Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Graphicsd card for new build

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 30, 2012 2:34:56 PM

I am building a new machine and am looking to purchase a graphics card in the next 30 days

Build:

Processor - I7-980
MOBO - Gigabyte GA-x58-UDR3 V 2.0
Ram: 3 -G.SKILL Sniper Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1866 (PC3 14900) Desktop Memory Model F3-14900CL9D-8GBSR (24 GB total)
PSU - 750W unsure make yet
Looking at new 21" LCD

It looks like AMd is having serious long term cash flow issues so not sure that they are the best choice for cards and legacy help. What video cared do you reccomend in the sub 350.00 range? Is it worth going higher price ?

I play FPS like COD as well as Diablo 3 . I also use this for video transfers and photo editing.

Thanks

More about : graphicsd card build

a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 2:47:48 PM

If you look, you can find the HD 7970 for around $380. A bit outside your budget, but it's considerably faster than the GTX 670, and when overclocked is roughly equal to an overclocked GTX 680.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 2:54:12 PM

Yes, as willard mentioned, if you plan to spend a little more, you can get the top-of-the-line Raedon, i.e., HD 7970.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 3:34:48 PM

For only being $10 more than the 670 it is definitely a worthwhile upgrade to get the 7970.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
As for the long term for AMD I wouldn't worry much at all their graphics cards are at the moment better than NVidia's (because for the same performance the AMD is cheaper). AMD is also releasing their cards in a shorter time frame. It's mainly the AMD CPU's that are having trouble.

I also have one AMD card and one NVidia at the moment and much prefer the AMD software over NVidia's (although that's personal preference).

Also I hope you picked up that CPU and motherboard very cheap as currently Intel is two generations ahead of that model. If it's a great deal maybe keep it but if you can return it and get a socket LGA 1155 and an Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge CPU that would be better.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 3:39:35 PM

willard said:
If you look, you can find the HD 7970 for around $380. A bit outside your budget, but it's considerably faster than the GTX 670, and when overclocked is roughly equal to an overclocked GTX 680.


OP is looking at 21" monitor. Tell me, what 20" monitor needs a 7970. Haha. At most, a 660. If you wanna run a 7970 you better have at least a 24" monitor with 1920x1200, or a 27" monitor; otherwise ...wasted money.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 3:48:04 PM

lol you dont need 670 or 7970 for COD or Diablo 3.
assuming you are gonna play at 1080p and max settings you dont need anymore than a 7870 for those games. just save up some money rather than buying an overkill card spend extra on a better cpu like 3570k and Z77
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 3:55:14 PM

mohit9206 said:
lol you dont need 670 or 7970 for COD or Diablo 3.
assuming you are gonna play at 1080p and max settings you dont need anymore than a 7870 for those games. just save up some money rather than buying an overkill card spend extra on a better cpu like 3570k and Z77


Thank you for adding common sense. Why drop more than $300 on 1080p?
If 2560x1440 then I can understand buying a 7970, otherwise it's a bone headed decision.
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 4:10:27 PM

envy14tpe said:
Thank you for adding common sense. Why drop more than $300 on 1080p?
If 2560x1440 then I can understand buying a 7970, otherwise it's a bone headed decision.


thanks .. thats why I put the monitor size I was getting. So is the best choice then a 7870? Different cpu is not an option as I have already purchased that.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 4:22:58 PM

That's a cool processor! Overkill maybe, but cool :-) How much was it? As for graphics card, the GTX660 is a bit cheaper than the 7870 and will deliver near enough identical performance, but the added benefits you get with nVidia hardware (FXAA, TXAA, adaptive v-sync, PhysX etc).

What people say about the 7970 vs GTX670 is totally false - they're neck-to-neck. Initially, the GTX670 was faster, but major performance improvements from the Catalyst drivers helped bring the 7970 up to GTX670 performance. It's certainly not faster though. The 7970 GHz Edition and GTX680 are both a bit faster, but not different enough that you'd be able to tell the difference. I can post benchmarks to back that up if required - would be very interested to see benchmarks showing the 7970 outperforming the GTX670 (and I mean a full article / benchmark suite, not an individual title).

