Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

680 or 7970 3 monitors

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

which card ?

Total: 33 votes (9 blank votes)

  • EVGA 670 2gb
  • 5 %
  • Gigabyte 7970
  • 17 %
  • Sapphire 7970
  • 80 %
November 8, 2012 9:12:55 PM

Hi all,
For Xmas i have the choice of getting a single evga 670 2gb or a single gigabyte or Sapphire 7970 3gb
the card will power 3 of these monitors in an eyefinity/surround setup for gaming

http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentvie...

would it be best to go for AMD or Nvidia and if AMD which card?

these below are the 3 I would pick from

http://www.pbtech.co.nz/index.php?z=p&p=VGASAP7973&name...
http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentvie...
http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentvie...


Thanks in advance

More about : 680 7970 monitors

November 8, 2012 9:18:27 PM

The 7970 would be better. Eyeinfinity is better than Nvidia 3D version or whatever their multi display thing is called.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 9:19:28 PM

Sorry dude, you're fooling yourself. You need to crossfire them with that massive number of pixels. You need 7970's because with this many pixels, the 670's 2GB will come up short with anti-aliasing.

This review shows you the scoop:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devi...
Related resources
a c 85 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 9:20:08 PM

Just a side note... do NOT get a 2GB VRAM card. It'll bottleneck like crazy, and prevent you from turning details up.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 9:21:42 PM

7970 is without question, better for extreme resolutions. the gtx series does well for regular resolutions but drops right off in the extreme
November 8, 2012 9:21:49 PM

And the GHz edition of the 7970 outperforms the GTX 680
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 9:26:46 PM

lol I really wonder if anyone that posted in this thread actually has multi monitor setups.

I have a gtx 680 2gig video card running 3 dell ultrasharp u2412m monitors (1920x1200 each 6040x1200 total with bezel correction) the most vram i have seen used is just shy of 1500MB with all settings maxed (counting AA / supersampling enabled) in games like tera online guildwars 2 and so on.

with everything maxed on those games the lowest fps i get is in the 30-40 range, although my card is running at 1250Mhz and vram has never been an issue.

On that note, what games will you be playing?
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 9:29:06 PM

Well for that type of setup not sure one card will cut it but i would recommend 7970 unfortunately none of those i would go for ASUS HD 7970 Matrix Platinum 3 GB or Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 3GB Vapor-X but to each his/her own.
November 8, 2012 9:29:54 PM

Thanks for the quick replies,
so since it sounds like amd is the way to go the gigabyte of sapphire?

and ill be BF3, Skyrim, Left for dead 2, GTA and so on
November 8, 2012 9:31:02 PM

And does the third fan in the gigabyte board drop the temps much because I to be over clocking and over volting
a b U Graphics card
November 8, 2012 9:44:44 PM

People like AMDs better on account of eyefinity. Also, depending on what resolution your monitors are running at, you probably want to step up to a 3 or 4 gig card. That being said I've seen more than one person on here with problems with their Gigabyte cards. I like their motherboards but I would go with the Sapphire instead.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 10:12:12 PM

I keep seeing people saying eyefinity is better than surround... do you guys have any proof to back those claims? i'd really like to see it.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:04:14 PM

lol they list like 15 games and you post a link to one of the few that has, and not even by that much, a decent gap between the nvidia and amd cards and that is only like 6-7 fps.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:14:09 PM

alan wake: low res: amd. high res: amd
batman: low res: nvidia. high res: amd
bf3: low res: amd. high res: amd
borderlands 2: low res: nvidia. high res: nvidia
crysis: low res: amd. high res: amd
crysis 2: low res: amd. high res: amd
diablo 3: low res: nvidia. high res: amd
dragon age: low res: nvidia. high res: nvidia
f1 2012: low res: nvidia. high res: amd
max payne: low res: amd. high res: amd
metro: low res: amd. high res: amd
sleeping dogs: low res: nvidia high res: amd
sniper elite: low res: amd. high res: amd
stalker: low res: nvidia. high res: amd
sc2: low res: nvidia. high res: nvidia
shogun: low res: nvidia. high res: nvidia
skyrim: low res: nvidia. high res: amd
WoW: low res: nvidia. high res: nvidia

not once does a game that performs better on amd at low res switch over to nvidia in the high res. it happens 6 times where a game that performed better at low res on the nvidia card, performed better at high res on the amd card. do you not see a pattern? amd beats nvidia in 13 out of 18 games with 3 monitors. do you really not see the pattern?
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:26:11 PM

