670 v 680 v 7970/ 4gb v 3gb v 2gb

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 2:58:56 PM

i just got done with building my pc and i love it. however i did not purchase a gpu so i could use the intel hd4000 so when i do buy my gpu i can appreciate it so much more. my main question is whether or not to buy the

GTX 670

GTX 680 PE
(or any other 680 model under $500 USD this is the main one im looking at)

or should i just wait for the 700 series and pick up a 650 and just wait it out?
i understand that i can oc the 670 to match if not exceed the 680 but i plan on oc'ing anyway so and oc'ed 680 will beat an oc'ed 670. i am using a single 1080p monitor but plan on buy a second one down the road.

the main factor is the fact of 4gb vs 2gb. i know right now there is no need for greater than 2 but i have this feeling in the bottom of my gut that in a year or two 4gigs is gonna be the norm. heat is not a factor for me i have plenty of cooling however i do enjoy the backplate on the 670. im open to Red team but i really like the idea of physix. i religiously play Skyrim so the 4gb might help.
i plan on sli'ing in the future.

hope thats enough info!
thanks,
John

b.t.w. this 7970 doesn't look too bad

More about : 670 680 7970 4gb 3gb 2gb

| E-mail me updates
| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

TimeLass

February 24, 2013 3:31:16 PM

if you prefer Nvidia and love PhysX and TXAA, go for GTX 670 4GB...GTX 680 is not worthy for 1-5 increased FPS...
however if you don't care about PhysX and TXAA then you should really go for 7970 which is cheaper and perform better than GTX 670...

| Report abuse

Reply to TimeLass

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 3:32:53 PM

for the 7970 is there a huge sway of performance for stock clock vs Ghz ed.?

| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

Azn Cracker

Graphics card Expert

February 24, 2013 3:35:00 PM

jfazz95 said:

for the 7970 is there a huge sway of performance for stock clock vs Ghz ed.?

Not really. Tom's said its not worth the extra $50? to upgrade to a ghz since you can overclock the normal version anyways.

The 7970 has 3 gb of vram so you are good to go. The only game ive seen that uses 2gb of ram is crysis 3 on Ultra quality and at 1600p resolutions

| Report abuse

Reply to Azn Cracker

geofelt

Graphics card Master

February 24, 2013 3:46:45 PM

It seems that 2gb vs 4gb is not an issue.
Read this article: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Pe...

As to waiting, the amd 8xxx and nvidia 7xx series look to ba a long way out, into next year.

If you buy a GTX670/680, you will be doing very nicely for some time.

With your budget, I might look at the EVGA GTX680 superclocked. It's boost clock is higher than the msi(1150 vs 1084)
I also like the direct exhaust type coolers that get all the heat directly out of the case.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

| Report abuse

Reply to geofelt

redeemer

Graphics card Expert

February 24, 2013 3:50:31 PM

geofelt said:

It seems that 2gb vs 4gb is not an issue.
Read this article: http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Pe...

As to waiting, the amd 8xxx and nvidia 7xx series look to ba a long way out, into next year.

If you buy a GTX670/680, you will be doing very nicely for some time.

With your budget, I might look at the EVGA GTX680 superclocked. It's boost clock is higher than the msi(1150 vs 1084)
I also like the direct exhaust type coolers that get all the heat directly out of the case.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Actually back the 2 vs 4GB is a big deal, Crysis 3 uses over 2GB!!! Furthermore 7970 has the overall bandwidth advantage. With next generation gaming engines around the corner it would be better to buy a higher spec'd card in that regard so the 7970 really is a no brainer.

| Report abuse

Reply to redeemer

hero1

Graphics card Expert

February 24, 2013 3:51:55 PM

You can get a GHz edition for $400 right now. And I would go AMD if I were you. A wider memory bus and 3gb VRAM is way better than 2-4gbvram with 256-bit bus width. It might not show for a single 1080p monitor but if you add 2 more then the difference in game playing becomes more evident. And AMD also incorporates physx not just nvidia. Nvidia markets its physx yet very few select games utilise it.