As for what is overkill, that really depends on how long you want your purchase to last. A lot of people will advise not buying any more than the minimum to play current games smoothly at your current resolution. I personally always buy a something a bit faster for the knowledge that it will handle next year's games too, and the year after. I don't really want to be spending all that money to then be needing to replace it any time soon. That being said, GTX660 should keep you playing at high settings for a couple of years to come.
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 6:59:02 PM

sam_p_lay said:
That's a cool processor! Overkill maybe, but cool :-) How much was it? As for graphics card, the GTX660 is a bit cheaper than the 7870 and will deliver near enough identical performance, but the added benefits you get with nVidia hardware (FXAA, TXAA, adaptive v-sync, PhysX etc).

What people say about the 7970 vs GTX670 is totally false - they're neck-to-neck. Initially, the GTX670 was faster, but major performance improvements from the Catalyst drivers helped bring the 7970 up to GTX670 performance. It's certainly not faster though. The 7970 GHz Edition and GTX680 are both a bit faster, but not different enough that you'd be able to tell the difference. I can post benchmarks to back that up if required - would be very interested to see benchmarks showing the 7970 outperforming the GTX670 (and I mean a full article / benchmark suite, not an individual title).

As for what is overkill, that really depends on how long you want your purchase to last. A lot of people will advise not buying any more than the minimum to play current games smoothly at your current resolution. I personally always buy a something a bit faster for the knowledge that it will handle next year's games too, and the year after. I don't really want to be spending all that money to then be needing to replace it any time soon. That being said, GTX660 should keep you playing at high settings for a couple of years to come.


Sam- Thanks! I am going to look at the GTX660ti 2MB.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 7:26:05 PM

Glad I could help :-) Have fun with it!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2012 11:04:37 PM

@jrohnkohl. You should consider 23" monitors if you are gonna buy a 660ti. A 660ti is best for 1080p. Also, there really aren't many 21" monitors. Usually 20" @ 1600x900 or 22" @1920x1080. So ic you want a 660ti, the minimum screen size should be 22".
m
0
l
November 30, 2012 11:13:45 PM

660Ti has a 192 bit memory bus, so if you're doing high textures it won't do well. Keep that in mind.
m
0
l
December 1, 2012 3:03:56 AM

envy14tpe said:
@jrohnkohl. You should consider 23" monitors if you are gonna buy a 660ti. A 660ti is best for 1080p. Also, there really aren't many 21" monitors. Usually 20" @ 1600x900 or 22" @1920x1080. So ic you want a 660ti, the minimum screen size should be 22".


Envy thanks . So if I went with a 23" the 660ti would be fine ? If I stay with 22" or 21" what do you recommend?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 3:24:46 AM

jrohnkohl said:
Envy thanks . So if I went with a 23" the 660ti would be fine ? If I stay with 22" or 21" what do you recommend?


At 23" the 660ti is great. I play BF3 on Ultra with 2 or 4xAA @60fps.
I think 23" is a great size. Most prices for 22" are almost the same as 23" monitors.
Also, at 23" their are more choices.

For good image quality and good response times: Dell and Asus.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
If you can get this one on sale:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/pr...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 9:58:01 AM

macleody said:
660Ti has a 192 bit memory bus, so if you're doing high textures it won't do well. Keep that in mind.


MacLeody the memory bus width thing is a myth. I've explained this before elsewhere so I'll just post a link, see the 2nd post:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/378279-15-gtx660-78...

tl;dr? 7800-series cards have no significant bandwidth advantage over GTX660 and GTX660 Ti as a result of the bus width.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 3:10:56 PM

envy14tpe said:
OP is looking at 21" monitor. Tell me, what 20" monitor needs a 7970. Haha. At most, a 660. If you wanna run a 7970 you better have at least a 24" monitor with 1920x1200, or a 27" monitor; otherwise ...wasted money.

This is just confusing the issue. Screen size has absolutely nothing to do with it, as you well know (at least I hope you don't think screen size has an impact on GPU load). Resolution is what matters, and it does not correlate perfectly with screen size. I've got a 21" 1080p monitor sitting right next to me. I know a guy with a 22" 1920x1200, and I've see plenty of shitty monitors with lower than expected resolution for their size. Hell, I've seen countless 27" 1080p monitors. I even own one.

And I disagree that a 7970 is only useful for resolutions greater than 1080p. The 7870 may be able to get close to max settings on most games today at 1080p, but what about next year or the one after? What if he gets a new monitor and wants to run at a higher resolution?