Maybe we aren't looking at the same benchmarks, because in the ones you linked that clearly isn't the case "in all those benchmarks". And in the cases that it is, it isn't by much.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:27:22 PM

your fanboyism is blinding you from seeing an obvious pattern. i dont reall care. fanboy it up all you like, the pattern is VERY obvious. amd cards perform better with 3 monitors than nvidia cards do. thats just the facts.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:35:00 PM

They do, but it isn't by a ton... and you can get 4 gig cards from nvidia... I'm not saying they aren't better at higher res, I was just pointing out that it was a very small difference... That can be fixed by getting a 4 gig model that for some reason your benchmarks left out.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:36:05 PM

the 2gb model of the gtx 680 already costs more than a 7970. the 4 gb model is insanely priced by comparison
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:39:20 PM

neon neophyte said:
7970 is without question, better for extreme resolutions. the gtx series does well for regular resolutions but drops right off in the extreme


See your post acts like nvida is unplayable at extreme resolutions where they clearly are, its only a few FPS less... if you had put some evidence or links like you did later on it would have been a non issue but you are clearly writing off nvidia in this statement.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:40:54 PM

Don't get me wrong i agree the 7970 3 gig model is slightly better at higher resolutions than the 2 gig models if you run with 4x AA or more.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:41:41 PM

its more than a few fps. in some instances its a lot more than a few fps. the fact that the amd cards performs better and is cheaper really makes it a no brainer. just look at the votes anyway. everyone agrees
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:42:56 PM

Your wording in your post was very... well "fanboy"ish.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:44:28 PM

I already agreed that the 7970 was the best solution, AMD has done a great job recently with there drivers giving nice performance increases.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:45:54 PM

but people saying crossfire is better than surround i guess don't really mean crossfire vs surround but rather 3gig card vs 2gig card.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:46:58 PM

well lets see, i had a geforce 2. ati 9600. geforce 8800 gts. gtx 285. and now a amd 6950. not a fan boy, i just go with what is best for the best price.

and i think i am missing some sort of geforce 4 in there somewhere. getting hard to remember this crap in my old age
November 8, 2012 11:46:59 PM

derza u have lost the plot. The 7970 with 3GB VRAM coupled to a 384-bit memory bus it doesn't take a genius to work out what the performance is better at high res than GTX670/680 with 2GB VRAM on a 256-bit memory bus. It is FACT the 7950/7970 are better past 1080p gaming.

and then we have bigcyco1, another one who went SLI with nVidia cards when AMD clearly the better option. No I don't need to try both out and see which i like best because its not subjective... Push the pixels and AMD is better, makes even more sense in multi card setups where u need the power likely because u are running higher res. 12.11 drivers and 7970 even better option on every level than it was a month ago: price, performance, ability to cope with future games.

This is clear cut, dont confuse things, you guys should know better given ur "Expert" status. This is someone likely spending their hard earned here.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:50:15 PM

Maximus_Delta said:
derza u have lost the plot. The 7970 with 3GB VRAM coupled to a 384-bit memory bus it doesn't take a genius to work out what the performance is better at high res than GTX670/680 with 2GB VRAM on a 256-bit memory bus. It is FACT the 7950/7970 are better past 1080p gaming.

and then we have bigcyco1, another one who went SLI with nVidia cards when AMD clearly the better option. No I don't need to try both out and see which i like best because its not subjective... Push the pixels and AMD is better, makes even more sense in multi card setups where u need the power likely because u are running higher res. 12.11 drivers and 7970 even better option on every level than it was a month ago: price, performance, ability to cope with future games.

This is clear cut, dont confuse things, you guys should know better given ur "Expert" status. This is someone likely spending their hard earned here.


