Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 680 vs 7970 GHZ

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 4, 2013 1:17:29 PM

Ok guys iam sure you heard millions of these rather irritating questions, but iam deciding to invest on a high end GPU with for my new build, iam niether an AMD or Nvidia Fanboy and only interested in the best deal i can get. Forgive me for my lack of knowledge, iam really not that much of an expert on this (which is why i joined)

My system:

Antec 900 case
Cooler master gx 550w PSU
8gb DDR3 corsair vengeance 1600mhz ram
Asus p8z77 v lx mboard
500gb hard drive
Intel i5 3570k

The 7970 are quite a bit cheaper, the XFX 7970 can be had for 300 gpb and comes with bio shock infinite and crysis 3 (stock clocked) or the overclocked (not ghz) version for 330. I want to ask is there that much of a difference between the OC 7970 and a Ghz 7970, even though the latter is overclocked, its said to have some minor component upgrades. Alternatively there is the MSI 7970 ghz version.

The cheapest GTX 680 i came across was a EVGA stock reference design for 350 gbp, none reference cards are substantially more expensive, palit gtx 680 costs around 380, gigabyte 680 costs around 385 (overclocked).

I was looking at some benchmarks of crysis 3 and assassins creeds 3, it appeared both gtx 670 and 680 were faster than the 7970 ghz. This could probably be due to driver issues perhaps? Is it true that the gtx 680 performs better at more demanding games? Which of the two (7970 and 680) are more future proof?

Thanks

More about : gtx 680 7970 ghz

March 4, 2013 1:29:37 PM

i didnt mean GTX 680 performs better at more demanding games, but so far on Assassins creed 3 and Crysis 3 they have a considerable higher frame rate from what i saw. Of course this could maybe change after new drivers.

From what i read, they both tie, but most of the reviews i read are from last year, so i want to see which of the two are currently the better and would be more future proof (i know there is no such thing but oh well)
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 1:54:09 PM

With new drivers the Ghz 7970 kicks the crap out of the 680 as far as speed in concerned, its also considerably cheaper, so you can get a 7970 with a decent cooler, compared to a reference 680.

But, you pay for it in noise and power consumption. If all you are after is speed, then totally ignore anything Nvidia has to offer. As an Nvidia user, the tech crap like adaptive vsync and Physx are pretty worthless, with adaptive vsync theres nothing stopping you just setting a global FPS cap in Afterburner, and Physx is nothing to buy a card over considering its been used in maybe 25 games.
Related resources
March 4, 2013 2:05:22 PM




Thanks for adding the extra dimensions of power consumption, physx etc. Iam not hugely persuaded by PhysX as only few games utilize them well although the lower consumption of the GTX 680 also makes it prospective. But i genuinely have not reached a consciousnesses between the two.

Can you look at this benchmark? http://i.imgur.com/gHRrx5k.png
It appears the 7970 is behind, perhaps before the latest drivers?

Also, for the 7970, is there much difference between a OVerclocked (say XFX) and a Ghz version?

Thanks



a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 2:23:07 PM

PGSR said:
Thanks for adding the extra dimensions of power consumption, physx etc. Iam not hugely persuaded by PhysX as only few games utilize them well although the lower consumption of the GTX 680 also makes it prospective. But i genuinely have not reached a consciousnesses between the two.

Can you look at this benchmark? http://i.imgur.com/gHRrx5k.png
It appears the 7970 is behind, perhaps before the latest drivers?

Also, for the 7970, is there much difference between a OVerclocked (say XFX) and a Ghz version?

Thanks


That bench is pretty biased considering AMD is known for AA and NVidia is known to lagat it. They haven't turned almost any on. I have played Crysis 3, and believe me you want MSAA x4 in that game...

When both cards are overclocked a $375 7970 beats a $470 680 by 10%. Then a GHz edition beats by a sound 15%+. Get the 7970!