There is value in not needing to worry about increasing system requirements, and in the time saved by not needing to upgrade. It's up to the builder to decide if they want to pay the premium to for it, probably around $50 wasted over buying a cheap card now and upgrading it in a year or two to get to the same power level as a top of the line card today.

Quote:
What people say about the 7970 vs GTX670 is totally false - they're neck-to-neck. Initially, the GTX670 was faster, but major performance improvements from the Catalyst drivers helped bring the 7970 up to GTX670 performance. It's certainly not faster though. The 7970 GHz Edition and GTX680 are both a bit faster, but not different enough that you'd be able to tell the difference.

You've got it a bit off. Initially the 7970 was neck and neck with the 670, then driver improvements around the 7970 GHz edition launch put it between the 670 and 680 (it actually beat the 680 in several benchmarks). Later firmware updates and further driver improvements have it closer to the 680 than 670. The 7970s also overclock better than the 670/680, so if you're into that the 7970 is very, very close to the 680's performance, for about $75 less.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 3:56:28 PM

Post some links to articles/benchmark suites backing up your claims. And don't just pick individual benchmarks that back up what you're saying - link to the whole article.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 3:59:02 PM

See I can back up my claims:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-79...

On average, we see the GTX680 delivering 4% more performance than the 7970. We're talking about tiny differences anyway - GTX670 is only 6% behind the GTX680 on average. I'm sure you can do the math here. GTX670 is for all intents and purposes every bit as capable, and for less money.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 4:25:34 PM

I agree with willard on this one sam.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-...
As you go towards higher resolutions and 4x MSAA or more the 7970 outperforms the 670.
For more proof lets look at the extreme preset chart for Crysis 2 DX11.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/07-Cr...
The 7970 is outperforming both the 680 and 670 in quite a few cases.

Seeing as I wanted a 3 monitor setup for gaming this is the reason I chose two 7970.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 4:32:36 PM

The 7970 GHz Edition is a different card and it's more expensive than the standard 7970 - it's not what we're talking about here. And it's not a case of agreeing or not agreeing - it's really not a matter of opinion. The benchmarks I posted were carried out with the new Catalyst drivers (making them more accurate and relevant, and giving an advantage to the Radeons) and the GTX680 was still faster on average. You can't look at the numbers in that article and tell me the GTX680 doesn't have a framerate lead of 4%.

I'm sorry if you're regretting your purchase, but it doesn't change reality. These four cards are all so close anyway that it's a stupid thing to argue. For all intents and purposes they're the same, and the GTX670 is the cheapest of the four.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 5:29:45 PM

But I wasn't talking about the 7970 GHz I only used that article because it has the 680, 670, 7970 and 7970 GHz edition cards in the article for comparison.

I'm not regretting that purchase in any way.

I listed the second thing as proof since the drivers were updated and tested more recently for the DX 11 (which is more viable for most newer games) version of Crysis. Also I value overclocking and my cards are running at GHz speeds but were significantly cheaper.

I also saw the article you listed and have read the entirity of it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7990-devi...
But it doesn't even list the 670 so I didn't use it where the article I posted has all of the cards in question.

Lastly I'm not denying that the 680 is normally faster than the 7970 I'm just saying that the 7970 is a better purchase than a 670 and worth the extra $10 when you buy it.

As for him the 7870 would be the best bet at 1080 (I've gotten into an argument with someone saying that a 50'' TV at 1080 is more demanding than a 23'' 1080 monitor :non:  ) which is what resolution the monitor (from about 20'' to 27'') you buy will most likely be.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2012 5:53:49 PM

Yeah I did think that about the 7970 GHz - it's not really a new GPU, effectively just an officially factory-overclocked model. I guess that's not a new practice though, and it gives you the added little bit of speed without voiding warranty. Glad to hear you're pleased with the purchase :-) The price difference here between the 7970 and GTX670 equates to $45, so maybe more worth considering. Plus the GTX670 gives you TXAA, FXAA, adaptive v-sync, PhysX etc.