My issue was people saying eyefinity was better than surround, I now understand that they are comparing 2gig cards vs 3gig cards, and not really the programming, or features provided by eyefinity and surround. As i have said a few time I do agree the 7970 is the way to go right now.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 129 C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 8, 2012 11:54:14 PM

I wouldn't say the AMD card is "clearly" the best, as there are other advantages to Nvidia cards, but assuming you don't care much about PhysX, adaptive v-sync, FXAA, TXAA or 3D Vision, then I might suggest you go with this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

The Sapphire Flex cards make Eyefinity a lot easier to setup. Unless your monitor has a DP connection, dealing with DVI->DP converters can often be problematic. The Flex cards from Sapphire take the need of using DP out of the equation.
November 8, 2012 11:55:58 PM

Quote:
Keep me out your bs i am not in it :lol:  And my 670's perform just fine for me 7970 cost $100 more a piece when i bought my 670's so they were not worth the cost to me at the time i bought my cards.


if you are going to post all over the place why dont u add some actual information of value in ur posts? all i read from u is a happy go lucky, chill out guys, i'm cool (in other words bs).

and yeah, we don't want to be recommending ppl get 670s for high res gaming on this thread mr "Expert"
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 8, 2012 11:59:30 PM

you pretty much disqualify yourself from legitimacy when you use the term "butt hurt."

says me? you know its true =P
November 9, 2012 12:02:24 AM

Quote:
Get a life dude stop spamming the thread trying to start fights i can tell your butt hurt over my status don't worry you'll get there in due time :hello: 


spamming? you mean my posts that actually reflect the facts? don't worry i am in no rush to get to "expert" status but when I read some of the nonsense on this forum by an "expert" i feel i need to jump in for others sake.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2012 12:08:45 AM

he did recommend the 7970. i found it surprising because bigcyco does lean towards nvidia pretty hard. you do have to hand it to him this time
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 129 C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 9, 2012 12:17:22 AM

neon neophyte said:
he did recommend the 7970. i found it surprising because bigcyco does lean towards nvidia pretty hard. you do have to hand it to him this time


bigcyco isn't so much of an Nvidia fan, as someone who believe in a bit of balance. I find it hard to sit back and let everyone go on and on about how much better AMD is, when the differences are very small, and there are perks you can gain from going Nvidia. It's good to let people get all the perspectives as they can, so they aren't disappointed. If all they hear is how great AMD, they might miss out on features they wish they had. I used to do the same with AMD when everyone went on and on about Nvidia. It doesn't help someone only to hear one side of things.

If it wasn't for 3D Vision, I'd still be using 6950's, but I do use 3D Vision, and I do appreciate a few other bonuses, like much easier to use software, FXAA and even PhysX.
November 9, 2012 12:20:12 AM

yes your are right... i should have read that.. i stopped reading at the proof of this can be countered by proof of that statement, my brain overloaded at that point.
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2012 12:21:38 AM

physx is gimmicy and not a factor
3d vision is used by a handful, at best, of people
fxaa is nifty

amd cards are cheaper with excellent performance. you hear about them so much because people who arent fanboys are legitimately suggesting the better card to buy. make no mistake, if nvidia was the better choice right now, i would be suggesting them

edit: physx is such a gimmic that i dont even use my gtx285 when i could very well just put it in my computer and use it as a dedicated physx card. it isnt even worth the power consumption
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 129 C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 9, 2012 12:25:06 AM

neon neophyte said:
physx is gimmicy and not a factor
3d vision is used by a handful, at best, of people
fxaa is nifty

amd cards are cheaper with excellent performance. you hear about them so much because people who arent fanboys are legitimately suggesting the better card to buy. make no mistake, if nvidia was the better choice right now, i would be suggesting them


Keep in mind, those are your opinions, and the opinions of others. For myself, 3D Vision is awesome, and PhysX is rarely useful, but it is pretty cool in Batman AA & AC.
a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 12:26:14 AM

They're better and different price points and for their different features. I've used AMD and NVidia before and I'll buy a Nvidia next time I want a new GPU depending on what price range I'm looking for and what both companies have released at the time.
a c 185 U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 9, 2012 12:27:40 AM

bystander said:
bigcyco isn't so much of an Nvidia fan, as someone who believe in a bit of balance. I find it hard to sit back and let everyone go on and on about how much better AMD is, when the differences are very small, and there are perks you can gain from going Nvidia. It's good to let people get all the perspectives as they can, so they aren't disappointed. If all they hear is how great AMD, they might miss out on features they wish they had. I used to do the same with AMD when everyone went on and on about Nvidia. It doesn't help someone only to hear one side of things.

