# Radeon 7950 vs GTX 670 vs GTX 760



## Snuckie7

Most of that information is pretty correct.

About the architecture though, the GTX 760 and GTX 670 use the same GPU, GK104, so naturally the architecture is the same. GK104 is just about as old as Tahiti, so that shouldn't be a factor to consider.

The GTX 760 is almost completely inferior to the GTX 670; it has one less SMX unit. The only way it competes at stock is by boosting to higher stock clocks.

Overclocking wise though (I assume that's why you're on this forum







), the 7950 pulls ahead of both the 670 and the 760.


----------



## yesitsmario

I'd go with a 7950, it's great once overclocked and edges an oc 670.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202026
+
10% off w/ promo code EMCXMXV55
+
$20 rebate.


----------



## Koehler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Most of that information is pretty correct.
> 
> About the architecture though, the GTX 760 and GTX 670 use the same GPU, GK104, so naturally the architecture is the same. GK104 is just about as old as Tahiti, so that shouldn't be a factor to consider.
> 
> The GTX 760 is almost completely inferior to the GTX 670; it has one less SMX unit. The only way it competes at stock is by boosting to higher stock clocks.
> 
> Overclocking wise though (I assume that's why you're on this forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), the 7950 pulls ahead of both the 670 and the 760.


So the GTX 760 is not any more future-proof than the GTX 670?

What architecture is the Radeon 7950 based on and is it newer or older than the GTX670/760?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yesitsmario*
> 
> I'd go with a 7950, it's great once overclocked and edges an oc 670.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202026
> +
> 10% off w/ promo code EMCXMXV55
> +
> $20 rebate.


I'm quite frugal and wondering by how much overclocking will increase electricity bills? Also the Radeon 7950 uses more power than the GTX670/760.


----------



## CravinR1

The 7950 also has 50% more memory (3 gb vs 2 gb) which is a factor when considering future proofing of cards so close in performance

Another vote here for a 7950


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Koehler*
> 
> So the GTX 760 is not any more future-proof than the GTX 670?
> 
> What architecture is the Radeon 7950 based on and is it newer or older than the GTX670/760?
> I'm quite frugal and wondering by how much overclocking will increase electricity bills? Also the Radeon 7950 uses more power than the GTX670/760.


The GTX 760 is less futureproof than the GTX 670 actually. The 7950 has a Tahiti PRO core, which arrived 2 months earlier on the market than GK104, if you really care about that.

An overclocked 7950 will consume maybe 100W more than an overclocked 760/670? You can decide how much that's worth to you.


----------



## rdr09

depending on your cpu and its oc, you don't really need to oc these gpus in games. they will max most save C3 at 1080. oc both cpu and gpu to bench.


----------



## raghu78

HD 7950 is the most futureproof card. 3GB VRAM and excellent bandwidth. HD 7950 and GTX 670 are competitors with the GTX 760 slower than both these cards.

HD 7950(1150 mhz) beats GTX 760(1280 mhz)
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/02/msi_n760_tf_2gd5oc_gtx_760_overclocking_review/5


----------



## Spectre-

+1 for hd 7950

I can beat gtx 670 3dmark scores and i have a voltage locked card


----------



## Booty Warrior

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Koehler*
> 
> But what advantages does the GTX 760 give over the GTX 670?


Price. That's it really. 670s still go for 300+ where as the 760 provides _almost_ as much performance for 250.

Of the three I'd probably go with the 7950 as well considering how cheap they are now.


----------



## Bruennis

*Stock Performance:* 670 > 760 = 7950
*Overclocked performance:* 7950 = 670 > 760

760s are a bit cheaper than both the 7950 and 670. Like others have said, the Radeon comes with a gigabyte more video ram. Go with the 7950


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> +1 for hd 7950
> 
> I can beat gtx 670 3dmark scores and i have a voltage locked card


Challenge accepted.. ;P


----------



## BillOhio

I'd go out and grab 7950 TF3 XFire this afternoon for $600 after rebate if it weren't for AMD's anticipated release of a new gen in 2 months. Even if the cards aren't the major improvement that so many expect, there's a chance at a new games bundle. I think I spent $100 for the games that were on this past bundle (I know, I should have found them on ebay).

Anyway, my vote is 7950 if you can't wait but as you've already been running that card for years, what's a couple more months?


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ep45-ds3l*
> 
> Challenge accepted.. ;P


Give something like 3DM Firestrike your best shot mate


----------



## Purger

Yet another for the 7950. It's a brilliant card for the price. You are right there in performance. Chances are it'll OC to be a decent bit faster than the 670, and you get an extra GB of VRAM, which could be key if you plan on keeping it around for a few years.


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Give something like 3DM Firestrike your best shot mate


Maybe I will.. Maybe I will.. I can run over 1300mhz on the core NP (in SLI only 1 card boosts that high, the other is around 60mhz less)
But, have to run the "free" version of the program.. So have to run the entire benchmark.. Won't that hurt my Firestrike bench?


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ep45-ds3l*
> 
> Maybe I will.. Maybe I will.. I can run over 1300mhz on the core NP (in SLI only 1 card boosts that high, the other is around 60mhz less)
> But, have to run the "free" version of the program.. So have to run the entire benchmark.. Won't that hurt my Firestrike bench?


I don't think so, the first two benches are piss easy to run and are bottlenecked by your CPU more often than not.