As for screen size, I think the problem is people trying to boil down resolution into screen size to make things simpler and less 'technical' for people who don't know what their screen resolution is. Misguided though, because then some people begin to think it really is the physical size that matters. I think envy14tpe was aware that not all displays of a given size are the same resolution, but maybe trying to not confuse matters. +1 to Willard about future-proofing - I keep seeing people recommending graphics cards that are the absolute minimum required to run only today's games at the OP's current resolution - bit short-sighted. More spend in the short term saves money in the long run (assuming warranty doesn't expire after two years and then your card dies 4 months later like mine just did!).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2012 3:56:28 AM

willard said:
This is just confusing the issue. Screen size has absolutely nothing to do with it, as you well know (at least I hope you don't think screen size has an impact on GPU load). Resolution is what matters, and it does not correlate perfectly with screen size. I've got a 21" 1080p monitor sitting right next to me. I know a guy with a 22" 1920x1200, and I've see plenty of shitty monitors with lower than expected resolution for their size. Hell, I've seen countless 27" 1080p monitors. I even own one.

And I disagree that a 7970 is only useful for resolutions greater than 1080p. The 7870 may be able to get close to max settings on most games today at 1080p, but what about next year or the one after? What if he gets a new monitor and wants to run at a higher resolution?

There is value in not needing to worry about increasing system requirements, and in the time saved by not needing to upgrade. It's up to the builder to decide if they want to pay the premium to for it, probably around $50 wasted over buying a cheap card now and upgrading it in a year or two to get to the same power level as a top of the line card today.

Quote:
What people say about the 7970 vs GTX670 is totally false - they're neck-to-neck. Initially, the GTX670 was faster, but major performance improvements from the Catalyst drivers helped bring the 7970 up to GTX670 performance. It's certainly not faster though. The 7970 GHz Edition and GTX680 are both a bit faster, but not different enough that you'd be able to tell the difference.

You've got it a bit off. Initially the 7970 was neck and neck with the 670, then driver improvements around the 7970 GHz edition launch put it between the 670 and 680 (it actually beat the 680 in several benchmarks). Later firmware updates and further driver improvements have it closer to the 680 than 670. The 7970s also overclock better than the 670/680, so if you're into that the 7970 is very, very close to the 680's performance, for about $75 less.


I mentioned screen size because screen size typically has a tyipical resolution. A 23" monitor is usually 1080p. If you shop for 20" monitors you'll find mostly 900p. The higher the resolution the better the image, and you need a higher level GPU for the increase in resolution. I can't believe people buy 27" monitors with 1080p. Personally, they don't look so good. 1080p on 23" is great, but not on a 27". I'd rather have 1440p. Personal preference.

The OP was considering a 660. It usually costs $220. A 7970 costs $400+. Not even in the same ballpark. Of course it's better, but not when your thinking of a $200 GPU. Also, I'm sure a 660 will be great for 2 years, which is when most people change GPUs.
m
0
l
December 2, 2012 5:21:48 AM

i recently purchased a evga 660 ti 2gb card about a month ago and i was getting around 55-60 fps on ultra in bf3 and 80fps in Black Ops 2 on a asus 24 led monitor..i liked it so much i purchased another 660 ti and now im getting 120fps in bf3 and 200 in black ops 2. All for $550 plus i got assasins creed 3 and borderlands 2 for free.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2012 5:33:11 AM

CoronaBuzz said:
i recently purchased a evga 660 ti 2gb card about a month ago and i was getting around 55-60 fps on ultra in bf3 and 80fps in Black Ops 2 on a asus 24 led monitor..i liked it so much i purchased another 660 ti and now im getting 120fps in bf3 and 200 in black ops 2. All for $550 plus i got assasins creed 3 and borderlands 2 for free.


I didn't know Asus made a 24" 120Hz monitor. I assume yours is 120Hz otherwise 120fps is overkill considering most monitors are rated 60Hz.

I easily get 60fps on BF3 Ultra, even with 4xAA.
m
0
l
December 2, 2012 2:44:16 PM

My bad i was actually swyping on my cell on break last night at work. its a 27" ASUS VG Series VG278H Black 27" 2 ms ) HDMI Widescreen LED Backlight LCD Monitor
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 2, 2012 10:13:38 PM

CoronaBuzz said:
My bad i was actually swyping on my cell on break last night at work. its a 27" ASUS VG Series VG278H Black 27" 2 ms ) HDMI Widescreen LED Backlight LCD Monitor


Gotcha, nice monitor. I swype wrong all the time on my Nexus 7. I have to proofread everything. Pretty annoying.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 2:44:13 PM

envy14tpe said:
The OP was considering a 660. It usually costs $220. A 7970 costs $400+. Not even in the same ballpark. Of course it's better, but not when your thinking of a $200 GPU.