If it wasn't for 3D Vision, I'd still be using 6950's, but I do use 3D Vision, and I do appreciate a few other bonuses, like much easier to use software, FXAA and even PhysX.
Thanks and yes it's true i am a fan of both i don't pick sides. :) 
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2012 12:28:33 AM

i like how you are still rocking a i7 920 btw. opted for 680 sli instead of sandy or ivy. smart.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 129 C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 9, 2012 12:31:08 AM

neon neophyte said:
i like how you are still rocking a i7 920 btw. opted for 680 sli instead of sandy or ivy. smart.


An i920 at 4.0ghz is about the same as a new IB i7 at stock speeds. I do wish to upgrade at some point, but I'm waiting for the next generation of Intel's.

Keep in mind, I game a great deal in 3D Vision, which puts a tremendous amount of power strain on the GPU and I do not like to game below 60 FPS, especially in 3D.
a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 1:07:31 AM

Derza10 said:
Maybe we aren't looking at the same benchmarks, because in the ones you linked that clearly isn't the case "in all those benchmarks". And in the cases that it is, it isn't by much.



Look man I lean towards AMD these days, but even I recomend the current $350 670's on lower resolutions over a 7970. You sound like an idiot. Everyone knows AMD wins at extreme settings...
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2012 1:26:17 AM

CaptainTom said:
Look man I lean towards AMD these days, but even I recomend the current $350 670's on lower resolutions over a 7970. You sound like an idiot. Everyone knows AMD wins at extreme settings...


You exclude all 4 gig nvida models to come to your conclusions... And i have stated it several times now that for the same amount of money AMD is better at higher resolutions... Maybe you are doing selective reading thus making yourself look like the idiot... For more money the nvidia 4 gig models perform about the same, but for the price the 7970 is a better deal. I have never once recommended him getting a Nvidia card for his resolution.
November 9, 2012 2:11:55 AM

Given the choices you gave I would get the Sapphire 7970 and you should get the Vapor X model if possible.

I've always used Nvidia cards but the 7970 seems to be the best high end card for price/performance ratio.

My buddy has Eyefinity and I have Nvidia Surround. We play the same games at the same resolutions with about the same fps unless I'm playing a phsyx enabled game.

I do like the adaptive vsync feature with Nvidia but I do want to give the 7970 a try.
a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 3:14:49 PM

Derza10 said:
You exclude all 4 gig nvida models to come to your conclusions... And i have stated it several times now that for the same amount of money AMD is better at higher resolutions... Maybe you are doing selective reading thus making yourself look like the idiot... For more money the nvidia 4 gig models perform about the same, but for the price the 7970 is a better deal. I have never once recommended him getting a Nvidia card for his resolution.


I guess we keep shooting you down because we don't get your point. If you don't think he should get one, why bring it up? LOL seriously! A 4GB 680 is $100-$150+ more than a 7970, and it still loses. It's not that the 7970 is just the better choice, it's that it is such a better choice that to even bring the 680 into the conversation is pure stupidity!

Oh and congratulations on your multi monitor gaming on one 680. My brother uses a 560 Ti 1GB and he is already running into VRAM limits in 1080p. Idk what games you play that only use 1500MB in a 3 x 1200p screen, but they obviously are not the norm, and you obviously use next to no AA.


PEACE!
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2012 3:32:59 PM

CaptainTom said:
I guess we keep shooting you down because we don't get your point. If you don't think he should get one, why bring it up? LOL seriously! A 4GB 680 is $100-$150+ more than a 7970, and it still loses. It's not that the 7970 is just the better choice, it's that it is such a better choice that to even bring the 680 into the conversation is pure stupidity!

