Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 660 Vs HD 7870 pls help...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 27, 2012 3:11:08 AM

I need a graphics card for playing BF3 and Assassin's creed 3....

I was struck with GTX 660... but now after so many reviews HD 7870 is owing...

I am in india

here cheapest HD 7870 is Sapphire at 355$
And GTX 660 MSi TF is 300$

I thought of international shipping from amazon...

HD 7870 is 280$ with all taxes
->>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007PJVB3Y/ref=ox_sc_a...

GTX 660 is 300$ with all taxes
->>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0094CX8QI/ref=ox_sc_a...

I am bit confused ...pls help me...
Thanks in Advance

More about : gtx 660 7870 pls

a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:21:12 AM

vishnu92 said:
I need a graphics card for playing BF3 and Assassin's creed 3....

I was struck with GTX 660... but now after so many reviews HD 7870 is owing...

I am in india

here cheapest HD 7870 is Sapphire at 355$
And GTX 660 MSi TF is 300$

I thought of international shipping from amazon...

HD 7870 is 280$ with all taxes
->>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007PJVB3Y/ref=ox_sc_a...

GTX 660 is 300$ with all taxes
->>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0094CX8QI/ref=ox_sc_a...

I am bit confused ...pls help me...
Thanks in Advance


Are those international prices after shipping? If the 7870 is ever cheaper than the 660, get it in a heartbeat. However at 355 vs 300, idk. I personally think the 7870 is still the better deal since it can overclock to about a 670. But honestly either one is a good buy.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:30:05 AM

thanks....
m
0
l
Related resources
November 27, 2012 3:32:53 AM

CaptainTom said:
Are those international prices after shipping? If the 7870 is ever cheaper than the 660, get it in a heartbeat. However at 355 vs 300, idk. I personally think the 7870 is still the better deal since it can overclock to about a 670. But honestly either one is a good buy.


Yup tats the price after all taxes and free shipping from amazon.... i am also bit confused abt the power supply requirement!!!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:59:14 AM

vishnu92 said:
Yup tats the price after all taxes and free shipping from amazon.... i am also bit confused abt the power supply requirement!!!

If you're interested in Physx, get the 660. If you want multi-monitor support, go with the 7870...

Any good quality 500 watt powersupply would run those.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 4:06:23 AM

vishnu92 said:
Yup tats the price after all taxes and free shipping from amazon.... i am also bit confused abt the power supply requirement!!!


GET THE 7870!!! What PSU do you have?
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 4:41:57 AM

CaptainTom said:
GET THE 7870!!! What PSU do you have?

Crosair 450 w...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 4:45:05 AM

vishnu92 said:
Crosair 450 w...


Yeah the 7870 will be fine. Just use the included peripheral converter to plug in the other 6-pinn pcie. You're good.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 5:18:06 AM

CaptainTom said:
Yeah the 7870 will be fine. Just use the included peripheral converter to plug in the other 6-pinn pcie. You're good.


No it won't http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/78.... "500 watt or greater". While GTX 660 only requires 450 watt.

The difference in performance is only 5-7% to the Radeon 7870.

Even thoough the performance is greater on 7870, the GTX 660 has the best technologies (TXAA, FXAA, Physx, Cuda, Boost).
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 6:43:56 AM

bigcyco1 said:
If you watch these you can see the 7870 is pretty much on par with 660 ti so i vote 7870 it's pretty clear to me it's better bang for buck! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WqMKKtuuMk&feature=chan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFKKXTR_JoA&feature=chan...



That was recorded in September, so before 12.11 Drivers.

The performance on the 7870 is even slightly faster than what the 7950 was pre 12.11 Drivers.

I ran a test, OP: SwordBreaker: Started FRAPS exiting the gate to cross the road, into the building and in to the car park, i stopped the bench when the RPG was fired.



As you can see its up an average of 8.5 FPS, its quite a jump, i play BF3 on Ultra Preset 1080P with complete ease and room to spare.

3DMark11 is also up a lot



I'm getting 8700 GPU points vs 7500 pre 12.11.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 7:11:19 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
No it won't http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/78.... "500 watt or greater". While GTX 660 only requires 450 watt.

The difference in performance is only 5-7% to the Radeon 7870.