1. I wasn't comparing the 7970 to the 660. I was comparing it to the 670.
2. The OP clearly stated a price limit, which the 7970 is very close to:

Quote:
What video cared do you reccomend in the sub 350.00 range?

That's why I brought up the 7970. You can find them for $360-$380 pretty easily. I paid $350 for mine.

Quote:
Also, I'm sure a 660 will be great for 2 years, which is when most people change GPUs.

To qualify as "great" I'd say a card needs to be able to max out games at your monitor's native resolution. It's pretty unlikely that a middle of the road card like the 660 will do that. Until recently I've exclusively bought similar cards, and not one of them has ever maxed out games for two years.

If you want a card that maxes out games in the future, you need a good deal more than is required to max them out now.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 2:55:27 PM

sam_p_lay said:
See I can back up my claims:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/radeon-hd-7990-devil13-79...

On average, we see the GTX680 delivering 4% more performance than the 7970. We're talking about tiny differences anyway - GTX670 is only 6% behind the GTX680 on average. I'm sure you can do the math here. GTX670 is for all intents and purposes every bit as capable, and for less money.

Not much less money, and that article doesn't cover overclocking. It also lines up very, very closely with what I said.

Quote:
You've got it a bit off. Initially the 7970 was neck and neck with the 670, then driver improvements around the 7970 GHz edition launch put it between the 670 and 680 (it actually beat the 680 in several benchmarks). Later firmware updates and further driver improvements have it closer to the 680 than 670. The 7970s also overclock better than the 670/680, so if you're into that the 7970 is very, very close to the 680's performance, for about $75 less.


Further, on the top of the page you linked to:

Quote:
What we notice is that the beta Catalyst 12.11 driver does, in fact, deliver a massive performance boost in a majority of the games we're testing. Nvidia only manages to maintain an advantage in long-time strongholds like Battlefield 3 and Batman: Arkham City, even though AMD jumps from 25 to 30 percent in Battlefield 3, practically making it a draw.

This statement is particularly important given the small sample size of the benchmarks. Basically, the only games where the 7970 isn't coming out on, or very very close to the top are games that have always favored Nvidia.

I'd say that article is more or less in agreement with what I said. The 7970 falls between the 670 and 680. It beat or tied the 680 in many games, and lost in titles that are biased toward Nvidia. Overclocking doesn't come up in the article, but I'm sure I could go find another article showing the 7970's superior overclocking performance if you'd really like.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 3:01:14 PM

You can if you want but if doesn't really benefit your argument - the OP has stated no interest in overclocking.

I'd never deny the 7970 is very close to the GTX680, nor would I deny it's very close to the GTX670. We're looking at an average 6% difference between the GTX670 and the GTX680. And you're talking about it landing inbetween the two. Can we take a step back and consider the actual differences we're talking about here?

5% performance difference represents the difference between 40fps and 42fps. Nobody would be able to tell those framerates apart. For all intents and purposes, these three cards perform the same on average. So why not take the cheapest? Especially when it adds FXAA, adaptive v-sync and PhysX.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 3:23:56 PM

sam_p_lay said:
5% performance difference represents the difference between 40fps and 42fps. Nobody would be able to tell those framerates apart. For all intents and purposes, these three cards perform the same on average. So why not take the cheapest? Especially when it adds FXAA, adaptive v-sync and PhysX.

A much more rational discussion. Sure, I'll bite.

Basically, we're looking at about $10 to go from the 670 to 7970 ($30 if you don't want to count MIR, which is fair), and another $75/$55 to go to the 680. Let's assume the 7970 is 5% ahead of the 670. We'll measure things in fractional performance of a 670, so the 670 scores a 100 by definition. Then, axiomatically, the 7970 scores a 105. The 680/7970 GHz edition won't be considered because they offer dismal value compared to the 670/7970.

So, that leaves us cost. At $350, the 670 provides you .2857% of a GTX 670 per dollar. The 7970, at $360 is .2917% per dollar. At $380 (price without MIR), it's .2763% per dollar.

So, with the MIR the 7970 offers 102.1% of the value of a GTX 670. Without, it offers 96.7% of the value. So, a 670 over a 7970 w/ MIR is a waste of about 2.15% of the purchase price. A 7970 w/o MIR over a 670 is a waste of 3.3% of the purchase price.

