Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

What GPU should I upgrade to?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 8, 2012 8:18:03 PM

These are my specs now:
CPU: i5-2500k
GPU: Gtx 560 ti superclocked
RAM: Corsair XMS3 8gb 1600mhz
MOBO: GA-Z68A-D3H-B3
Monitor Resolution: 1920x1080

This is a gaming machine and I want to get a new gpu for Christmas. I play games like COD4, I'm going to get BF3 and I want to play it on ultra, TF2, and CSS, so which is better or which should I get an AMD 7970 like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

or a Gtx 670 like this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007Z3HZIA?ie=UTF8&for...

More about : gpu upgrade

a c 291 U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 8:46:03 PM

I'd personally go for GTX 670, because it performs better at BF3 than the HD 7970 and it's also a bit cheaper.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 8:48:31 PM

What is your budget? Your specs are good so buy whatever is the best you can afford.what is your psu?
Score
0
Related resources
a c 274 U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 8:54:29 PM

From a performance point of view, they are the same, or at least close enough that you will not be able to tell the difference without a benchmark.

The GTX670 will run on your current psu.
The 7970 will need a bit stronger psu, at least 550w with a 6 and and 8 pin pcie power leads
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 8:54:57 PM

Sunius said:
I'd personally go for GTX 670, because it performs better at BF3 than the HD 7970 and it's also a bit cheaper.

Have you seen 7970's BF3 performance with catalyst 12.11 drivers? I think not
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 9:01:37 PM

Anything from a 660 Ti to a 680 would be a good upgrade. Or if you want go with the 7970, the only games that will take advantage of the GPU upgrade would be BF3. COD4, css, and tf2. Are very CPU intensive. I had a 560 Ti before I got a 660 Ti and I was getting about 70+ on ultra settings.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 9:26:41 PM

technoholic said:
Have you seen 7970's BF3 performance with catalyst 12.11 drivers? I think not

This.
Score
0
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 9:29:58 PM

Here's a thought....

Can you get the money for Christmas, but the GPU a couple months later?

This close to the rollout of a new line of video cards, it doesn't make much sense to buy a new GPU, when the new cards will be priced cheaper and about 30% more powerful than current ones.
Score
0
November 8, 2012 9:34:20 PM

I will probably have around $400 at Christmas time so I can buy either and my psu is a PC Power & Cooling MK II Silencer 950w so I have enough power for either also. Yeah if the performance difference between the 7970 and the 670 on BF3 isn't very much different obviously I would get the 670, I just wanted to know which was cost/benefit wise.
Score
0
November 8, 2012 9:37:46 PM

DarkSable said:
Here's a thought....

Can you get the money for Christmas, but the GPU a couple months later?

This close to the rollout of a new line of video cards, it doesn't make much sense to buy a new GPU, when the new cards will be priced cheaper and about 30% more powerful than current ones.


I posted my last post before seeing this ^ thats a good idea but to get around that $400 point I'm going to have to sell my current 560 ti and if I wait that long it will be worth less than it is now.
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 4:01:22 AM

technoholic said:
Have you seen 7970's BF3 performance with catalyst 12.11 drivers? I think not


No, I did not. How about you link some benchmarks if it improved so much?
Score
0
November 9, 2012 5:35:23 AM

7970.
Price... check
Performance.... check
Future proof.... check

It has 3GB VRAM and a 384-bit memory bus and costs just a little more than a GTX670. Its a no brainer !!
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 5:43:15 AM

^
No it's not. It's more expensive, performance wise lower on battlefield 3 (which OP will mainly play and the card is for that purpose) and there's no such thing as future proof. 384-bit memory interface means nothing and 3GB VRAM vs 2GB VRAM will not be noticed unless playing on 3 monitors (5760x1080).
Score
0
November 9, 2012 6:02:47 AM

^
Don't tell me, an Nvidia owner !! He is not playing only BF3 and have you seen the new 12.11 drivers?? 3GB VRAM and the 384-bit memory bus = greater bandwidth !! That makes a difference beyond 5760x1080 gaming. Why do you think the 7900 series out performs the 670/680 on the most demanding games e.g. Metro 2033, Alan Wake etc? You need to dig into things a little deeper and not just rejurgitate the nVidia marking information. You will tell me about PhsyicX next or the boost feature that kicsk in looking at walls etc.
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 6:09:22 AM

Maximus_Delta said:
^
Don't tell me, an Nvidia owner !! He is not playing only BF3 and have you seen the new 12.11 drivers?? 3GB VRAM and the 384-bit memory bus = greater bandwidth !! That makes a difference beyond 5760x1080 gaming. Why do you think the 7900 series out performs the 670/680 on the most demanding games e.g. Metro 2033, Alan Wake etc? You need to dig into things a little deeper and not just rejurgitate the nVidia marking information. You will tell me about PhsyicX next or the boost feature that kicsk in looking at walls etc.


Way to go to get personal. Yes, I play Battlefield 3, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Let me repeat myself: 384-bit memory bus means NOTHING. Metro natively works better on AMD cards, that's a wide knowledge.
Score
0
November 9, 2012 6:21:43 AM

Sunius said:
Way to go to get personal. Yes, I play Battlefield 3, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Let me repeat myself: 384-bit memory bus means NOTHING. Metro natively works better on AMD cards, that's a wide knowledge.


actually i give up for today... i dont have the strength... but suffice to say i dont agree with you.
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 6:50:13 AM
Share
a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 7:01:03 AM

Sunius said:
Way to go to get personal. Yes, I play Battlefield 3, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Let me repeat myself: 384-bit memory bus means NOTHING. Metro natively works better on AMD cards, that's a wide knowledge.


Actually you keep ATTEMPTING to spread misinformation. High bandwidth memory is a vital part of today's GPUs. Actually it is the main weakness of Kepler cards (if you made research before you talked, you'd know). Many tests and reviews indicate that a better memory bandwidth could help any Kepler card (from bottom to top) more than faster bus speed, in many scenarios especially in resolutions higher than 1080p. And no need to mention how AA techniques take advantage of higher bandwidth. AMD's cards have a distinct advantage in memory interface this generation, hands down. And this advantage shows itself clearly in many scenarios
Score
0
a c 291 U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 3:15:32 PM

I'm not spreading misinformation. Yes, when you compare two identical cards with lower and higher bandwidth, there will be differences (take GTX 460 192-bit vs 256-bit). However, you cannot take two cards from totally different architectures and say one is better just because of higher memory bandwidth. For all you know, there may have been technical reasons for Keplers not having a 384-bit memory bus.
Score
0
November 9, 2012 9:35:47 PM

Okay well guys do me a favor and lets have a vote 670 or 7970. Thanks!
Score
0
November 10, 2012 2:41:56 AM

Best answer selected by Jordannn15.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
November 10, 2012 7:21:02 AM

Jordannn15 said:
Okay well guys do me a favor and lets have a vote 670 or 7970. Thanks!


I would go 7970.
Score
0
!