Three last things:

-7970's are only as loud as the one you buy. Any dual fan one is quiet!
-7970's use barely any more energy than a 680 unless heavily overclocked. So don't kid yourself, it doesn't even use as much energy as a GTX 580.
-The 7970 GHz is just a 7970 with the best parts possible and a slightly stronger bios. They can overclock 5-10% more than a standard 7970 usually.
March 4, 2013 2:38:04 PM

I think iam inclining towards the 7970 now :p 

Here are some choices with there respective price (GBP)

GV-R797OC-3GD 311gbp

Asus direct CU II (925 clock speed) but beefy heatsink. 320gbp

XFX 7970 DD (925 stock clock) 300 gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite

XFX 7970 DD Overclocked (1000mhz) 330gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock

Sapphire vapor X 3gb ghz ed (350gpb with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite)
a c 164 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 2:48:14 PM

No driver info in that graph so no idea what driver they are using. Check the site to see.

I to am looking at buying a new card. I have three monitors and want to run all three and my TV off of one card. So yes, I'm looking for a big card. So far I am leaning towards the 7950/7970. If you look at performance and the two games that come with it, the GTX cards just don't compete. I do feel overall you'll be fine with either 7950/70 or GTX670/680. But considering the cheaper price and better games I'm going AMD this time. (got a GTX460 in my PC right now.)

Quote:
-7970's use barely any more energy than a 680 unless heavily overclocked. So don't kid yourself, it doesn't even use as much energy as a GTX 580.


Depends on what you mean by barely. When looking at rated TDP I think the 7970 is almost 50W higher compared to the 680. In any case the 680 will use less power.
March 4, 2013 3:50:05 PM

I am a biased Nvidia user, but mostly just because AMD didn't meet my expectations in the past.

7970 does seem like a good choice for a single card. One warning though, if you want the option to SLI/CF your card in the future, be wary of AMD. Their multi-gpu support is comparatively poor for games, whereas for major releases nvidia seems to have SLI support drivers out same-day or even beforehand
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 5:02:53 PM

4745454b said:
No driver info in that graph so no idea what driver they are using. Check the site to see.

I to am looking at buying a new card. I have three monitors and want to run all three and my TV off of one card. So yes, I'm looking for a big card. So far I am leaning towards the 7950/7970. If you look at performance and the two games that come with it, the GTX cards just don't compete. I do feel overall you'll be fine with either 7950/70 or GTX670/680. But considering the cheaper price and better games I'm going AMD this time. (got a GTX460 in my PC right now.)

Quote:
-7970's use barely any more energy than a 680 unless heavily overclocked. So don't kid yourself, it doesn't even use as much energy as a GTX 580.


Depends on what you mean by barely. When looking at rated TDP I think the 7970 is almost 50W higher compared to the 680. In any case the 680 will use less power.


TDP doesn't mean much. I have measured the amount of energy my 7970 uses and the results are as follows:

-160w at stock
-165w at a 10% performance increase
-225w at a 20% performance increase (Around a 6950)
-250w at a 30% performance increase

When undervolted at stock clocks I have gotten it to as little as 115w (Around a 7850!). The 7970 really doesn't use more power then a 680 unless you want it to.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 5:04:00 PM

jk47 said:
I am a biased Nvidia user, but mostly just because AMD didn't meet my expectations in the past.

7970 does seem like a good choice for a single card. One warning though, if you want the option to SLI/CF your card in the future, be wary of AMD. Their multi-gpu support is comparatively poor for games, whereas for major releases nvidia seems to have SLI support drivers out same-day or even beforehand


Really? Because when I had 6950 crossfire it worked in every game even though I was using one in a x1 slot. Nvidia doesn't even "Support" SLI below x8.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 5:07:37 PM

PGSR said:
I think iam inclining towards the 7970 now :p 

Here are some choices with there respective price (GBP)

GV-R797OC-3GD 311gbp

Asus direct CU II (925 clock speed) but beefy heatsink. 320gbp

XFX 7970 DD (925 stock clock) 300 gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite

XFX 7970 DD Overclocked (1000mhz) 330gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock

Sapphire vapor X 3gb ghz ed (350gpb with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite)


Go with SAPPHIRE. They are crazy reliable, overclock the most, and are usually cheapest. Get a $380 7970 OC or a $470 7970 GHz. One is cheap and powerful, while the other is the strongest single GPU made with a crazy effective cooler.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 5:11:14 PM

Another vote for the 7970, and that's from a GTX 680 owner. For the price difference, AMD takes the cake.