----------



## ep45-ds3l

okay.. Wasn't sure. If I have time later today I will run it. Going to push my GPU's to the limit.. Hope they don't die a fiery death! Lol


----------



## Snuckie7

Make sure to disable one card so the results are relevant to the OP!


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Id go for the 7950 with the newer driver amds been really making these cards scream.


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Can you disable phyx in that benchmark? Otherwise won't be relevant to an AMD comparison.

Also, I think my Windforce 670's use 680 PCB's.. So, not sure how accurate they will be vs a regular gtx 670..


----------



## Snuckie7

I don't think 3DMark subscribes to the Nvidia PhysX you're thinking about.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> HD 7950 is the most futureproof card. 3GB VRAM and excellent bandwidth. HD 7950 and GTX 670 are competitors with the GTX 760 slower than both these cards.
> 
> HD 7950(1150 mhz) beats GTX 760(1280 mhz)
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/02/msi_n760_tf_2gd5oc_gtx_760_overclocking_review/5


If you saw the memory clock on that GTX760 you'll know why it was slower, 6.4GHz effective clock is well under average. The slowest memory overclock that Techpowerup managed to get out of six GTX760 cards was 7GHz with the average being 7.4GHz (1GHz above what H got).

Plus, the choice of games (Crysis 3, FarCry3, Metro LL and Tomb Raider) are limited and biased toward AMD Cards as three of four are AMD Gaming Evolved titles, where are the rest of important games like Battlefield 3...etc.

I would expect a member like you to know these things but still its not the first time you do that.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> HD 7950 is the most futureproof card. 3GB VRAM and excellent bandwidth. HD 7950 and GTX 670 are competitors with the GTX 760 slower than both these cards.
> 
> HD 7950(1150 mhz) beats GTX 760(1280 mhz)
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/02/msi_n760_tf_2gd5oc_gtx_760_overclocking_review/5


^^ This.
I owned a GTX 670 before that can do (1328/1863) which is faster than any GTX 760 OC on air and my HD 7950 OC @ (1200/1650) with latest driver can beat or match this GTX 670. The GTX 760 OC is slower than HD 7950 OC most of the time. Not to mention the 7950 has an extra 1 GB over these cards.
My highly modded Skyrim rendered my previous GTX 670 2 GB useless pretty fast.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

HD 7950.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> If you saw the memory clock on that GTX760 you'll know why it was slower, 6.4GHz effective clock is well under average. The slowest memory overclock that Techpowerup managed to get out of six GTX760 cards was 7GHz with the average being 7.4GHz (1GHz above what H got).
> 
> Plus, the choice of games (Crysis 3, FarCry3, Metro LL and Tomb Raider) are limited and biased toward AMD Cards as three of four are AMD Gaming Evolved titles, where are the rest of important games like Battlefield 3...etc.
> 
> I would expect a member like you to know these things but still its not the first time you do that.


Metro LL is a Nvidia *TWIMTBP* title and even there HD 7950 OC edges out GTX 760 OC. its well known that Nvidia cards perform well in Crysis 3 and Farcry 3 . there too HD 7950 OC is faster. Few gaming evolved titles like tombraider, sleeping dogs, hitman absolution run atleast 25% faster or more on HD 7950 OC. recent games like Company of Heroes 2 also run faster on HD 7900 cards.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/22/company_heroes_2_performance_iq_review/6
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/22/company_heroes_2_performance_iq_review/5

with High AA at 1080p, HD 7970 Ghz(41.6 fps) edges ahead of GTX 780 (39.1 fps) and is much faster than GTX 770 (33.5 fps). its well known that HD 7970 Ghz = HD 7950 (1125 Mhz). so GTX 760 OC has no chance at high AA against HD 7950 OC.

GTX 760 OC is just a slower card. no two ways about it. on the contrary HD 7950 OC vs GTX 670 OC is a closer fight with both trading blows depending on game.


----------



## CravinR1

Here is my 7950 3dmark 11 and my clock is only 1160
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6603468


----------



## Bruennis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> If you saw the memory clock on that GTX760 you'll know why it was slower, 6.4GHz effective clock is well under average. The slowest memory overclock that Techpowerup managed to get out of six GTX760 cards was 7GHz with the average being 7.4GHz (1GHz above what H got).


I think the overclocking results are dead on in terms of what every user can expect to achieve. Visit the 7970/7950 Owners club, there are plenty of 7950s that can do well over 1150 on the core. Hell, I had a Gigabyte 7950 that could manage 1280/1700 on air -- and that's game stable









My current Sapphire 7950s right now can bench at 1200/1600 in crossfire and game at 1170/1600 -- 100% game stable
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> *I owned a GTX 670 before that can do (1328/1863)* which is faster than any GTX 760 OC on air and my HD 7950 OC @ (1200/1650) with latest driver can beat or match this GTX 670.


Was that game stable?


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Was that game stable?


Yes. It was stable at everything







and that was at stock voltage 1175mV. I was able to bench with it @ 1360/1863 1212mV with no problems.
1355/1863 was stable at everything @ 1212mV.


----------



## rabidz7

7950!


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Okay.. so you guys are right and I'm wrong..









Pushed my 670 as far as I could in 3dmark 11 until it crashed..