Even thoough the performance is greater on 7870, the GTX 660 has the best technologies (TXAA, FXAA, Physx, Cuda, Boost).


PSU wattage *requirement* is completely wrong and quoting it proves that you shouldn't be making recommendations unless you look into this subject more.

The performance difference is also not what you claim to be with current drivers.

TXAA is supported by only one game (or is it two now? I know that it's no more than two) and is no better than MSAA in quality. FXAA is worse than no AA at all. PhysX is supported well by only a few games these days, most of which look like old DX9 games (or are old DX9 games) anyway, so it's not a big deal in many of them anyway. CUDA is not used in gaming whatsoever.

Furthermore, you ignore AMD's technologies in your argument including far superior MSAA/CSAA performance (which is true in pretty much all games, not just one or two), superior multi-GPU support with the stutter fix program, far superior support for OpenCL and Direct Compute features, and more.

The 7870 is the better option of the 7870 and the 660.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 7:11:56 AM

abundantcores said:
That was recorded in September, so before 12.11 Drivers.

The performance on the 7870 is even slightly faster than what the 7950 was pre 12.11 Drivers.

I ran a test, OP: SwordBreaker: Started FRAPS exiting the gate to cross the road, into the building and in to the car park, i stopped the bench when the RPG was fired.

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t364/Hunbug76/new%20driver%20scaling/BF312.png

As you can see its up an average of 8.5 FPS, its quite a jump, i play BF3 on Ultra Preset 1080P with complete ease and room to spare.

3DMark11 is also up a lot

http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t364/Hunbug76/new%20driver%20scaling/3dm2.png

I'm getting 8700 GPU points vs 7500 pre 12.11.


Catalyst 12.11 is way out of date. There has been another seven driver releases with two major performance increase releases and a few minor performance increase releases and bug fix releases.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 7:43:29 AM

I played BF3 maxed out with GTX 660.

Currently playing AC3 and Hitman: Absolution maxing, no problems whatsoever.

go with the HD 7870 if you're planning to OC

personally I recommend the GTX 660.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 7:53:43 AM

blazorthon said:
Catalyst 12.11 is way out of date. There has been another seven driver releases with two major performance increase releases and a few minor performance increase releases and bug fix releases.


12.11 Beta 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and now 8

Yes each version has bug fixed and performance increases in other games, they are sorting it out for when it will eventually end up as 12.12, soon probably.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 8:39:08 AM

blazorthon said:
PSU wattage *requirement* is completely wrong and quoting it proves that you shouldn't be making recommendations unless you look into this subject more.

The performance difference is also not what you claim to be with current drivers.

TXAA is supported by only one game (or is it two now? I know that it's no more than two) and is no better than MSAA in quality. FXAA is worse than no AA at all. PhysX is supported well by only a few games these days, most of which look like old DX9 games (or are old DX9 games) anyway, so it's not a big deal in many of them anyway. CUDA is not used in gaming whatsoever.

Furthermore, you ignore AMD's technologies in your argument including far superior MSAA/CSAA performance (which is true in pretty much all games, not just one or two), superior multi-GPU support with the stutter fix program, far superior support for OpenCL and Direct Compute features, and more.

The 7870 is the better option of the 7870 and the 660.


TXAA is supported by 3 games or more at the moment. I know Assasins Creed 3, Borderlands 2 and Batman: Arkham city does and a lot of more games are coming up with it, it's fairly new so ofc it won't be supported in a lot of games. Physx are supportd in 10-20 games, here I'm a little unsure.

You only show your opinion on how the Nvidia technologies look. What if I say they look awesome? Because I actually think that, and just by we think something, doesn't mean it's true. FXAA does improve visuals, TXAA does just as well, physx adds a lot of visuals in the games, go look at youtube for an instance. If you think they suck, bad for you, but someone else might appreciate them.

Watt requirments are wrong? ARE WRONG? they are provided by AMD themselves, and I think they do know more about themselves than you do, mr. Expert.

In all the reviews and comparisions I've read, the difference is about 5-7% and again, I do believe in people with a neutral account more than you.