CaptainTom said:
Really? Because when I had 6950 crossfire it worked in every game even though I was using one in a x1 slot. Nvidia doesn't even "Support" SLI below x8.


On that note, I have to second our friend on CrossfireX woes. I had lots of issues on a dual 6870 (x8/x8) setup. Will avoid it like the plague in the future.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 5:16:48 PM

If you are looking at a single card, then I'd say they are both worth considering, though I might look at the GTX 670 as an option. If you plan to go CF or SLI, atm, there is no doubt in my mind that the GTX 670 option would be best.

While FPS limiters can help with their micro-stutter issue, it does not remove tearing. That is what adaptive-vsync does, when your FPS are good, and allows tearing to keep FPS up when FPS are not good.

You may want to look at these, as they test in new ways that are revealing weaknesses in AMD's cards:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
March 4, 2013 5:26:43 PM

I may not have benchmarks to prove me but from user experience I can always recommend the 7970 over the GTX 680. It is cheaper for a very good HIS model (very good fan, overclocking) than a run of the mill 680.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 5:45:33 PM

avacadobread said:
I may not have benchmarks to prove me but from user experience I can always recommend the 7970 over the GTX 680. It is cheaper for a very good HIS model (very good fan, overclocking) than a run of the mill 680.


No offense but you need to clarify what a run of the mill 680 you're referring to. GTX 680 is a beast on its own and can play with the best, yes we support the purchase of a card that is a champion of p/p but GTX 680 is no slouch.
a c 538 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:03:54 PM

Without realizing the systemic nature of their problem, the guys in this thread below are discussing a couple of common issues that tend to generally plague AMD setups: 1) Poor driver support for new games, 2) A lack of Adaptive VSync resulting in framerates that are limited to 30 FPS with regular VSync.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394999-33-7970-crysis
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:10:02 PM

17seconds said:
Without realizing the systemic nature of their problem, the guys in this thread below are discussing a couple of common issues that tend to generally plague AMD setups: 1) Poor driver support for new games, 2) A lack of Adaptive VSync resulting in framerates that are limited to 30 FPS with regular VSync.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394999-33-7970-crysis


My driver support from AMD has been far more consistently good than when I used Nvidia.

I only know of 2 games that drop the framerate to 30 while Vsync is on.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:11:07 PM

bystander said:
If you are looking at a single card, then I'd say they are both worth considering, though I might look at the GTX 670 as an option. If you plan to go CF or SLI, atm, there is no doubt in my mind that the GTX 670 option would be best.

While FPS limiters can help with their micro-stutter issue, it does not remove tearing. That is what adaptive-vsync does, when your FPS are good, and allows tearing to keep FPS up when FPS are not good.

You may want to look at these, as they test in new ways that are revealing weaknesses in AMD's cards:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...


Then get a 7950. For $290 it is as strong as a $340 670.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:13:12 PM

CaptainTom said:
Then get a 7950. For $290 it is as strong as a $340 670.

That is up for debate. Sure, the 7950 generally has ever so slightly higher FPS than a 660ti (lower than a 670), it also has issues delivering consistent FPS. It is something being worked on, but it isn't solved:
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:15:37 PM

bystander said:
If you are looking at a single card, then I'd say they are both worth considering, though I might look at the GTX 670 as an option. If you plan to go CF or SLI, atm, there is no doubt in my mind that the GTX 670 option would be best.

While FPS limiters can help with their micro-stutter issue, it does not remove tearing. That is what adaptive-vsync does, when your FPS are good, and allows tearing to keep FPS up when FPS are not good.

You may want to look at these, as they test in new ways that are revealing weaknesses in AMD's cards:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...




To anyone wondering about crossfire performance, please read this aticle:

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...

