Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7970 vs 670

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 5, 2013 6:15:55 PM

HI guys, so I need help choosing between the 7970 and the 670. I was gonna get the 670, but now seeing as how the latest drivers for the 7970 has really ramped up the speeds for the 7970 in games like bf3, its more even. I need help choosing in between the

Msi 670 power edition

Asus direct cuii 670 nontop (will oc myself)

And the XFX Radeon HD 7970 Double D Ghz edition.
Any help will be appriciated.

Edit: Will be ocing all cards.

More about : 7970 670

a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 6:22:02 PM

GTX670 without a doubt. Some people will talk over-voltage drama on the MSI PE but I'd personally take that one anyway. The voltage thing was blown way out of proportion.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 6:25:23 PM

The question you first need to ask is what resolution you will use. That extra speed shown in benchmarks is nice but unless you are really pushing the card is also meaningless.

At a 1080 resolution for gaming you would never see a performance difference between these to cards. At a higher resolution the difference could finally come into play.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 5, 2013 6:29:50 PM

Computered said:
The question you first need to ask is what resolution you will use. That extra speed shown in benchmarks is nice but unless you are really pushing the card is also meaningless.

At a 1080 resolution for gaming you would never see a performance difference between these to cards. At a higher resolution the difference could finally come into play.


Yes I will be at 1080p.

Im concerned because games like bf4 and crysis 3 will be coming out soon. And since they seem to do better on nvidia cards i'm sorta leaning towards the 670.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 6:30:46 PM

sam_p_lay said:
GTX670 without a doubt. Some people will talk over-voltage drama on the MSI PE but I'd personally take that one anyway. The voltage thing was blown way out of proportion.

Well should I take the pe or the nontop and oc it my self?
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 6:50:33 PM

sam_p_lay said:
GTX670 without a doubt. Some people will talk over-voltage drama on the MSI PE but I'd personally take that one anyway. The voltage thing was blown way out of proportion.
+1
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 6:51:50 PM

Nvidia had a driver since the point of AMD having there drivers updated as well. I'm curious what games do you play.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 7:31:32 PM

bigshootr8 said:
Nvidia had a driver since the point of AMD having there drivers updated as well. I'm curious what games do you play.

CoD
Bf3
Crysis
Minecraft (with mods)
Skyrim (with mods)

I will be playing bf4 and crysis 3 when they come out.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 7:39:58 PM

If you are playing Skyrim with mods I would consider getting a 7970 over the 670 mainly because of the vram. Also, AMD cards have been doing better with Skyrim for some time. If you are insistent on Nvidia you could get a 4 gigabyte version of the 670 for around the price of a 680 and go at it that way otherwise I would go with a 7970 and specifically this one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 7:52:16 PM

I agree with bigshootr8 excecpt i think the 7970 is over priced still i would go for this card
Sapphire's HD 7950 Vapor-X comes with a large dual-fan cooler that uses the company's famous vapor-chamber technology. On the Vapor-X you will also find a "Lethal Boost" button which switches to a second BIOS with higher clock speeds. With this BIOS, clocks are increased to 950 MHz GPU and 1250 MHz memory.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 9:05:04 PM

bigcyco1 said:
I agree with bigshootr8 excecpt i think the 7970 is over priced still i would go for this card
Sapphire's HD 7950 Vapor-X comes with a large dual-fan cooler that uses the company's famous vapor-chamber technology. On the Vapor-X you will also find a "Lethal Boost" button which switches to a second BIOS with higher clock speeds. With this BIOS, clocks are increased to 950 MHz GPU and 1250 MHz memory.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Thanks for the info, but I shall be going with either the 670 or the 7970.
Right now im leaning towards the 7970. Have you have experiance with saphire cards?
Also does the vapor-x 7970 also have the leathal boost option?
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 9:20:13 PM

the sapphire one here in canada is 40 dollars more than the xfx version.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 9:40:56 PM

I've owned three Sapphire cards, and they all died within a few months of the warranty expiring. I may have just been unlucky, but I won't be risking it on a fourth.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 9:48:37 PM

sitbar said:
Yes I will be at 1080p.