I own an AMD GPU and a Nvidia GPU myself. I do not care what he chooses, but don't try to mess him up with your fanboy arguments.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 9:29:01 AM

lostgamer_03 said:
TXAA is supported by 3 games or more at the moment. I know Assasins Creed 3, Borderlands 2 and Batman: Arkham city does and a lot of more games are coming up with it, it's fairly new so ofc it won't be supported in a lot of games. Physx are supportd in 10-20 games, here I'm a little unsure.

You only show your opinion on how the Nvidia technologies look. What if I say they look awesome? Because I actually think that, and just by we think something, doesn't mean it's true. FXAA does improve visuals, TXAA does just as well, physx adds a lot of visuals in the games, go look at youtube for an instance. If you think they suck, bad for you, but someone else might appreciate them.

Watt requirments are wrong? ARE WRONG? they are provided by AMD themselves, and I think they do know more about themselves than you do, mr. Expert.

In all the reviews and comparisions I've read, the difference is about 5-7% and again, I do believe in people with a neutral account more than you.

I own an AMD GPU and a Nvidia GPU myself. I do not care what he chooses, but don't try to mess him up with your fanboy arguments.


This is going to be a very long response, but I swear, all of it is important.

I'm not making fanboy arguments and I'm not trying to under rate Nvidia's technologies.

TXAA is an incredible technology. However, all it does is offer MSAA-like quality without taking as much of a performance hit. AMD already takes far less of a performance hit with MSAA than Nvidia and it really just about equalizes the performance hit for quality improvement with Nvidia TXAA versus AMD MSAA, so it's not truly an advantage. FXAA really is garbage, but not because of it being a Nvidia technology. AMD has something even worse, it is the first version of MLAA. FXAA is garbage, but MLAA was absolute trash. MLAA 2.0 is better, but still has nothing on even the lowest level of MSAA.

Like you said, TXAA is poorly supported only because it's new. However, it's not really that new anymore and although support will undoubtedly improve, it is doing so far too slowly. I don't hold that against TXAA as a technology, but it does mean that it's not even relevant for most gaming situations. Having TXAA is not an advantage over AMD, but lacking it most certainly is a disadvantage in many common situations where AMD's affinity for MSAA works to great effect in curing the jagginess issue of displays that don't have a 4K resolution or thereabouts.

My beef with FXAA is that although it improves jaggies, it makes the screen look more like a foggy window. FXAA is more of a blur effect than true AA. Most gamers seem to agree with that from what I've heard and read.

PhysX is a great technology. There's no doubt in my mind about that. However, like TXAA, it is not well-supported by most games and seems to be dying off. This may change with games using the Unreal 4 engine, but that's just wishful thinking for now. Most games that use PhysX properly (most games that support it do not make good use of it) are either older DX9/10 based games or look like they are. The first real title that I expect to utilize it properly and extensively in several years is the next release of Metro (Last Light is the name IIRC) and I truly hope that it lives up to my expectations. PhysX doesn't suck, the current games that use it suck. That truly saddens me as it leaves PhysX an incredibly underutilized technology.

However, Nvidia did kinda ruin it in a few ways. Most importantly is that although a GPU runs it better than a CPU does now, that is greatly because of the extremely outdated code used by its CPU version. A fully modern CPU implementation from Nvidia could be so effective that not only could it revitalize the need for a top-end CPU, not only would it increase the need for highly threaded performance over single/dual/lightly threaded performance, but it would also leave Nvidia's GPUs with more room for other work. Sure, it'd mean that PhysX would run on AMD systems much more easily, but getting better support for TXAA would let Nvidia still have something to argue for. It would give the entire industry the benefit of more reason to support PhysX in games (especially with excellent utilization) while giving Nvidia an ethical boost in the community for improving the industry as a whole with superior and more open PhysX.

The other major hurdle for games that properly utilize PhysX is that most of the current ones are horribly coded. For example, the Batman games (most recently BatMan:AC)... Those ridiculous are programming messes. Horrible frame rate consistency, poor performance to quality ratio, among the most driver incompatibilities despite Nvidia's and AMD's best efforts compared to most other fairly modern games, of does the list go on. This is something that I hope does not happen to the next release of Metro. Metro 2033 is pretty good about coding (it's also one of the most well-threaded games already) AFAIK and that shows good chances for the next release being good about this too IMO.