It translates my experience with crossfire quite perfectly.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:18:38 PM

17seconds said:
Without realizing the systemic nature of their problem, the guys in this thread below are discussing a couple of common issues that tend to generally plague AMD setups: 1) Poor driver support for new games, 2) A lack of Adaptive VSync resulting in framerates that are limited to 30 FPS with regular VSync.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394999-33-7970-crysis


I have AMD and used to have Nvidia cards from the days of old til lately. I haven't had issues with either one when it comes to driver support. I think if people have issues then maybe they don't keep up with updating their drivers but you can't blame it on AMD alone.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:20:05 PM

hero1 said:
I have AMD and used to have Nvidia cards from the days of old til lately. I haven't had issues with either one when it comes to driver support. I think if people have issues then maybe they don't keep up with updating their drivers but you can't blame it on AMD alone.

I know what you mean, but it may also depend on what you consider an issue too. There has been a lot of articles written lately about AMD's micro-stutter issue. Many people consider that a driver issue.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:24:51 PM

bystander said:
That is up for debate. Sure, the 7950 generally has ever so slightly higher FPS than a 660ti (lower than a 670), it also has issues delivering consistent FPS. It is something being worked on, but it isn't solved:
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-ge...


There isn't much to debate. Recent benchmarks have consistently shown that an overclocked 7950 beats an overclocked 670.

Then add to it the fact that it costs at least $50 less and comes with an extra GB of RAM (Crysis 3 already uses 2.2 GB oftentimes) and it is just sad that we are even considering a 7950 beating a 670.


Heck, recent TH benchmarks show the 7870 LE (A $240 card) trading blows with the 670.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/message.php?config=to...
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:38:39 PM

CaptainTom said:
There isn't much to debate. Recent benchmarks have consistently shown that an overclocked 7950 beats an overclocked 670.

Then add to it the fact that it costs at least $50 less and comes with an extra GB of RAM (Crysis 3 already uses 2.2 GB oftentimes) and it is just sad that we are even considering a 7950 beating a 670.


Heck, recent TH benchmarks show the 7870 LE (A $240 card) trading blows with the 670.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/message.php?config=to...


You clearly didn't read the article I linked to you.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:44:52 PM

bystander said:
You clearly didn't read the article I linked to you.


Outdated information. Recent tests have shown 13.2 has cut frame times down considerably.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:47:57 PM

CaptainTom said:
Outdated information. Recent tests have shown 13.2 has cut frame times down considerably.

On a handful of games. What about games other than Skyrim, Bordlands 2 and BF3?

What about: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...

Right now, things are up in the air, but we do know AMD has things they have to fix.
a c 538 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 6:50:42 PM

hero1 said:
I have AMD and used to have Nvidia cards from the days of old til lately. I haven't had issues with either one when it comes to driver support. I think if people have issues then maybe they don't keep up with updating their drivers but you can't blame it on AMD alone.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvid...
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/21/2012_nvidia_video...
Quote:
In 2012, AMD had a rough time developing performance drivers and making them available to the public in a reasonable amount of time. It was evident that AMD was having problems during the first few months of the year. The performance we were receiving was still a lot better than the GeForce GTX 500 series video cards, and the Radeon HD 6000 series video cards, but we did not know how slow AMD's video cards were performing until the GeForce GTX 680 was released and AMD had to deal with serious competition again.

Quote:
The biggest credit that I have to give NVIDIA is releasing drivers with popular named games. Time in and time out NVIDIA has a driver ready anytime something big is happening, and the profiles generally support every aspect of the game. When a GeForce driver is released for a new game, we can immediately expect to have SLI performance for multi-display gaming. AMD dropped the ball after releasing its HD 7000 series video cards back at the end of 2011. It took them a few months before they ever added any CrossFire support came out so customers could use multiple video cards without worrying about stability issues. We even let AMD know what it was doing wrong in our AMD CrossFireX Drivers - Opportunity Lost article. NVIDIA showed none of this negligence towards its customers this year, making them hands down the better company as far as delivering driver software this year.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 7:06:13 PM

17seconds said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvid...
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/21/2012_nvidia_video...
Quote:
In 2012, AMD had a rough time developing performance drivers and making them available to the public in a reasonable amount of time. It was evident that AMD was having problems during the first few months of the year. The performance we were receiving was still a lot better than the GeForce GTX 500 series video cards, and the Radeon HD 6000 series video cards, but we did not know how slow AMD's video cards were performing until the GeForce GTX 680 was released and AMD had to deal with serious competition again.