| Report abuse

Reply to hero1

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 3:57:13 PM

i plan on uses a crud-ton of texture mods on skyrim which will push the envelope on the vram. i will crossfire/sli either way down the line but i know for sli, 3-way is almost absolute unless you have more monitors. will 3-way crossfire offer better scaling vs 3-way sli?

| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

hero1

Graphics card Expert

February 24, 2013 4:10:45 PM

I had a 2-way SLI and it didn't do so good for me I had to get rid of it and went AMD. I used to game on 2x2560*1440p. Now I removed one of the monitor until I get the third one. I think once you hit higher res, a wider bandwith bus and more vRAM is absolutely necessary. And if you have those texture packs for skyrim then you really are going to see that you need around 3-4 vRAM. I avoided those texture packs until I can get a third card and a third monitor (second card is on the way). If you want even better performance then I suggest you grab the Titan since you seem more incline to go green than red.

| Report abuse

Reply to hero1

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 4:16:49 PM

hero1 said:

I had a 2-way SLI and it didn't do so good for me I had to get rid of it and went AMD. I used to game on 2x2560*1440p. Now I removed one of the monitor until I get the third one. I think once you hit higher res, a wider bandwith bus and more vRAM is absolutely necessary. And if you have those texture packs for skyrim then you really are going to see that you need around 3-4 vRAM. I avoided those texture packs until I can get a third card and a third monitor (second card is on the way). If you want even better performance then I suggest you grab the Titan since you seem more incline to go green than red.

the titan is just a tad to pricey at the moment http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/confused.gi...

this decision is really killing me. i leaning hard towards the 670 ftw+ for two reasons
1. i can oc it to reach 680 standards
2. its 4gb

but for $10 more i can get the 680 but loose 2gb but gain higher clock speeds.

AMD only has my attention because its 3gb (middle ground), higher memory bus, and equal clock speeds as the 680 for less money.

| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

matto17secs

Graphics card Master

February 24, 2013 4:42:33 PM

AMD has been having problems with frame latency, meaning that higher frame rates don't translate into smoother gameplay. They have tried to address the issue in recent driver updates. It's worth it to check out these articles:
http://techreport.com/review/24218/a-driver-update-to-r...
http://techreport.com/news/24136/driver-software-to-be-...
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

| Report abuse

Reply to matto17secs

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 4:42:40 PM

Best answer selected by jfazz95.

| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 4:43:25 PM

hero1 said:

Like I said before, there's no need for you to get the GTX 670 ftw when you can get a 7970 for less and OC to beat even 680. And you can also get, at the moment a 7970GHz for $409 after rebates from www.ncix.com that will also surpass the GTX 680SC and still save a lot money. So save your money and get something that is going to be able to handle future titles due to the bus width and good amount of vRAM. I did it and I am not regretting it. I max out everything on my 2560x1440p with a single 7970GHz. Everything is on ultra. And I am waiting on the second one which should be here by Tuesday. So think of it this way. You spend around 500 on single card for GTX 680 or spend $409 even $389 for an OC Gigabyte R7970. I think the choice is clear. It's time we put aside loyalty to one brand and get something form the other that actually offers more for less.

thank you! now i just have to find a solid 7970 with good reviews!

| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

jfazz95

February 24, 2013 4:45:23 PM

matto17secs said:

AMD has been having problems with frame latency, meaning that higher frame rates don't translate into smoother gameplay. They have tried to address the issue in recent driver updates. It's worth it to check out these articles:
http://techreport.com/review/24218/a-driver-update-to-r...
http://techreport.com/news/24136/driver-software-to-be-...
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...

but drivers are quick fixes right? it wont make or break a card will it?

| Report abuse

Reply to jfazz95

hero1

Graphics card Expert

February 24, 2013 4:55:33 PM

jfazz95 said:

but drivers are quick fixes right? it wont make or break a card will it?

They are working on it. The beta driver actually has improved that aspect and I don't think it's going to be a long term issue.

Where are you from? If Canada or US then I can send you link right now for better cards.