx, some people say that physx effects can be calculated by the cpu. then why would i need a gpu for it?


some physx effect are done on the cpu. but nvidia claims that for a very complex calculation the cpu will be slow for it (just like tons of flying brick in the air simulated in batman arkham asylum). then there are stuff about the physx are based on x87 instruction set which they say caused the physx to run slow on cpu. more about it can be found here:

http://physxinfo.com/news/3391/physx-x87-and-sse/

from here on some people starts making speculation that complex gpu calculation such as thousands of flying brick i mention above can be calculated by cpu and ultimately we can have better frame rates in games because if all the physx calculation was done by the cpu and the gpu only concentrating it's processing power to render the game. so does nvidia purposely use x87 instruction set to make physx look better on gpu? i think we leave that for conspiracy theory lovers to discuss on that matter :lol: 

luciferano said:
The GPU can usually do a little more than the CPUs can in the few supporting games and it's also helpful for people with weaker CPUs. Also, not all games support CPU physics (most games don't support GPU PhysX either, let alone support it properly, but still).


AFAIK only nvidia physx engine that capable running on gpu (with nvidia gpu of course). other physics engine such as havok and bullet will use cpu to calculate the simulation. so if the calculation are not being done by the cpu then where does the engine got it's calculation from?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 1:04:16 PM

renz496 said:

AFAIK only nvidia physx engine that capable running on gpu (with nvidia gpu of course). other physics engine such as havok and bullet will use cpu to calculate the simulation. so if the calculation are not being done by the cpu then where does the engine got it's calculation from?


You answered your own question. Some games that support PhysX do not support physics processing other than PhysX on a Nvidia GPU. Some games, it's the opposite, and some support both.

Nvidia does what they do on purpose. Of course they'd cripple CPU physics processing where they can, it gives people reasons to buy their graphics cards. Nvidia isn't stupid and they know what they're doing just like Intel knew what they were doing even up to this day and like AMD knows what they're doing as well as many other companies when they make anti-competitive decisions.

You can't honestly tell me that you think that it's even remotely likely that they're using extremely outdated types of code on accident, can you?
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
October 12, 2012 3:28:05 PM

luciferano said:
You answered your own question. Some games that support PhysX do not support physics processing other than PhysX on a Nvidia GPU. Some games, it's the opposite, and some support both.


to my understanding all games than implement nvidia physx engine will support cpu calculation. so far i haven't heard about a game with physx engine will only work with the presence of nvidia gpu and will not when other gpu are present
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 1:24:08 AM

CPU vs GPU PHYSX:

NVidia claims the GPU based PhysX is more "efficient" but it depends on how you define efficiency.

When I play a game, my CPU might have 60% of its resources doing NOTHING while the GPU is maxed at 100%. If I run PHYSX on the GPU, then it can't do other things as well so I probably have to lower the game quality (shadows, AA etc) if I want to run PHYSX and hit 60FPS.

The CPU is also cheaper.

So while it may be more "efficient" in terms of the numbers of calculations, the bottom line is a game would run far BETTER with an i5-3570K doing the physics and the GPU not doing them.

While I love the Kepler architecture, I will absolutely agree that NVidia could easily make PhysX perform far better on the CPU and that they artificially hamstrung it.

If PhysX runs like crap on the CPU, yet the CPU isn't even using 50% of its capabilites (monitor with Task Manager) what does that tell you about the PhysX coding for the CPU?

I'm baffled why they create games with PHYSX that nobody can run without having two high-end video cards. Seriously, Mafia 2 is unplayable with PhysX at 60FPS even with a GTX680.

PhysX really needs to SCALE better rather than just take a 40% bite out of your GPU in one go.
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 2:15:40 AM

people claim that advance physics simulation can be done on the cpu but to this day i haven't seen other physics engine doing such calculation on cpu. i think we need havok (or other cpu based physic engine) to make something similar to physx simulation and shows the cpu can truly keep up with gpu in very complex physics simulation
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 7:32:48 AM

Can AMD not implement their own engine to do phsyx or is it at Nvidia's hand only?
m
0
l
a c 273 U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 8:13:25 AM

technoholic said:
Can AMD not implement their own engine to do phsyx or is it at Nvidia's hand only?

ATi were the first to tout the idea of a physics engine being run on a the GPU but they never had the finances to pursue it further.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 8:32:38 AM

JJ1217 said:
^ Agreed, I can't wait to upgrade my 7850 to an 8970 maybe with a DCII cooler once it comes out.

If I had a 670/680 or a 7950/7970, I would've waited to upgrade until the 8**/9*** cards to come out.


you mean DCIV cooler :sol: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 8:41:15 AM

shamsmu said:
you mean DCIV cooler :sol: 


HAH! Thats if Mwave don't charge an extra $100 per fan. Australian customers get screwed over, don't you agree?
m
0
l
October 13, 2012 8:44:03 AM

Thats sooooo expensive lol. Why not just get a midgrade? What program do you possibly have that needs a $680 GFX card?! lol I can build a PC that runs bf3 on ultra for that GFX alone!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 8:52:54 AM

JJ1217 said:
HAH! Thats if Mwave don't charge an extra $100 per fan. Australian customers get screwed over, don't you agree?


big time mate big time, They make us pay 20% extra for just about everything on the market. That's why I get all my stuff off the states.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 13, 2012 9:12:22 AM

shamsmu said:
big time mate big time, They make us pay 20% extra for just about everything on the market. That's why I get all my stuff off the states.


I'd love to get my stuff from newegg, but they don't post to Australia. I've noticed even with shipping from Amazon, its still like $50 cheaper for most GPU's even with postage! I know there are disadvantages though if its faulty, though.
m
0
l
a c 180 U Graphics card
October 14, 2012 3:07:49 AM

renz496 said:
people claim that advance physics simulation can be done on the cpu but to this day i haven't seen other physics engine doing such calculation on cpu. i think we need havok (or other cpu based physic engine) to make something similar to physx simulation and shows the cpu can truly keep up with gpu in very complex physics simulation


Havok DOES have very advanced physics tools for the CPU and there are LOTS and LOTS of games using Havok.
http://www.havok.com/products

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havok_%28software%29

PhysX tends to go overboard at times and say "look at what you can do ONLY with NVidia!" rather than blend the physics seemlessly into the game.
m
0
l
!