Oh and congratulations on your multi monitor gaming on one 680. My brother uses a 560 Ti 1GB and he is already running into VRAM limits in 1080p. Idk what games you play that only use 1500MB in a 3 x 1200p screen, but they obviously are not the norm, and you obviously use next to no AA.


PEACE!


Well i mainly play MMO's with max AA and supersampling, but if you try to do that with shooter games like BF3, yes you will run into vram issues. My only issue was that people where saying eyefinity was better than surround, when really they were comparing card vs card not actually eyefinity vs surround software wise. Just wanted to point out that you should state it as AMD so and so card performs better in multi-monitor setups then Nvidia so and so card, and not state eyefinity is better than surround. Anyway this whole thing got out of hand, so lets just drop it all. Get yourself the Sapphire 7970 OP, if you don't care about the features offered by nvidia(physx, adaptive vsyn, and so on).
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
November 9, 2012 3:36:11 PM

Joosey Jay said:
The 7970 would be better. Eyeinfinity is better than Nvidia 3D version or whatever their multi display thing is called.


This is the quote that i really had issues with. Someone that obviously had no clue what he was talking about (based on the fact he had no idea it was called Nvidia surround) telling the OP that eyefinity was better.
a c 217 U Graphics card
a c 129 C Monitor
a b À AMD
November 9, 2012 4:05:31 PM

CaptainTom said:
I guess we keep shooting you down because we don't get your point. If you don't think he should get one, why bring it up? LOL seriously! A 4GB 680 is $100-$150+ more than a 7970, and it still loses. It's not that the 7970 is just the better choice, it's that it is such a better choice that to even bring the 680 into the conversation is pure stupidity!

Oh and congratulations on your multi monitor gaming on one 680. My brother uses a 560 Ti 1GB and he is already running into VRAM limits in 1080p. Idk what games you play that only use 1500MB in a 3 x 1200p screen, but they obviously are not the norm, and you obviously use next to no AA.


PEACE!


People definitely blow the VRAM limits out of proportion.

I challenge you to find a single game that a 4gb card performs faster than the 2gb card at 5760x1080p that reaches playable FPS. I'm talking a single card. I cannot find one. Every benchmark comparison at that resolution, or even 5760x1200p, only shows 2GB's as a limitation when you turn up the settings to a point that no single card can achieve playable FPS.

Even 1.5GB of Vram is only going to run into issues when you turn the settings way up with lots of AA.

Just a bit of for your info here, but extra frame buffer size needed is only 25 megabytes. The difference in Vram usage as you go up in resolution, is not as large as you seem to think. Granted, AA pushes the use of more Vram, but not nearly in the way you seem to believe.

Note: Modding the hell out of a game may run into more problems. Like Skyrim, modded, requires a lot of vram. This is in regards to the official state of games.

EDIT Here is a benchmark with the game that many view as the most VRAM usage game currently out there in its official state:


Notice the lack of performance drops.
a b U Graphics card
November 9, 2012 4:59:17 PM

bystander said:
People definitely blow the VRAM limits out of proportion.

I challenge you to find a single game that a 4gb card performs faster than the 2gb card at 5760x1080p that reaches playable FPS. I'm talking a single card. I cannot find one. Every benchmark comparison at that resolution, or even 5760x1200p, only shows 2GB's as a limitation when you turn up the settings to a point that no single card can achieve playable FPS.

Even 1.5GB of Vram is only going to run into issues when you turn the settings way up with lots of AA.

Just a bit of for your info here, but extra frame buffer size needed is only 25 megabytes. The difference in Vram usage as you go up in resolution, is not as large as you seem to think. Granted, AA pushes the use of more Vram, but not nearly in the way you seem to believe.

Note: Modding the hell out of a game may run into more problems. Like Skyrim, modded, requires a lot of vram. This is in regards to the official state of games.

EDIT Here is a benchmark with the game that many view as the most VRAM usage game currently out there in its official state:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/P/T/331409/original/bf3%205760.png

Notice the lack of performance drops.


Ok fine Max Payne 3. With everything maxed at 1080p you just hit the 2GB limit. Also that is now. However I guarantee that within a year it becomes a problem at resolutions ABOVE 1080p. And you mentioned Skyrim for me thank you.
!