Clocks were 1333 core/1736 memory.. With stock BIOS

Well, I tried.. http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6970837


----------



## CravinR1

My gpu score is 200 higher and my oc is bad for a 7950 only 1160 core and 1510 memory


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> My gpu score is 200 higher and my oc is bad for a 7950 only 1160 core and 1510 memory


Oh well, I still use CUDA so I guess my 670's aren't totally useless..









And SLI has been pretty rock solid for the games I play..


----------



## CravinR1

Those scores were on old 13.4 drivers, and the new 13.8 are supposed to be even better. I could do a fast run if you wanted. But since i'm already beating you on inferior drivers and the fact that 13.8 fixes the crossfire issue makes the 7950 even better choice.

That and the fact that there is 50% more memory makes the 7950 a no brainer.

ALSO the 7950 is cheaper than the 760 while capable of outperforming a 670

Stock: 670 > 7950 > 760
Overclocked: 7950 > 670 > 760

Here is my Firestrike Score: (same clocks and old 13.4 driver)

Firestrike: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/473613
Cloudgate: http://www.3dmark.com/cg/449412
Icestorm: http://www.3dmark.com/is/501688



At stock the 7950 isn't ultra impressive:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6524672









If you check this thread you can see just overclocking I got over 1000 pts in 3dmark 11
http://www.overclock.net/t/1394695/stock-i5-gpu-stock-overclocked-comparison/0_100


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Metro LL is a Nvidia *TWIMTBP* title and even there HD 7950 OC edges out GTX 760 OC. its well known that Nvidia cards perform well in Crysis 3 and Farcry 3 . there too HD 7950 OC is faster. Few gaming evolved titles like tombraider, sleeping dogs, hitman absolution run atleast 25% faster or more on HD 7950 OC. recent games like Company of Heroes 2 also run faster on HD 7900 cards.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/22/company_heroes_2_performance_iq_review/6
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/22/company_heroes_2_performance_iq_review/5
> 
> with High AA at 1080p, HD 7970 Ghz(41.6 fps) edges ahead of GTX 780 (39.1 fps) and is much faster than GTX 770 (33.5 fps). its well known that HD 7970 Ghz = HD 7950 (1125 Mhz). so GTX 760 OC has no chance at high AA against HD 7950 OC.
> 
> GTX 760 OC is just a slower card. no two ways about it. on the contrary HD 7950 OC vs GTX 670 OC is a closer fight with both trading blows depending on game.


You can't just say that card A is better than card B based on *four* games only, not to mention the "slower" card was a well below average clocker, that was the point of my post.








Its well known that Kepler cards love memory bandwidth, you'll gain about %10 more performance of it if you clock the memory from 6.4GHz (What H did) to 7.4GHz (Average?).

The GTX760 is a bit faster at stock, while the HD7950 should be a bit faster after overclocking both cards, but its also a bit more expensive.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> I think the overclocking results are dead on in terms of what every user can expect to achieve. Visit the 7970/7950 Owners club, there are plenty of 7950s that can do well over 1150 on the core. Hell, I had a Gigabyte 7950 that could manage 1280/1700 on air -- and that's game stable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My current Sapphire 7950s right now can bench at 1200/1600 in crossfire and game at 1170/1600 -- 100% game stable


Thats why benching/providing results at average clocks is the best, the rest is luck.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You can't just say that card A is better than card B based on *four* games only, not to mention the "slower" card was a well below average clocker, that was the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its well known that Kepler cards love memory bandwidth, you'll gain about %10 more performance of it if you clock the memory from 6.4GHz (What H did) to 7.4GHz (Average?).
> 
> The GTX760 is a bit faster at stock, while the HD7950 should be a bit faster after overclocking both cards, but its also a bit more expensive.
> Thats why benching/providing results at average clocks is the best, the rest is luck.


Whats your 3dmark score ? For your card that cost $100 more than mine and has 1/3 less memory


----------



## BillOhio

Cravin, what is the noise level on your card? I'm asking because 2 TF3 7950s would be my current choice for upgrading now that 13.8 is out. My 570s still have games looking very respectable in my eye but I'd like something quieter.


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Honestly I was going to go 7970's a while back but picked up my Windforce 670's for $325 a piece. At the time it was a good price. And also at that time Xfire drivers were pretty bad from what I've heard so I went Nvidia. Prior to that I had 580's SLI.

Playing games and not just benching I have to say I'm pleased with my purchase even at 1600P.. (Albeit not maxed out and less AA)


----------



## CravinR1

The fans are not noticeable unless you ramp them up to 100% and at the clocks listed I run auto fan and it doesnt' go over 40-50%

No louder than my reference 5870 or gtx 260


----------



## youpekkad

I´m running my TFIII 7950 fan @60-69% in games, quiet enough for me, with the headphones cant hear it, without the headphones it wont bother me. If you run the fan at lower speed (like 40%) its very quiet.

I would say that overall on the same level with my previous Gigabyte windforce GTX560ti.

BTW. ep45-ds3l, can you run Valley-bench on extreme HD settings for comparison? GTX670s seem to be on par with the 7950s in that.


----------



## CravinR1

Here is my Valley Extreme HD settings at 1160/1510 with 8x AA



1080P


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> Whats your 3dmark score ? For your card that cost $100 more than mine and has 1/3 less memory


Downloading as we speak, I'll tell you the result tomorrow.