Based on these numbers, it's down to personal preference. A 3% shift in value isn't a huge deal, which is why people can go back and forth all day long on this.

It really boils down to this. Are you willing to pay a 3% premium for your card's performance to have the slightly faster card? I'm inclined to say yes, but not everyone will be.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 6:01:01 PM

Like I said before, you're taking a very America-centric view. In the UK, you're looking at a minimum £30 price difference, which is $45. That would change the situation. I'm not sure the 7970 really is a full 5% faster, but let's say for the sake of argument it is, and come back to 42fps vs 40fps. I can choose from:

£30 in my pocket, PhysX, adaptive v-sync and FXAA.

OR

2fps performance boost.

You prefer the latter, I'd personally much prefer the former. I'd imagine most others would too when it's put like that, would be interested to hear opinions. I guess this also highlights the importance of knowing where your audience are - relative value is clearly dependent on location.

EDIT: You're probably also not aware, but you don't get rebates in the UK on this stuff. You just pay what it costs. I think that's a more American thing (and probably Canadian too?).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 6:32:08 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Like I said before, you're taking a very America-centric view. In the UK, you're looking at a minimum £30 price difference, which is $45. That would change the situation.

I think we should all be taking a very America-centric view in this thread, because we're dealing with an American (didn't say otherwise, posting on an American site, posted a quantity of money without currency) having a problem in America. The situation may very well be different in the UK, but that's not very relevant to this particular thread.

Since part of the rest of your post is predicated on the larger price difference that is not relevant to this thread, I'm not going to respond to those bits. If you want to talk about the merits at price points in the UK, that's a fine discussion to have (and I'm likely to agree that the 7970 isn't worth that much of a premium, which is five times higher than the US price difference), but this thread isn't the place.

Quote:
I guess this also highlights the importance of knowing where your audience are - relative value is clearly dependent on location.

The rule of thumb I use is that unless the poster says otherwise, I assume that people asking for builds here are going to use US based sites to order from, and thus US prices are relevant. Most people outside the US understand that such information is critical, while most Americans don't even realize you can't order from Newegg in the UK. Basically, it's almost exclusively Americans that fail to provide the information, because of their entirely US centered view of the world.

Quote:
EDIT: You're probably also not aware, but you don't get rebates in the UK on this stuff. You just pay what it costs. I think that's a more American thing (and probably Canadian too?).

It's not just American/Canadian, but it does depend on where you are. Some countries don't do it, some do. It's a cultural thing.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 6:38:37 PM

Good thing the OP stopped posting this has become more about your two's argument than helping.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 6:38:58 PM

willard said:
I think we should all be taking a very America-centric view in this thread, because we're dealing with an American (didn't say otherwise, posting on an American site, posted a quantity of money without currency) having a problem in America. The situation may very well be different in the UK, but that's not very relevant to this particular thread.

Since part of the rest of your post is predicated on the larger price difference that is not relevant to this thread, I'm not going to respond to those bits. If you want to talk about the merits at price points in the UK, that's a fine discussion to have (and I'm likely to agree that the 7970 isn't worth that much of a premium, which is five times higher than the US price difference), but this thread isn't the place.

Quote:
I guess this also highlights the importance of knowing where your audience are - relative value is clearly dependent on location.

The rule of thumb I use is that unless the poster says otherwise, I assume that people asking for builds here are going to use US based sites to order from, and thus US prices are relevant. Most people outside the US understand that such information is critical, while most Americans don't even realize you can't order from Newegg in the UK. Basically, it's almost exclusively Americans that fail to provide the information, because of their entirely US centered view of the world.

Quote:
EDIT: You're probably also not aware, but you don't get rebates in the UK on this stuff. You just pay what it costs. I think that's a more American thing (and probably Canadian too?).

It's not just American/Canadian, but it does depend on where you are. Some countries don't do it, some do. It's a cultural thing.


It was actually started by a Polish guy. Funny how you assume it's an American creation though :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 6:56:50 PM

sam_p_lay said:
It was actually started by a Polish guy. Funny how you assume it's an American creation though :-)

Where did you get that he's Polish? Because it's not mentioned anywhere in the thread. If you're going by last name, that's not really indicative of anything. I know lots of people with foreign names (myself included) that are Americans.

Quote:
Good thing the OP stopped posting this has become more about your two's argument than helping.