Quote:
The biggest credit that I have to give NVIDIA is releasing drivers with popular named games. Time in and time out NVIDIA has a driver ready anytime something big is happening, and the profiles generally support every aspect of the game. When a GeForce driver is released for a new game, we can immediately expect to have SLI performance for multi-display gaming. AMD dropped the ball after releasing its HD 7000 series video cards back at the end of 2011. It took them a few months before they ever added any CrossFire support came out so customers could use multiple video cards without worrying about stability issues. We even let AMD know what it was doing wrong in our AMD CrossFireX Drivers - Opportunity Lost article. NVIDIA showed none of this negligence towards its customers this year, making them hands down the better company as far as delivering driver software this year.


Nice pieces. Like I said, they are improving and will continue to improve. I've ran with Nvidia most of my life and recently switched to AMD and so far I have no issues. So I hope they keep up their driver support for us enthusiast to stay on board their ship. Nvidia did give them a wake up call when the GTX 680 came around and look where AMD is now in terms of driver support. Once, again competition brings us better products and support. This is what we want. Cheers!
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 7:06:50 PM

17seconds said:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvid...
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/21/2012_nvidia_video...
Quote:
In 2012, AMD had a rough time developing performance drivers and making them available to the public in a reasonable amount of time. It was evident that AMD was having problems during the first few months of the year. The performance we were receiving was still a lot better than the GeForce GTX 500 series video cards, and the Radeon HD 6000 series video cards, but we did not know how slow AMD's video cards were performing until the GeForce GTX 680 was released and AMD had to deal with serious competition again.

Quote:
The biggest credit that I have to give NVIDIA is releasing drivers with popular named games. Time in and time out NVIDIA has a driver ready anytime something big is happening, and the profiles generally support every aspect of the game. When a GeForce driver is released for a new game, we can immediately expect to have SLI performance for multi-display gaming. AMD dropped the ball after releasing its HD 7000 series video cards back at the end of 2011. It took them a few months before they ever added any CrossFire support came out so customers could use multiple video cards without worrying about stability issues. We even let AMD know what it was doing wrong in our AMD CrossFireX Drivers - Opportunity Lost article. NVIDIA showed none of this negligence towards its customers this year, making them hands down the better company as far as delivering driver software this year.


Me and the other guy are simply saying that we haven't had any driver problems with AMD.

So your response is to post quotes from 2012 AND 2011? LOL like I said, outdated!

Also what are you trying to say, that we are lying? Why would we do that?

At the end of the day I see someone here saying they had AMD crossfire problems, me saying I have had Nvidia problems, and another person saying he has had none from either. So obviously, neither company has perfect or terrible drivers. Mileage WILL vary. Now can we get back to facts?
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 7:14:01 PM

bystander said:
On a handful of games. What about games other than Skyrim, Bordlands 2 and BF3?

What about: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeFo...

Right now, things are up in the air, but we do know AMD has things they have to fix.


Exactly! Things are up in the air. However what do we know as facts? :

-AMD has shown that when they say they will fix something, they do and it stays that way.
-The $240 7870 LE is trading blows with a card that costs $100 more (670)
-The 7970 is trading blows with yet again, a card that costs $100 more (680)
-The 7970 GHz is ranked a full tier higher than the 680 on TH
-The 7000 are overclocking beasts, and many 600 series cards can only get a 10% OC.
-AMD's cards come with 2 great games.