Here is my Valley benchmark result, BTW when I bought my card both the GTX670 and HD7950 were the same price.


----------



## Spectre-

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6888829

voltage locked msi tf3 HD7950

still beating your graphics score (only by a few points)


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Downloading as we speak, I'll tell you the result tomorrow.
> 
> Here is my Valley benchmark result, BTW when I bought my card both the GTX670 and HD7950 were the same price.


You beat me by 2.8 fps and you have a i7 vs my i5 and I only get 4.5


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Downloading as we speak, I'll tell you the result tomorrow.
> 
> Here is my Valley benchmark result, BTW when I bought my card both the GTX670 and HD7950 were the same price.


Here's mine, no tweaks.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You can't just say that card A is better than card B based on *four* games only, not to mention the "slower" card was a well below average clocker, that was the point of my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its well known that Kepler cards love memory bandwidth, *you'll gain about %10 more performance of it if you clock the memory from 6.4GHz (What H did) to 7.4GHz (Average?)*.
> 
> The GTX760 is a bit faster at stock, while the HD7950 should be a bit faster after overclocking both cards, but its also a bit more expensive. Thats why benching/providing results at average clocks is the best, the rest is luck.


don't pull numbers out of thin air. have some data to back it. btw 1280 mhz on core for gtx 760 is a very good overclock. on memory who says 7.4 ghz is average overclock. here is a gigabyte gtx 760 oc at 1.3 ghz core and 6.6 ghz memory. remember 1.3 ghz on core is pretty much top of the range. HD 7950s at 1150 mhz are average overclocks and still are faster. A golden HD 7950 at 1.3 ghz competes with a golden GTX 770. if you didn't know that you are just not aware of the facts.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/09/gigabyte_gtx_760_oc_version_video_card_review/

also you can find good deals on HD 7950 which put them in the same price range as GTX 760.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202026


----------



## Killmassacre

Just for comparison this is my best valley 1.0 run without tweaks with my GTX 760 @ 1320/1882


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







valley 1440p with my GTX 760 @ 1306/1752


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







and here are the 3dmark 11 results of my GTX 760

760 @ stock:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







760 @ 1306/1752 (my 24/7 OC)


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







I'm pretty happy with the valley scores, but the 3Dmark 11 scores seem a little low.


----------



## tsm106

Kepler is slower than Tahiti. This should be old news.


----------



## youpekkad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> You beat me by 2.8 fps and you have a i7 vs my i5 and I only get 4.5


I dont think i5 vs i7 makes a difference in a GPU-bound bench like Valley.

I got 48,6 fps, 2032 score in Valley @1150/1500 (24/7 clocks), used AMD driver-tweaks though, because would be stupid not to, they are allowed so...


----------



## ep45-ds3l

My 3dmark 11 scores are okay, but my Valley scores are horrendous. Ugh.. In need of Nvidia tweaks..


----------



## Pr0pheT

It's a bit of a wash really. You should start looking at the 770 or the 7970. The GTX680 can even be had for a decent price with prices falling. With that said, if you get a good overclocking 7950, then it's the 7950 out of those three. If nVidia started offering 3 GB of video of ram, then it wouldn't even be a contest. I like my 7950, because it clocks well, but I will probably go back to nVidia due to driver support and better luck with their cards next go around.

With that said, out of those three cards the 7950. Otherwise... GTX 680 or GTX 770 imho.


----------



## ladcrooks

Kate - just get William to dip his hand in his pocket for a Titan

other and that - hd7950


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youpekkad*
> 
> I dont think i5 vs i7 makes a difference in a GPU-bound bench like Valley.
> 
> I got 48,6 fps, 2032 score in Valley @1150/1500 (24/7 clocks), used AMD driver-tweaks though, because would be stupid not to, they are allowed so...


My score is as is with no tweaks and my second monitor and onboard intel graphics active which lowers score


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> You beat me by 2.8 fps and you have a i7 vs my i5 and I only get 4.5


That run was like 4-5 months ago, I rerun the test on the latest beta driver and got 49.9 (2090).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> don't pull numbers out of thin air. have some data to back it. btw 1280 mhz on core for gtx 760 is a very good overclock. on memory who says 7.4 ghz is average overclock. here is a gigabyte gtx 760 oc at 1.3 ghz core and 6.6 ghz memory. remember 1.3 ghz on core is pretty much top of the range. HD 7950s at 1150 mhz are average overclocks and still are faster. A golden HD 7950 at 1.3 ghz competes with a golden GTX 770. if you didn't know that you are just not aware of the facts.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/09/gigabyte_gtx_760_oc_version_video_card_review/
> 
> also you can find good deals on HD 7950 which put them in the same price range as GTX 760.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202026


I don't need to "pull number out of thin air", its common sense for any enthusiast to know that GTX660/670/680/760/770 cards are memory bandwidth limited.
Here is an example of a GTX770 that was overclocked %5 on the core and %16 on the memory, yet it did improve %9.8 in BF3.
A 6.4GHz memory clock on a GTX760 is only a %6.5 overclock, compared to %23.2 overclock for a 7.4GHz memory.
7.4GHz is the average memory overclock out of six samples on Techpowerup.
1.3GHz is the maximum in game boost clock and its nothing special or golden, a stock GTX760 will go up to around 1.13GHz on max boost.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> Kepler is slower than Tahiti. This should be old news.