Im concerned because games like bf4 and crysis 3 will be coming out soon. And since they seem to do better on nvidia cards i'm sorta leaning towards the 670.
Actually the new AMD Drivers have really changed things especially with games like Battlefield 3. Check out this recent review based upon the current Catalyst 12.11 and GeForce 310.61 drivers.

http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/...

Quote:
The new Catalyst 12.11 beta drivers delivered major performance gains in many popular games such as Battlefield 3, Borderlands 2, Civilization V, Skyrim, Sleeping Dogs and StarCraft II. While most titles ran around 10% faster depending on their settings, Battlefield 3 was 20 to 30% faster.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 9:52:20 PM

AMD has improved their drivers. so i vote for HD 7970.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 10:03:43 PM

AMD aren't the only ones who improve drivers :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 10:08:41 PM

The 680 should be compared to the 7970 and not the 670. The 670's strength is in 3D and Cuda. If you have no use for those features then the 7970 is the way to go.

3GB+384 bit bus width is a better bet to go with, Crysis 3 though a beta destroyed my 2X SLI 680's. Of course the game is in its early stages however I was bandwidth limited @ 2GB.

Another area is overclocking, this is where the 7970 really shines and able to beat out all other GPU's.



m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 10:28:53 PM

sitbar said:
Thanks for the info, but I shall be going with either the 670 or the 7970.
Right now im leaning towards the 7970. Have you have experiance with saphire cards?
Also does the vapor-x 7970 also have the leathal boost option?
Just the one i recommend i bought it for my son but i use it sometimes :whistle:  i am not sure about the vapor-x 7970 ask redeemer i am more a NV fan but i like amd as well.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 10:29:10 PM

redeemer said:
The 670's strength is in 3D and Cuda.


Also PhysX and adaptive v-sync. Also consistent, stable delivery of framerates:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

That's a GTX660 Ti being tested, but that same GPU was delivering inconsistent, fluctuating framerates like every other GPU until the most recent couple of articles, which suggests the improvements are driver-based, and therefore likely take effect on all Kepler GPUs and not just the GTX660 Ti specifically.

As for GTX670 vs GTX680, there's not really any difference worth mentioning. GTX680 averages ~6% faster - you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 10:55:54 PM

He had mentioned skyrim and mods so that's why it looks more of a clear shot with AMD. I buy both brands right now the NV solution is better for me because I use physx but none of the games he plays use it. Adaptive Vsync is nice though so I'll give you that.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 11:06:15 PM

bigshootr8 said:
He had mentioned skyrim and mods so that's why it looks more of a clear shot with AMD. I buy both brands right now the NV solution is better for me because I use physx but none of the games he plays use it. Adaptive Vsync is nice though so I'll give you that.


It certainly is :-) That's true about PhysX, but I think I look at this stuff with an eye to the future maybe more than most people do. I've never understood basing decision on what existing games you're playing. I'd want something that's the best bet for future games, so try and draw trends from existing games, nothing more.

PhysX seems to be gaining momentum, used to just be smaller titles but it's in some big games now. So we're likely to be seeing more of it (no guarantees of course). It makes sense too - nVidia acquired a whole company to get their hands on PhysX. Makes sense they'd want to get some return on that investment. I'll certainly agree though that it's a smaller selling point than adaptive v-sync. It is cool though! First 40 secs are intro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAfzjTAhpBk&feature=play...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 11:32:33 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Also PhysX and adaptive v-sync. Also consistent, stable delivery of framerates:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

That's a GTX660 Ti being tested, but that same GPU was delivering inconsistent, fluctuating framerates like every other GPU until the most recent couple of articles, which suggests the improvements are driver-based, and therefore likely take effect on all Kepler GPUs and not just the GTX660 Ti specifically.

As for GTX670 vs GTX680, there's not really any difference worth mentioning. GTX680 averages ~6% faster - you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.