The 680 was a great card when it came out. It beat the 7970 and costed less. However things have changed, and I am going to recommend what is clearly the best choice.
a c 164 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 7:21:05 PM

And now we have come up with a new way to show AMD cards suck. I mean test video cards. (time to frames) Add me in as a guy who has had no issues with either camp. I've gone from an x1800XT, to an 8800GS, to the 5750, to the current GTX460. I prefer ATI/AMD cards but obviously I buy the best card I can for the money I have. I haven't noticed anything weird in my games when using either camps card.

For single screen 1080 gaming I'm sure you could buy any card 7950 or GTX670 and up and be happy. You might even be able to get away with the 7870 or GTX660TI depending on the games you play and settings you want. Some in this thread seem to think that by using an AMD card you'll have nothing but headaches. I would think sales of AMD cards would stop if that was really the case.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 7:24:13 PM

CaptainTom said:
Exactly! Things are up in the air. However what do we know as facts? :

-AMD has shown that when they say they will fix something, they do and it stays that way.
-The $240 7870 LE is trading blows with a card that costs $100 more (670)
-The 7970 is trading blows with yet again, a card that costs $100 more (680)
-The 7970 GHz is ranked a full tier higher than the 680 on TH
-The 7000 are overclocking beasts, and many 600 series cards can only get a 10% OC.
-AMD's cards come with 2 great games.

The 680 was a great card when it came out. It beat the 7970 and costed less. However things have changed, and I am going to recommend what is clearly the best choice.


AMD has said they fixed the microstutter issue several years ago. They clearly never fixed it. So I wouldn't just assume it'll be fixed in a week.

They are attempting to fix the problems that Techreport showed a couple months ago. Until it IS fixed, and shown to be fixed across a wide spectrum of games, you can only go off of the last bit of data, which is a few games do not have latency issues.

In the process of fixing these latency and micro-stutter issues, some games will lose performance, as some of what is required is for frames to be delayed to evenly space them out. So some of the more recent gains may be lost, but that is just based on educated predictions.

I personally would rather give advise on what we know to be true, not what we hope to be true.
We know AMD has latency issues and micro-stutter issues.
We know they fixed some latency issues in 3 games.
We hope they fix micro-stutter issues in Crossfire and single card configurations.
We know Nvidia has far less problems with both issues.
We know AMD has more FPS in more games than Nvidia when comparing a 680 to a 7970.

Now, what is better is up for debate. I personally would still get a 680 over a 7970. Partly because of the above issues, and for the fact that I also use 3D Vision.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 7:29:38 PM

4745454b said:
And now we have come up with a new way to show AMD cards suck. I mean test video cards. (time to frames) Add me in as a guy who has had no issues with either camp. I've gone from an x1800XT, to an 8800GS, to the 5750, to the current GTX460. I prefer ATI/AMD cards but obviously I buy the best card I can for the money I have. I haven't noticed anything weird in my games when using either camps card.

For single screen 1080 gaming I'm sure you could buy any card 7950 or GTX670 and up and be happy. You might even be able to get away with the 7870 or GTX660TI depending on the games you play and settings you want. Some in this thread seem to think that by using an AMD card you'll have nothing but headaches. I would think sales of AMD cards would stop if that was really the case.

I can agree that most people won't notice a big problem with the above issues talked about. However, there is a quantifiable difference, which is why these reviews are done. Ultimately, we want the best for our money. We've been using FPS as the end all be all of comparisons for years, but is it really FPS we are after, or a good smooth gaming experience? FPS does play a part in delivering smooth gaming, but latency and microstutter also play a part, so we should not ignore it either.

My point is you should consider both, and not ignore the problems.
a c 538 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 8:28:02 PM

CaptainTom said:

So your response is to post quotes from 2012 AND 2011? LOL like I said, outdated!
Now can we get back to facts?

Quote:
Date: Monday , March 04, 2013
Author:Grady McKinney
Editor:Brent Justice
2012 AMD and NVIDIA Driver Performance Summary Review
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvid...

a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 9:11:09 PM

4745454b said:
And now we have come up with a new way to show AMD cards suck. I mean test video cards. (time to frames) Add me in as a guy who has had no issues with either camp. I've gone from an x1800XT, to an 8800GS, to the 5750, to the current GTX460. I prefer ATI/AMD cards but obviously I buy the best card I can for the money I have. I haven't noticed anything weird in my games when using either camps card.