Yes that why AMD dropped the price more than four times on Tahiti cards, while introducing "GHz and Boost Editions" to challenge the GTX680/670. BTW there's currently no competition to the GTX780/Titan *Kepler* cards, even a GTX770 beats the HD7970 GHz.


----------



## CravinR1

The 770 is equal to a year plus older 7970. And the price drops were because people like you buy nvidia regardless


----------



## ep45-ds3l

So.. Brand loyalty.. Yes for me that's true..
And need 2 cards to push decent frame rates @2560x1600. Had SLI on my older gtx 580's without issues, hence the 670's in SLI. As at the time they were cheap and didn't have the cash for 2 680's. Figured I would OC the 670's close to a 680 as possible and save cash. Just my .02


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> That run was like 4-5 months ago, I rerun the test on the latest beta driver and got 49.9 (2090).
> I don't need to "pull number out of thin air", its common sense for any enthusiast to know that GTX660/670/680/760/770 cards are memory bandwidth limited.
> Here is an example of a GTX770 that was overclocked %5 on the core and %16 on the memory, yet it did improve %9.8 in BF3.
> A 6.4GHz memory clock on a GTX760 is only a %6.5 overclock, compared to %23.2 overclock for a 7.4GHz memory.
> 7.4GHz is the average memory overclock out of six samples on Techpowerup.
> 1.3GHz is the maximum in game boost clock and its nothing special or golden, a stock GTX760 will go up to around 1.13GHz on max boost.
> Yes that why AMD dropped the price more than four times on Tahiti cards, while introducing "GHz and Boost Editions" to challenge the GTX680/670. BTW there's currently no competition to the GTX780/Titan *Kepler* cards,


You know what he meant; Tahiti is faster than GK104. Have you seen this thread?
Quote:


> even a GTX770 beats the HD7970 GHz.


I didn't realize I was on stockclock.net.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Valley is a well known benchmark to run better on Nvidia hardware. Just sayin' .


----------



## Alienware69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> Valley is a well known benchmark to run better on Nvidia hardware. Just sayin' .


Excuses of an AMD groupie, just sayin'.

OP if you want a real card, get a 780 or a Titan. The rest don't really matter and that's the truth.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alienware69*
> 
> Excuses of an AMD groupie, just sayin'.
> 
> OP if you want a real card, get a 780 or a Titan. The rest don't really matter and that's the truth.


This is not an excuse. This is the truth.
Also next time read the thread before saying such nonsense. The OP is on a budget. suggesting overpriced cards such as GTX 780 & Titan is just plain stupid.


----------



## Snuckie7

The 770 is even out of budget.

Just grab a 7950 and overclock it, 770 performance for <$300.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> The 770 is equal to a year plus older 7970. And the price drops were because people like you buy nvidia regardless


Thats no excuse, nobody forced AMD not to release a new card for that long, the GHZ/Boost models were released just to compete with NVIDIA on performance basis, while the price drops were to keep AMD cards on a slightly better P/$ ratio than NVIDIA.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> You know what he meant; Tahiti is faster than GK104. Have you seen this thread?
> I didn't realize I was on stockclock.net.


Yes I saw that, its an old thread with old drivers, has poor selection of games, not to mention that a HD7970 that doses 1300/7GHz is good card while a GTX680 that does 1300/7GHz is nearly average.
Plus, by reading tsm106 old posts, its no brainer that he's an AMD fan, I'd rather trust W1zzard for a fair benchmark with good unbiased selection of games.









BTW a GTX770 will overclock about %15 on the core and memory on average while a HD7970GHz will do ~%15/~%20, so the GTX770 will likely still be a bit faster or at least on par with the HD7970GHz after overclocking @ 1080P/1200P.


----------



## CravinR1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> HD7970 that doses 1300/7GHz is good card while a GTX680 that does 1300/7GHz is nearly average.


And a 7970 > 680 at same clocks. It takes 150-200+ or more mhz on the core for a 680 to be faster than a 7970. Same as a 670 needs 200+ to be faster than a 7950 at core.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> BTW a GTX770 will overclock about %15 on the core and memory on average while a HD7970GHz will do ~%15/~%20, so the GTX770 will likely still be a bit faster or at least on par with the HD7970GHz after overclocking @ 1080P/1200P.


A 770 is equal to a 7970 which is older and cheaper. NO thank you i'll save the $100 and take the free games


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Thats no excuse, nobody forced AMD not to release a new card for that long, the GHZ/Boost models were released just to compete with NVIDIA on performance basis, while the price drops were to keep AMD cards on a slightly better P/$ ratio than NVIDIA.
> Yes I saw that, its an old thread with old drivers, has poor selection of games, not to mention that a HD7970 that doses 1300/7GHz is good card while a GTX680 that does 1300/7GHz is nearly average.
> Plus, by reading tsm106 old posts, its no brainer that he's an AMD fan, I'd rather trust W1zzard for a fair benchmark with good unbiased selection of games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW a GTX770 will overclock about %15 on the core and memory on average while a HD7970GHz will do ~%15/~%20, so the GTX770 will likely still be a bit faster or at least on par with the HD7970GHz after overclocking @ 1080P/1200P.


GK104 scales worse per MHz than Tahiti and has lower performance per clock. That 15% average overclock isn't doing as much as you think.