I'd say this has all been very amicable, and the topic at hand is immediately relevant to the OP. I don't see the problem with debating such a thing in the thread where it comes up.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 7:39:56 PM

Alright we're both wrong, actually German. I wasn't talking about the OP, and I'm not so ignorant that I'd judge nationality by last name. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom's_Hardware

You might be surprised to know that I am (and a lot of other people too) accessing this forum on www.tomshardware.co.uk. I'd agree that Americans tend to assume it's all US and dollars, but plenty of Brits posting and just assuming UK and pounds. A lot of them have no reason to suspect (with a .co.uk TLD) that the site has anything to do with America. Especially since the news articles are now primarily using £ on the .co.uk site. Maybe good advice for anyone posting advice then to check on currency if not apparent.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 8:48:20 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Alright we're both wrong, actually German. I wasn't talking about the OP, and I'm not so ignorant that I'd judge nationality by last name.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting. His name is simply all I could find that suggested a nationality (which ironically, is also German, but common enough in Poland). Combine that with the misunderstanding about the "It was started by" really meaning "the site was started by" and not "this thread was started by" and we get where we are now.

I sincerely apologize for my misunderstanding.

Quote:
You might be surprised to know that I am (and a lot of other people too) accessing this forum on www.tomshardware.co.uk.

Not really surprising, just not on my mind when I typed that. I actually used the .co.uk address for several months last year when I kept getting redirected to the German site for some reason.

Quote:
A lot of them have no reason to suspect (with a .co.uk TLD) that the site has anything to do with America. Especially since the news articles are now primarily using £ on the .co.uk site. Maybe good advice for anyone posting advice then to check on currency if not apparent.

Agreed. It never hurts to be specific when there's an international audience. I probably assume too much, but I find that with the astoundingly poor information thread starters tend to provide here (no offense to the OP, he provided the relevant information in the first post), you more or less have to.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 9:00:12 PM

Don't worry about it :-) I think I often miss out details like that, and don't realise I'm missing out an important detail/distinction (e.g. referring to a card as 'it' instead 'the 7770' for example when two cards are being compared).

Agreed on the final point too - some people have very clearly read the guidelines, but most have not. To be fair to them I guess it's the equivalent of reading the manual - you'd prefer to just get on with it.

Check out the footer - Russian, Turkish, Danish, Finnish... more European than a lot of people realise. But no Spanish for some reason. I think we can agree it's more an international site really. A lot of the benchmarking work is done by the German (and maybe French) teams, though the editorial staff are mainly American. As for readership, the most common currencies seem to be $, £ and Indian Rupees (1ru being equivalent to roughly £0.01).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 3, 2012 9:45:21 PM

sam_p_lay said:
I think we can agree it's more an international site really. A lot of the benchmarking work is done by the German (and maybe French) teams, though the editorial staff are mainly American.

Yep, agreed. Years back you had to select which version you wanted each time you visited the site (and oddly if you wanted English, the only selection was the UK version).

Like most Americans, I tend to take for granted that most sites are based in America. While true most of the time, you can really make an ass of yourself when it happens to not hold.
m
0
l
December 4, 2012 2:26:56 AM

Wow. Well I'm American and the price is in US dollars. I did not see anything saying which geography I was posting to sorry for that.

Good info though. 7970 is about 360.00 - 390 us and the ghz edition is in the 400's us. I agree on over buying for future use just don't know if the ghz version is worth it. Keep the info coming though.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2012 8:23:02 AM

Don't worry about it - it's actually not clear to UK users on the .co.uk domain that we're accessing international forums until you start seeing all the other currencies. News comments are separated though, and maybe also news stories.

You don't know good you've got it with these prices - a $100 product SHOULD cost ~£65 by exchange rate, yet you're looking typically at £75-80. Google Nexus 4 is $240 (from Play Store) for you... for us, £240 (so ~$360). That 4K 84" LG TV - $20,000 for you, or £22,500 for us ($36,000 according to the article). Bloody government.

In light of the fact you're American and paying dollars, what willard says is right - on a fps/dollar basis, either way is a solid bet. nVidia will give you PhysX etc, so something to keep in mind. Plenty of games don't make use of it, but with the ones that do, you'll be missing out. I just played through Borderlands 2 and the DLCs and kind of wish I'd been playing it on a GeForce.
m
0
l
!