Onto other things. Direct Compute and OpenCL features (especially some very nice advanced lighting features) run great on AMD's cards compared to on Nvidia's best consumer cards, especially with AMD's Radeon 79xx cards that just chew through the GPGPU acceleration. Like PhysX and TXAA., these aren't well-supported by many games, but some of the newest and best games do support them. Sleeping Dogs is a great example IMO.

About the wattage requirements, yes, they are entirely wrong. Wattage recommendations from AMD and Nvidia (as well as many other companies for much other hardware) are never accurate whatsoever because the wattage of a PSU is not important these days. What really matters are a few quality factors and the +12V power delivery. For example, a crap 550W PSU with only around 20-25 amps of +12V rated delivery is probably going to struggle with even a Radeon 7770 or GTX 650 Ti, yet a good 450W model such as the Antec VP0-450 will take a Radeon 7850 without any trouble at all. Even better, using proper adapters, it will take a Radeon 7870 and even a Radeon 7950 without any trouble at all, assuming you're not using an otherwise ridiculously high-power consumption system.

Something else worth noting, jsut in case you're not aware of it: TDP does not equal power consumption. For example, the Radeon 6970 has a 250W TDP and the GTX 580 has a 244W TDP. Despite this, the 6970 generally uses less power than the 580. Another example: The GTX 680 has a 195W TDP and the Radeon 7950 has a 200W TDP. The 7950, again, uses less power.

Furthermore, you're not taking current drivers for Nvidia and AMD into your performance comparison.

I have had many Nvidia and AMD cards over the years. My last personally owned Nvidia card for real gaming was a GTX 560 Ti 1GB that was replaced with a Radeon 7850 2GB shortly after the 560 Ti had a failure. What I said was not from the view of some AMD fan.
Share
November 27, 2012 9:48:26 AM

Haha wtf, in Australia the most expensive 7870s are cheaper than the cheapest 660s. Same with 7950s and 660Ti's
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 9:53:37 AM

Well, is Australia, that just makes the choice easier. 7870 is a little faster than the 660 overall and the 7950 is somewhat faster than the 660 Ti overall. None have high power consumption and they're all good about memory capacity (although the 660 2GB and 660 Ti 2GB have an odd imbalanced memory interface that slows down a little more than normal with higher capacities in use, especially above 1.5GiB, an issue not shared by the 128 bit and 256 bit models from the Kepler family) too.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 2:56:18 PM

vishnu92 said:
IS it necessary to have 4gb ram??? i have only 2 gb....
http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/graphics/7000/78...


No you don't, though I highly recommend you buy another 2GB (To make a total of four) at the very least. Also listen to what blazorthon is saying. He makes very very good points towards getting a 7870. I couldn't have said it better myself!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:03:49 PM



Actually with new drivers Hd 7870 went 3% over 660. But 7870 is cheaper than 660. So i would choose 7870. If you can find cheaper that 660 than would be a bit harder to choose but stil it would lean a "bit" to 7870.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:05:31 PM

blazorthon said:
Well, is Australia, that just makes the choice easier. 7870 is a little faster than the 660 overall and the 7950 is somewhat faster than the 660 Ti overall. None have high power consumption and they're all good about memory capacity (although the 660 2GB and 660 Ti 2GB have an odd imbalanced memory interface that slows down a little more than normal with higher capacities in use, especially above 1.5GiB, an issue not shared by the 128 bit and 256 bit models from the Kepler family) too.


7870 has higher power consumption than 660.

Same goes with 7950 and 660 ti.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:15:11 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
7870 has higher power consumption than 660.

Same goes with 7950 and 660 ti.


Actually, the 7950 and 660 Ti have extremely similar power consumption needs. The 660 is only a little better than the 7870 about power consumption. None of them are high power-consumption cards.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:27:55 PM

prototype18 said:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/images/perfrel.gif

Actually with new drivers Hd 7870 went 3% over 660. But 7870 is cheaper than 660. So i would choose 7870. If you can find cheaper that 660 than would be a bit harder to choose but stil it would lean a "bit" to 7870.


Tech Power Up.... i don't trust them, if and when i replicate Toms Hardware's benches, and a lot of others for that mater i can confirm their results.