You can call tsm a fanboy all you want, but the fact remains that he's the one who did the actual testing with a perfectly good suite of software (3DMark, Heaven, Batman AC, what are you complaining about?), and drivers certainly haven't changed much of anything on the Nvidia side of things. GK104 has been tapped out for quite some time now.


----------



## abombthecoder

I'm new to the whole hardware review thing, but going over the http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review / anandtech 760gtx review, it dominates the 7950 boost and abolishes the 7950. I can find a gtx 760 for for probably less than than a 7950. So is the anandtech just lying about their results? How is it that the majority here recommend the 7950???


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> And a 7970 > 680 at same clocks. It takes 150-200+ or more mhz on the core for a 680 to be faster than a 7970. Same as a 670 needs 200+ to be faster than a 7950 at core.


It is faster clock for clock, except that you'll be lucky to clock a HD7950/HD7970 to GTX670/GTX680 clocks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> A 770 is equal to a 7970 which is older and cheaper. NO thank you i'll save the $100 and take the free games


Nobody told you that a GTX770 is a better buy than a regular HD7970 if you'll be overclocking, that response was aimed at GTX770 vs HD7970GHz not a regular HD7970 which is a great buy considering current prices, also you'll save about $50 not $100 unless you find a good deal somewhere.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> GK104 scales worse per MHz than Tahiti and has lower performance per clock. That 15% average overclock isn't doing as much as you think.
> 
> You can call tsm a fanboy all you want, but the fact remains that he's the one who did the actual testing with a perfectly good suite of software (3DMark, Heaven, Batman AC, what are you complaining about?), and drivers certainly haven't changed much of anything on the Nvidia side of things. GK104 has been tapped out for quite some time now.


%16 Core overclock, %16 memory overclock on a GTX770 and the end result is %14.5 improvement on Battlefield, thats near a perfect scaling. Proof is HERE.
Thats what you call a ""perfectly" good testing suite? Two synthetic benchmarks and two games that neither of them are among the top or newest games?? Not to mention old drivers.


----------



## youpekkad

They recommend it IF your intention is to overclock, HD7950 is faster when both are overclocked, it has potential to go up there with overclocked HD7970s,GTX680s/770s, same cant be said for the GTX760. Stock 7950 runs @ 800MHz, almost every card hits atleast 1100MHz, golden ones do 1300+MHz, something to think about.

GTX760 is faster when both are at stock, so no, Anandtech isnt lying (though they probably used ancient drivers for the 7950).

If you dont want to overclock then GTX760 is the better option.

EDIT, this was response to abombthecoder´s post.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abombthecoder*
> 
> I'm new to the whole hardware review thing, but going over the http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review / anandtech 760gtx review, it dominates the 7950 boost and abolishes the 7950. I can find a gtx 760 for for probably less than than a 7950. So is the anandtech just lying about their results? How is it that the majority here recommend the 7950???


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/856?vs=854

How did the GTX 760 dominate the 7950 Boost? They are about equal at stock . 7950 won in some games and the 760 won the others.
But 7950 dominated the GTX 760 in DiRT Showdown, and spanked it in most compute tests.
We here talk about OC vs OC when the 7950 comes in top. Not to mention It has an extra 1 GB. With the new consoles coming out I don't see there is much future in the 2 GB that comes with GK104 cards.


----------



## deafboy

7950 or a 670...get whatever is cheaper.

Complaining about performance is moot... all depends how well yours overclocks. lol.


----------



## abombthecoder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/856?vs=854
> 
> How did the GTX 760 dominate the 7950 Boost? They are equal at stock . 7950 won in some games and the 760 won the others.
> 7950 dominated the GTX 760 in DiRT Showdown, and spanked it in most compute tests.
> We here talk about OC vs OC when the 7950 comes in top. Not to mention It has an extra 1 GB. With the new consoles coming out I don't see there is much future in the 2 GB that comes with GK104 cards.


Looking at the games i'd want to play the gtx760 dominates( crisis, battlefield, bioshock.. ). I also think the synthetic benchmarks really throw off the comparison.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abombthecoder*
> 
> I'm new to the whole hardware review thing, but going over the http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review / anandtech 760gtx review, it dominates the 7950 boost and abolishes the 7950. I can find a gtx 760 for for probably less than than a 7950. So is the anandtech just lying about their results? How is it that the majority here recommend the 7950???


760 for gaming. 7950 for gaming and benching

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4632/4/geforce-gtx-700-series-sli-review-geforce-gtx-760770780-in-sli-and-3-way-sli-3dmark11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5813770