Yes but all these cards are within 6-8% of eachother, secondly Physx and Adpative Vsync are gimmicky feature that make no difference at all. I cannot imagine anyone buying a Kepler for its Physx or Adaptive Vsync, 3D and Cuda remain the strongest selling points without a doubt. 40 Physx titles since 2007? Hottest games like BF3, Hitman, Crysis 3, and even upcoming Bioshock Infinte will not utilize the tech.

The real question to ask is how much more performance will an overclocked 7970 give you? A 7970 a simple clock of 1200Mhz will beat out every card considerably, the architecture just scales better than the 600 series.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 11:37:23 PM

sitbar said:
Thanks for the info, but I shall be going with either the 670 or the 7970.
Right now im leaning towards the 7970. Have you have experiance with saphire cards?
Also does the vapor-x 7970 also have the leathal boost option?
Sapphire is supposedly the #1 seller of AMD cards. I have owned two of them. A X1950GT and a HD4870. I must say I haven't been thrilled with either. I mean neither have failed on me but their packaging and overall feel is just rather cheap. They do come with a lot of extra cables and stuff but I have used none of it. Their phone support while good is rather hard to access. Plus I have never been a fan of the blue PCBs. I think Sapphire sells the most cards because they tend to be the least expensive.

Either way you go (AMD or Nvidia) you may want to consider getting an ASUS Direct CUII card. Their cooling solutions and components are first rate. Plus their cards are about as quiet as you can get. ASUS' Super Alloy Power Manufacturing process is impressive.

http://www.asus.com/Graphics_Cards/Features/Super_Alloy...

How is this for acoustics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 11:37:42 PM

Not many games use it. However, I hope they do in the future. The implementations in games that do use are great. However, that also being said I kind of wish this sort of thing was handled on the software side of things within a game. I think its unfair to judge his statement I agree that physx has improved and hopefully it will grow however I doubt it.

Vsync in general is kind of a gimmicky thing as well. I like that Adaptive is a way of approaching tearing at a less violent point then vsync normally would.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 11:48:38 PM

redeemer said:
Yes but all these cards are within 6-8% of eachother, secondly Physx and Adpative Vsync are gimmicky feature that make no difference at all. I cannot imagine anyone buying a Kepler for its Physx or Adaptive Vsync, 3D and Cuda remain the strongest selling points without a doubt. 40 Physx titles since 2007? Hottest games like BF3, Hitman, Crysis 3, and even upcoming Bioshock Infinte will not utilize the tech.

The real question to ask is how much more performance will an overclocked 7970 give you? A 7970 a simple clock of 1200Mhz will beat out every card considerably, the architecture just scales better than the 600 series.


+1

PhysX is only relevant to the GPU discussion if you know you're going to be playing one of the very few games that use it. It's not even 40 PhysX titles since 07... I count 27 titles TOTAL and just a few of them are actually relevant (and in several cases you can still use the PhysX fine on the CPU with an AMD card e.g. Borderlands 2, Metro 2033):
http://physxinfo.com/index.php?p=gam&f=gpu

I don't know how anyone could think PhysX is "gaining momentum"... it is *this* close to being completely 100% irrelevant. And for good reason... other physics engines e.g. Havok are just as good and aren't constrained to a single party's GPU.

And while many fans on both sides are all hot and bothered about the TR article about the 7950 vs 660ti "stuttering":
-That's hardly enough information to support a generalized claim of "AMD stutters, Nvidia is smooth"
-AMD is actively working on the issue

As for the 670 vs 7970 thing, both are good cards and you should just look at which card performs better in the games you play - can't really make a wrong choice. 7970 wins hands down if the discussion changes to include overclocking or higher-than-1080p resolutions.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 11:48:41 PM

Arkham city and Borderlands 2 are Physx games, playing with the feature enabled or not did not make the gameplay anymore immersive in my opinion. 3D is amazing however, and thats a feature that should be pushed more as far as I am concerned
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 11:52:58 PM

Yeah I'm a 3D hater... I have yet to see an implementation of it that I thought was worth a dime and often it just gives me a headache. I'd rather see high resolution monitors get pushed more so that we can get away from this 1080p virus ;) 

I know some people really love 3D though... it's just not for me
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 5, 2013 11:54:30 PM

Well your opinion on those games with Physx is your own opinion. With borderlands 2 it changes every shot and the environment changes more then any game that uses Physx. Again just your opinion and with Batman you are dead wrong on that as well. 3D I don't know is opinion to I guess you won't find too many people who care about 3D much until monitors do it more passively without the need of glasses I don't see it taking off. Its being forced into the market but that doesn't make it in demand.