Tech Power Up is one of those few which always seem to score less on the AMD side than i do, and a lot of other reviewers.

Take that how you will, absolutely no insult intended, and its just my personal feeling of them.

Take there BF3 results, they have the 7870 slower than the GTX 660, and the 7950 slower than the GTX 660TI on those 12.11 drivers, which wildly out of sync with just about everyone.

Take this as one example. http://hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_dri...

Those results i confirmed, TPU's results were way under what i got, as usual.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:40:28 PM

Hmm that is your opinion. But basing on my personal exp they are well accurate.

I have 560 ti and they said ima get 200+ fps on MW2 and thats what i got at my resolution.

Etc etc etc i do believe them .

And actually at BF3 for example they Nvidia is better than AMD so they say.

Edit :

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performanc...

Compare this to your link ?
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:42:04 PM

That was true with the older cards. AMD is currently doing excellently in BF3 relative to Nvidia.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:51:01 PM

abundantcores said:
Tech Power Up.... i don't trust them, if and when i replicate Toms Hardware's benches, and a lot of others for that mater i can confirm their results.

Tech Power Up is one of those few which always seem to score less on the AMD side than i do, and a lot of other reviewers.

Take that how you will, absolutely no insult intended, and its just my personal feeling of them.

Take there BF3 results, they have the 7870 slower than the GTX 660, and the 7950 slower than the GTX 660TI on those 12.11 drivers, which wildly out of sync with just about everyone.

Take this as one example. http://hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_dri...

Those results i confirmed, TPU's results were way under what i got, as usual.


I agree. I always get pretty much exactly the same as Tomshardware with both Nvidia and AMD cards. However Techpowerup is always nvidia skewed. Idk how unless they are just flat out lying.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 3:53:11 PM

prototype18 said:
Hmm that is your opinion. But basing on my personal exp they are well accurate.

I have 560 ti and they said ima get 200+ fps on MW2 and thats what i got at my resolution.

Etc etc etc i do believe them .

And actually at BF3 for example they Nvidia is better than AMD so they say.

Edit :

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performanc...

Compare this to your link ?


Perhaps your not reading into the undertones in what i'm saying, i'm very sure those benches are accurate for the Nvidia GPU's, they absolutely are not for the AMD cards.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 3:54:33 PM

prototype18 said:
Hmm that is your opinion. But basing on my personal exp they are well accurate.

I have 560 ti and they said ima get 200+ fps on MW2 and thats what i got at my resolution.

Etc etc etc i do believe them .

And actually at BF3 for example they Nvidia is better than AMD so they say.

Edit :

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performanc...

Compare this to your link ?


It's really not an opinion. Me and him both can replicate TH's results. We can't replicate TP's. That's just a fact, and we have no reason to lie about it.

Also once framerates reach ~200 FPS they should be taken with a grain of salt. The framerate is so high the cards usually just stop caring about consistancy and steady framerates. For instance I get around 270 FPS with both a 6950 and a 7970 GHz in the Half Life 2 lost coast benchmark. Is that because they are the same strength? NO! They just don't give a f#$k anymore lol!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 4:26:52 PM

blazorthon said:
Actually, the 7950 and 660 Ti have extremely similar power consumption needs. The 660 is only a little better than the 7870 about power consumption. None of them are high power-consumption cards.


Lies..

GTX 660 - 140 watt <--> 175 watt - Radeon 7870

GTX 660 TI - 150 watt <--> 200 watt - Radeon 7950

Get your facts right.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 4:36:41 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
Lies..

GTX 660 - 140 watt <--> 175 watt - Radeon 7870

GTX 660 TI - 150 watt <--> 200 watt - Radeon 7950

Get your facts right.


Are you seriously trying to claim that TDP equals power consumption? Congratulations, you've proven that you don't know what you're talking about. Calling me a liar over your misunderstanding isn't very polite either, but I suppose I'm not in a good position to complain about manners.

In real-world power consumption, both the 660 Ti and the 7950 are around 140-160W with the 7870 a good deal below that at around 120-130W and the 660 a little below the 7870 at around 100-120W. Those are averages in gaming, they're not going to be the same for every gaming situation, just rough averages.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 4:52:21 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
Lies..