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/631487

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/4536111


----------



## Joa3d43

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Koehler*
> 
> So I'm going to upgrade my current graphics card (Radeon 5870) to something else.
> 
> Currently considering either Radeon 7950, GTX 760 or GTX 670. I need the graphics card to be the most future-proof as possible.
> 
> *Radeon 7950*
> 
> Pros of the Radeon 7950:
> 
> More memory bandwidth
> Slightly better performance than both GTX 670 and GTX 760 in more graphics intensive games like Metro Last Light and Crysis 3
> More central processing power?
> Newer architecture than the GTX 670?
> Cons of the Radeon 7950:
> 
> Uses more power
> Slightly worse performance than both GTX 670 and GTX 760 for Nvidia optimized games
> *GTX 670*
> 
> Pros of the GTX 670:
> 
> Slightly better performance than both the GTX 760 and Radeon 7950 for Nvidia optimized games
> Uses less power than the Radeon 7950
> Cons of the GTX 670:
> 
> Older architecture than the GTX 760 and Radeon 7950?
> Uses more power than the GTX 760
> *GTX 760*
> 
> Pros of the GTX 760:
> 
> Slightly better performance than the Radeon 7950 for Nvidia optimized games
> Uses less power than the GTX 670 and Radeon 7950
> Newer architecture than the GTX 670?
> Cons of the GTX 760:
> 
> Slightly worse performance overall than the GTX 670 and Radeon 7950
> From all the research I've done on these graphics cards, it seems like the GTX 670 edges out the GTX 760 while the Radeon 7950 beats both in most cases (except for Nvidia optimized games).
> 
> Also another positive factor for the GTX 760 is that it's more power efficient than both the 670 and the 7950.
> 
> But what advantages does the GTX 760 give over the GTX 670? In most benchmarks, the GTX 670 always slightly edges out the GTX 760. Is it the new architecture of the GTX 760 that will make it more future-proof than the GTX 670?


...pretty solid analysis ! I would just also throw in 'game bundles' re costs and so forth...I run up to 4x670s I am really happy with on one machine, and 2x HD7990s on another I also love, yet the other day, I spec'ced a system for a friend with a HD 7950 re the gaming bundle he wanted...otherwise it would have been the Gigabyte 670 OC...can't really go wrong with either 670 or 7950 at this stage of the game


----------



## abombthecoder

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> 760 for gaming. 7950 for gaming and benching
> 
> http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4632/4/geforce-gtx-700-series-sli-review-geforce-gtx-760770780-in-sli-and-3-way-sli-3dmark11
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5813770
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/631487
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/4536111


I see that. I see the 7950 dominates in synthetics. But do people really care about that? I'd rather have a good priced card that performed better at the games i want to play then a card that get's less FPS but dominates in the synths.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abombthecoder*
> 
> I see that. I see the 7950 dominates in synthetics. But do people really care about that? I'd rather have a good priced card that performed better at the games i want to play then a card that get's less FPS but dominates in the synths.


well, when they compare the cards, they normally get the slowest 7950. if you go to the BF3 1080 chart, my 7950 (900/1250) at stock averages 75 while most reviews got it down to 65. that was paired with my i7 at 4.5.

whether you agree or not, these syn benches do correlate to games.

edit: like i said, get what you can afford and be happy. just don't bench one over the other. it might disappoint.


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> It is faster clock for clock, except that you'll be lucky to clock a HD7950/HD7970 to GTX670/GTX680 clocks.
> Nobody told you that a GTX770 is a better buy than a regular HD7970 if you'll be overclocking, that response was aimed at GTX770 vs HD7970GHz not a regular HD7970 which is a great buy considering current prices, also you'll save about $50 not $100 unless you find a good deal somewhere.
> %16 Core overclock, %16 memory overclock on a GTX770 and the end result is %14.5 improvement on Battlefield, thats near a perfect scaling. Proof is HERE.


Oh look, it scales great in one game, and it took both a core and a memory overclock to achieve that scaling. That doesn't however disprove that Tahiti still scales better.
Quote:


> Thats what you call a ""perfectly" good testing suite? Two synthetic benchmarks and two games that neither of them are among the top or newest games?? Not to mention old drivers.


Almost every piece of software was pretty neutral as far as Nvidia/AMD bias goes; you can extrapolate the performance for newer titles.

Old drivers:
Quote:


> drivers certainly haven't changed much of anything on the Nvidia side of things. GK104 has been tapped out for quite some time now.


To get an idea of 7950 vs GTX 760 real world performance, look no further than here.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Thats no excuse, nobody forced AMD not to release a new card for that long, the GHZ/Boost models were released just to compete with NVIDIA on performance basis, while the price drops were to keep AMD cards on a slightly better P/$ ratio than NVIDIA.
> Yes I saw that, its an old thread with old drivers, has poor selection of games, not to mention that a HD7970 that doses 1300/7GHz is good card while a GTX680 that does 1300/7GHz is nearly average.
> Plus, by reading tsm106 old posts, its no brainer that he's an AMD fan, I'd rather trust W1zzard for a fair benchmark with good unbiased selection of games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW a GTX770 will overclock about %15 on the core and memory on average while a HD7970GHz will do ~%15/~%20, so the GTX770 will likely still be a bit faster or at least on par with the HD7970GHz after overclocking @ 1080P/1200P.


a 7970 at 1300 will be much faster than a 680/770 at 1300 due to IPC. Lets not forget buswidth.

Also, what about 4k resolutions? lol 770s will CHOKE and start coughing big time.


----------



## Rangerjr1

770 @ 1600~ http://www.3dmark.com/fs/571791
7970 @ 1375 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/221487

770 lost with a 258mhz core clock advantage. Thats kind of pathetic...

And this is at 1080p, i would like to see the same people run the same clocks at 4k or something.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Oh look, it scales great in one game, and it took both a core and a memory overclock to achieve that scaling. That doesn't however disprove that Tahiti still scales better.


You do realize that the perfect scaling for a %16/%16 overclock is %16 improvement in performance right??
I would like the proof of your claims, show me that Tahiti will scale better than %90.6 percent that the GTX770 managed in BF3.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Almost every piece of software was pretty neutral as far as Nvidia/AMD bias goes; you can extrapolate the performance for newer titles.