And getting back to things like its been stated over and over physx is not worthwhile to him unless he plans to ever pick up those games that do use it. It has also been stated that Skyrim performs better with mods and in general on a AMD solution. And stuterring can happen on any card in these games because most games don't have the demands that these newer titles are producing.

For what hes doing he will be happier with a 7970 both are good cards but for him its the best. Leave opinions about visuals at the door.
m
0
l
January 5, 2013 11:59:38 PM

I should also point out for the OP that in addition to the fact that the 7970 is a no-brainer since he wants to overclock, Crysis 3 was fairly even in the alpha.

My OC'd 7970 was pulling around 45fps maxed out at 1080p, which was about what OC'd 680s were getting according to the alpha forums. 7970s/670s/680s were pulling down 35-45fps maxed out at 1080p depending on their clock speeds (again, according to the alpha forums).
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 12:01:32 AM

Right but that can change upon release. Look what happened with Far Cry 3. Nvidia came out and increased performance after release a great deal.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 12:03:09 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Right but that can change upon release. Look what happened with Far Cry 3. Nvidia came out and increased performance after release a great deal.


Of course... but it could change either way. The info from the alpha says that it's not going to be a game that favors one brand or another in any meaningful way at 1080p. That's obviously not rock solid information, as it is based on an alpha, but everything beyond that at this point is just guesswork and speculation.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:26:24 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Also PhysX and adaptive v-sync. Also consistent, stable delivery of framerates:

http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

That's a GTX660 Ti being tested, but that same GPU was delivering inconsistent, fluctuating framerates like every other GPU until the most recent couple of articles, which suggests the improvements are driver-based, and therefore likely take effect on all Kepler GPUs and not just the GTX660 Ti specifically.

As for GTX670 vs GTX680, there's not really any difference worth mentioning. GTX680 averages ~6% faster - you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.
A lot of speculation has been raised about that 'Tech Report' article. It has appeared on other posts. It was pretty much the first of its kind.

Several people have noted that the AMD test bed was utilizing a beta driver while Nvidia test bed used an officially released driver. Thus questions were raised about validity of the results.

I would like to see more tests conducted using officially released drivers from both cards. It may possibly hold merit however testing methodology utilized definitely could have been better.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:28:41 AM

What would be cool rwayne and I'm not sure this is possible for a site to do is have a bench list of every card at least 2 generations back I think would be the limit and each time there is a update driver wise meaning only release drivers and bench every card just stock cards and the top 3 or so non stock cards.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 1:35:28 AM

rwayne said:
A lot of speculation has been raised about that 'Tech Report' article. It has appeared on other posts. It was pretty much the first of its kind.

Several people have noted that the AMD test bed was utilizing a beta driver while Nvidia test bed used an officially released driver. Thus questions were raised about validity of the results.

I would like to see more tests conducted using officially released drivers from both cards. It may possibly hold merit however testing methodology utilized definitely could have been better.


Don't think it's really fair to question the validity of the results, especially since AMD has since responded by saying that some of this is now a known issue and they're working to fix/improve it in future drivers.

I do think it's fair to question the scope of the applicability of the results, as I mentioned earlier. That article is nowhere near enough information to make a claim such as "AMD is jittery and Nvidia is smooth"
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:45:05 AM

bigshootr8 said:
Well your opinion on those games with Physx is your own opinion. With borderlands 2 it changes every shot and the environment changes more then any game that uses Physx. Again just your opinion and with Batman you are dead wrong on that as well. 3D I don't know is opinion to I guess you won't find too many people who care about 3D much until monitors do it more passively without the need of glasses I don't see it taking off. Its being forced into the market but that doesn't make it in demand.