GTX 660 - 140 watt <--> 175 watt - Radeon 7870

GTX 660 TI - 150 watt <--> 200 watt - Radeon 7950

Get your facts right.


The point is he CAN RUN ANY OF THEM ON HIS PSU!!!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 5:09:29 PM

blazorthon said:
Are you seriously trying to claim that TDP equals power consumption? Congratulations, you've proven that you don't know what you're talking about. Calling me a liar over your misunderstanding isn't very polite either, but I suppose I'm not in a good position to complain about manners.

In real-world power consumption, both the 660 Ti and the 7950 are around 140-160W with the 7870 a good deal below that at around 120-130W and the 660 a little below the 7870 at around 100-120W. Those are averages in gaming, they're not going to be the same for every gaming situation, just rough averages.


It's the maximum power usage, I do know what I'm talking about.

If all the GPUs were pushed to their limits, that would be the consumption.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 5:10:24 PM

CaptainTom said:
The point is he CAN RUN ANY OF THEM ON HIS PSU!!!


I know, I just corrected something that was wrong. :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 5:12:27 PM

abundantcores said:
Perhaps your not reading into the undertones in what i'm saying, i'm very sure those benches are accurate for the Nvidia GPU's, they absolutely are not for the AMD cards.


Well the results from your up to date link are nearly the same (2-3 FPS differ)

Monday , November 12, 2012 Date.
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 27, 2012 5:26:20 PM

lostgamer_03 said:
It's the maximum power usage, I do know what I'm talking about.

If all the GPUs were pushed to their limits, that would be the consumption.


No, it's not truly maximum power consumption, at least not in realistic workloads. It's closer to maximum if you do something such as Furmark. Even then, TDPs are rarely reached, especially on AMD cards which have more conservative TDPs relative to their real-world power consumption compared to Nvidia.

For example, the GTX 580 has a lower TDP than the Radeon 6970, but the 580 uses more power. The 480 and the 6970 have the same TDP and the 480 has a huge power consumption disadvantage. TDP is about as useful as PSU recommendation, IE not much at all.
m
0
l
November 27, 2012 5:33:09 PM

blazorthon said:
No, it's not truly maximum power consumption, at least not in realistic workloads. It's closer to maximum if you do something such as Furmark. Even then, TDPs are rarely reached, especially on AMD cards which have more conservative TDPs relative to their real-world power consumption compared to Nvidia.

For example, the GTX 580 has a lower TDP than the Radeon 6970, but the 580 uses more power. The 480 and the 6970 have the same TDP and the 480 has a huge power consumption disadvantage. TDP is about as useful as PSU recommendation, IE not much at all.



Nvidia do seem to have a habit of writing a low TDP on the box relative to actual power draw, the TDP they gave the GTX 480 was just a joke.

AMD might learn something from them as to many people just don't know enough and think the 'chosen' TDP is (and must be) related to actual power consumption. Having said that i get the feeling AMD would get butchered if they even thought of it, lol.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
November 28, 2012 1:28:52 AM

who cares!Both are great cards!7870 is faster and can overclock better.I would pick that but to each his/her own.OP your not making a bad choice either way.P.S. Look at my sig i am no amd fanboy.The 7870 is a better card imo.
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 2:37:17 AM

Best answer selected by vishnu92.
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 2:37:32 AM

DG41KR (LGA775, 4GB ddr3 ) with quad core processor (Q8400)...
Would it bottleneck my GPU??
Pls help.... Thank you...
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 3:10:58 AM

Some games might not run excellently, but I don't think that there're any modern games that would be anywhere near unplayable with that CPU for your system. A CPU upgrade beyond it would help in many gaming situations, but that's not a bad CPU.
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 5:42:25 AM

blazorthon said:
Some games might not run excellently, but I don't think that there're any modern games that would be anywhere near unplayable with that CPU for your system. A CPU upgrade beyond it would help in many gaming situations, but that's not a bad CPU.

Will AC3 run at gud setting???
m
0
l
a c 87 U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 5:52:15 AM

I think so. That's not nearly the most demanding game around and even more demanding games should run fine at great settings.
m
0
l
!