For single screen 1080 gaming I'm sure you could buy any card 7950 or GTX670 and up and be happy. You might even be able to get away with the 7870 or GTX660TI depending on the games you play and settings you want. Some in this thread seem to think that by using an AMD card you'll have nothing but headaches. I would think sales of AMD cards would stop if that was really the case.


This is exactly right. I have used cards from both sides, and whenever someone says microstudder or frame lattency I know they are just nit picking. Both cards work great. One is far cheaper.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 9:47:09 PM

CaptainTom said:
This is exactly right. I have used cards from both sides, and whenever someone says microstudder or frame lattency I know they are just nit picking. Both cards work great. One is far cheaper.

Keep in mind, it bothers some people more than others. Even if it doesn't jump out at you as a problem, you may still subconsciously feel better when it's not there.

Also, these issues are compared without v-sync. With v-sync, the results are different. Who is faster with v-sync may even change. That is something I'd like to see. FPS comparisons on 120hz monitors with v-sync on. We may see entirely different results.

I'd also like to note that I have used a lot of Crossfire and SLI in the last few builds. I have noticed that with Crossfire setups, I'm constantly fussing with MSI Afterburner and CCC to keep things going the way I like. With SLI, I have a tendency to just plug them in and ignore them.
a c 538 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 9:51:20 PM

CaptainTom said:
This is exactly right. I have used cards from both sides, and whenever someone says microstudder or frame lattency I know they are just nit picking. Both cards work great. One is far cheaper.

Exactly, with the GTX 670 running as low as $360 and the cheapest 7970 at $400, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 10:16:11 PM

17seconds said:
Exactly, with the GTX 670 running as low as $360 and the cheapest 7970 at $400, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/images/perfdollar_1920.gif


Your trolling actually alerted me to something the OP should look out for:

-Prices aren't very good right now for 7970's or 670's.


Also LOL at the no-brainer comment. I think you just meant you have no brain if you think a 670 is a better deal than a 7950 that costs $70 less and is just as strong as it while also coming with Bioshock: Inf. and Crysis 3. Are you just a fanboy or what?


OP this thread has turned into a flame war, you know what the best choice is but I will leave you with this:

Here is the TH GPU hierarchy:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-car...

As you can see it goes:

7950=670
7970=680
7970 GHz beats all

You also know which are cheaper.

We gave you the info, close the thread!

a c 538 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 10:32:10 PM

Actually, according to the charts from TechPowerUp, in a suite of 19 benchmarks the GTX 670 is almost dead even with a 7970, with the 7950 being more competitive with the GTX 660 Ti. As shown above, the 670 also delivers better performance per dollar than either a 7970 or 7950.

March 4, 2013 10:52:53 PM

17seconds said:
Actually, according to the charts from TechPowerUp, in a suite of 19 benchmarks the GTX 670 is almost dead even with a 7970, with the 7950 being more competitive with the GTX 660 Ti. As shown above, the 670 also delivers better performance per dollar than either a 7970 or 7950.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan/images/perfrel_1920.gif


Mind linking the article because other sites have shown;

7950 = 660 Ti
7950 Boosted = 670
7970 = 680
7970 ghz = none.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 10:59:50 PM

drinkingcola86 said:
Mind linking the article because other sites have shown;

7950 = 660 Ti
7950 Boosted = 670
7970 = 680
7970 ghz = none.


Keep in mind, you are referring to raw FPS, not taking into account latency, microstutter and other features.
a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 11:25:06 PM

bystander said:
Keep in mind, you are referring to raw FPS, not taking into account latency, microstutter and other features.


I am taking these into account:

-Latency was never a problem me or anyone noticed until it was brought up on websites, and the new benches of the Titan on TH clearly show it is fixed since the 7970 often had LESS latency than the Titan and other Nvidia cards.

-Microstutter is really only noticeable below 30 FPS, and 30 FPS microstutters it is certainly better than even 20 FPS. Either way upgrade if your crossfire gets you frames that low.