And getting back to things like its been stated over and over physx is not worthwhile to him unless he plans to ever pick up those games that do use it. It has also been stated that Skyrim performs better with mods and in general on a AMD solution. And stuterring can happen on any card in these games because most games don't have the demands that these newer titles are producing.

For what hes doing he will be happier with a 7970 both are good cards but for him its the best. Leave opinions about visuals at the door.
:lol:  +1
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:45:31 AM

It's a very large claim to say that one is more to smooth then the other it can vary from card to card on both sides.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:52:52 AM

I would say get whichever you prefer neither is all that.Pick which features you care more about. Nothing is Perfect.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 1:56:33 AM

The Sapphire Vapor-X Ghz edition is the easy choice there if you have the cash for it (that price is a bit steep). I'm fairly certain both the other options are just reference PCBs with custom coolers, but the Vapor-X card is a custom PCB + custom cooler (which means it is the better option for overclocking as it is safer to overvolt in the long run). That's also some of why it's more expensive.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:58:12 AM

The 2nd one + to Vapor X the Vapor-X has Better Caps and VRM's then the other Sapphire cards. Cooling wise it will destroy the XFX. This guy has the vapor-x 7970 and his system is dead silent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANfjeHb9tTU
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 1:58:30 AM

So you have to ask yourself 'which card will offer more performance'? Because in the end its all about frame rate? The 7970 has a lot more potential, and if your willing to explore it no other GPU can match it.



m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:03:07 AM

Yea, the vapor x is expensive. How about the 3rd card the other sapphire card? Couldn't I just oc it my self, and does the vapor x justify its much higher in front of the other sapphire card? I heard that the dual x (the other sap card) Is actually one step one from the vapor x, so that could help with ocing.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:05:10 AM

I think that the Sapphire OC card you linked is a reference PCB + custom cooler just like the XFX.

The disadvantage to that is that in theory the custom PCB of the Vapor-X will enable you to overvolt your card with less chance of the card dying over time due to the increased stress on its chips & circuitry.
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 2:06:58 AM

Right and the Vapor-X has stronger components on the card besides the cooler/chip.
m
0
l
a c 185 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 2:07:29 AM

The Sapphire Vapor-X would be the only one i would choose BigMack70 and redeemer know more about the 7970s then i do so i am sure they can help.
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:09:51 AM

BigMack70 said:
I think that the Sapphire OC card you linked is a reference PCB + custom cooler just like the XFX.

The disadvantage to that is that in theory the custom PCB of the Vapor-X will enable you to overvolt your card with less chance of the card dying over time due to the increased stress on its chips & circuitry.

Well i'm not gonna be over volting the cards so thats not a problem with me. So do you think the vapor x is still gonna be worth it if I dont over volt it? So should I just get the 7970 oc and oc it my self by adding a bit of voltage? How much do you think it can go? Will it perform just as good as a vapor x?
Sorry for all these question :/ 
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:13:12 AM

bigcyco1 said:
The Sapphire Vapor-X would be the only one i would choose BigMack70 and redeemer know more about the 7970s then i do so i am sure they can help.

Ah dang, it is quite expensive :cry: 
But I guess if it's worth it, I shall save a bit longer which is hard since im in highschool and have to work a job to get the money XD
m
0
l
a c 133 U Graphics card
January 6, 2013 2:14:04 AM

I found a review for you on this exact card. I think it is worth it. Even if you don't overclock it has superior components and superior cooling against the competition.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2050/1/
m
0
l
January 6, 2013 2:17:18 AM

If it were me, I'd just wait until I could afford the Vapor-X. Half the fun of overclocking on the 7970 is to bump the volts up a bit to see if you can push up to or beyond the 1200 MHz mark; it would take a really golden chip to hit 1200 MHz with no voltage tweaking.

I don't think it's a huge risk to grab one of the other cards, I'm just telling you what I'd do. In my view you're already sort of throwing the value equation out the window in favor of getting a premium product when you start talking about $400+ GPUs, so a few extra bucks for the higher quality card is no big deal.
m
0
l
!