-Physx is a gimmic that annoyed me when I had NV cards so I always turned it off. Higher FPS, textures, and AA are always better performance trade offs.

-Adaptive V-sync is kinda useless in all but a few games that for some reason switch from 60 to 30 when V-sync is on (For instance FC3 doesn't). Either way without v-sync screen tearing still occurs below 60 FPS so I hate anything without v-sync period.


My opinions? Yes. But perhaps the OP will agree.
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 4, 2013 11:48:47 PM

CaptainTom said:
I am taking these into account:

-Latency was never a problem me or anyone noticed until it was brought up on websites, and the new benches of the Titan on TH clearly show it is fixed since the 7970 often had LESS latency than the Titan and other Nvidia cards.

-Microstutter is really only noticeable below 30 FPS, and 30 FPS microstutters it is certainly better than even 20 FPS. Either way upgrade if your crossfire gets you frames that low.

-Physx is a gimmic that annoyed me when I had NV cards so I always turned it off. Higher FPS, textures, and AA are always better performance trade offs.

-Adaptive V-sync is kinda useless in all but a few games that for some reason switch from 60 to 30 when V-sync is on (For instance FC3 doesn't). Either way without v-sync screen tearing still occurs below 60 FPS so I hate anything without v-sync period.


My opinions? Yes. But perhaps the OP will agree.


The latency comparison is to quantify micro-stutter. Those two issues are really 1.

Anyways, yes, that is definitely a big opinion, yet you seem so convinced you are "right" or at least that is how it comes off. I'm far less certain, unless you crossfire.
March 4, 2013 11:59:42 PM

AMD beats anything Nvidia in terms of raw speed and power(hence used for bitcoins, etc..), but the tradeoff is power and in turn heat generation.

AMD also wins in terms of 3/5 surround however Nvidia takes the cake in stereoscopic 3D surround setups.

AMD also wins if you want high AA/AF (8x/16x)
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2013 12:37:56 AM

If frame latency was a real issue with single setup 7970's do you guys not think people would have noticed by now and would have boycotted them?
a c 216 U Graphics card
March 5, 2013 12:41:22 AM

cookybiscuit said:
If frame latency was a real issue with single setup 7970's do you guys not think people would have noticed by now and would have boycotted them?

A fair amount of people do as a result of issues like this. It may not be so severe everyone is annoyed by it, but it is something many people do find distracting, while others would see a difference in a side by side comparison, but would not have complained about it.
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2013 12:58:32 AM

bystander said:
The latency comparison is to quantify micro-stutter. Those two issues are really 1.

Anyways, yes, that is definitely a big opinion, yet you seem so convinced you are "right" or at least that is how it comes off. I'm far less certain, unless you crossfire.


The things I just mentioned are an opinion. But recent tests have shown that latency is no longer an issue. Your opinion is the data is not enough.

It is a fact that the 7970 performs about the same as the 680, and it is a fact that it costs far less. Same for all the other performance comparisons I made involving other cards.

So yeah I do feel I am right since all of your "facts" are really opinions I don't agree with, whereas my facts are FACTS.
a c 538 U Graphics card
March 5, 2013 1:38:44 AM

cookybiscuit said:
If frame latency was a real issue with single setup 7970's do you guys not think people would have noticed by now and would have boycotted them?

Based on my observations, if a 7970 owner were to notice it, they would tend to ignore any evidence to suggest that their hardware is anything but the absolute best. No matter how many charts, links, quotes from industry experts are put out, they just tend to hear what they want to hear and deny the rest.

Luckily, no one actually wants to convince the committed fan of anything contrary to their hard-set beliefs. It's the non-committed inquisitor who comes to the forums seeking guidance who should pay attention and heed advice, particularly when it's advice accompanied by evidence, rather than pre-supposition and hearsay.
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2013 1:53:19 AM

Then again a Nvidia user would also claim there hardware is perfect.

Afterall, if you pay $400 for a piece of hardware, wouldn't you want it to be perfect?

But realistically, perfect hardware does not exist.
!