Yes it was neutral but you don't decide that card A is better than card B using two synthetic benchmarks and two games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Old drivers:
> To get an idea of 7950 vs GTX 760 real world performance, look no further than here.


All of them are AMD Gaming Evolved titles, what did you expect??








I'm not saying that they shouldn't be included, I'm saying that the testing suite should be balanced and not biased towards one manufacturer.
Also the GTX760 was running a non-boost 1080/1852, thats well below the TPU average clock of 1174/1833, thats nearly 100MHz less on the core.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> a 7970 at 1300 will be much faster than a 680/770 at 1300 due to IPC. Lets not forget buswidth.
> 
> Also, what about 4k resolutions? lol 770s will CHOKE and start coughing big time.


Read this post, I already mentioned that.
Also for 4K gaming you won't be getting a GTX760, GTX770, HD7950 or HD7970, you'll go Crossfire or SLI and that's another metric which involves drivers, efficiency, memory bandwidth among other things.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You do realize that the perfect scaling for a %16/%16 overclock is %16 improvement in performance right??
> I would like the proof of your claims, show me that Tahiti will scale better than %90.6 percent that the GTX770 managed in BF3.
> Yes it was neutral but you don't decide that card A is better than card B using two synthetic benchmarks and two games.
> All of them are AMD Gaming Evolved titles, what did you expect??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they shouldn't be included, I'm saying that the testing suite should be balanced and not biased towards one manufacturer.
> Also the GTX760 was running a non-boost 1080/1852, thats well below the TPU average clock of 1174/1833, thats nearly 100MHz less on the core.
> Read this post, I already mentioned that.
> Also for 4K gaming you won't be getting a GTX760, GTX770, HD7950 or HD7970, you'll go Crossfire or SLI and that's another metric which involves drivers, efficiency, memory bandwidth among other things.


Still. At 1080p it loses miserably with a clock advantage.
Can you explain that?

And memory bandwidth is only good on 7970s, 7950s, 780s and titans. You should know that







. 670s, 680s and 770s are useless.
Quote:


> 770 @ 1600~ http://www.3dmark.com/fs/571791
> 7970 @ 1375 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/221487
> 
> 770 lost with a 258mhz core clock advantage. Thats kind of pathetic...


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Still. At 1080p it loses miserably with a clock advantage.
> Can you explain that?
> 
> And memory bandwidth is only good on 7970s, 7950s, 780s and titans. You should know that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . 670s, 680s and 770s are useless.


Last time I checked, people buy GPUs to play actual games, synthetic benchmarks are only for bragging rights.








Also if you can afford a 4K monitor, you'll probably go for 2/3/4 Titans, GTX780s or HD7970s, not a GK104 card.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Last time I checked, people buy GPUs to play actual games, synthetic benchmarks are only for bragging rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you can afford a 4K monitor, you'll probably go for 2/3/4 Titans, GTX780s or HD7970s, not a GK104 card.


Metro LL 1080p with SSAA x 4 is essentially 4k res







. Some like to run that to smooth the edges. That would be unplayable on GK104. Useless cards.


----------



## ep45-ds3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Last time I checked, people buy GPUs to play actual games, synthetic benchmarks are only for bragging rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you can afford a 4K monitor, you'll probably go for 2/3/4 Titans, GTX780s or HD7970s, not a GK104 card.


True..
And my 670's run 10.8.4 OOTB fully accelerated..


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Metro LL 1080p with SSAA x 4 is essentially 4k res
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Some like to run that to smooth the edges. That would be unplayable on GK104. Useless cards.


What is useless on GK104 is similarly useless on Tahiti as their performance is so damn close to each other that this stupid fanboy war on both sides is ridiculous.

And it always amazes me how idiotic people can be sometimes when they try and compare GPUs clock for clock when they are both based on 100% different architectures that scale completely different. And SO many people seem to forget that both sides *WILL* have duds in terms of overclocking.

I could go out and get a golden GTX 760, and get a complete dud of an HD 7950. The golden GTX 760 will no doubt beat the dud HD7950.

Same vice versa.

It really is pathetic to squabble over so little. Both sides make fantastic cards. Why can't you and other people get that?

/rant over.


----------



## Booty Warrior

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Why can't you and other people get that?


Because of this.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> Because of this.


and this . . .

http://www.overclock.net/f/21/benchmarking-software-and-discussion

part of ocn.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> What is useless on GK104 is similarly useless on Tahiti as their performance is so damn close to each other that this stupid fanboy war on both sides is ridiculous.
> 
> And it always amazes me how idiotic people can be sometimes when they try and compare GPUs clock for clock when they are both based on 100% different architectures that scale completely different. And SO many people seem to forget that both sides *WILL* have duds in terms of overclocking.
> 
> I could go out and get a golden GTX 760, and get a complete dud of an HD 7950. The golden GTX 760 will no doubt beat the dud HD7950.
> 
> Same vice versa.
> 
> It really is pathetic to squabble over so little. Both sides make fantastic cards. Why can't you and other people get that?
> 
> /rant over.


How is either one of the cards i linked 3dmark scores of duds? Both are excellent overclokers...


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> and this . . .
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/f/21/benchmarking-software-and-discussion
> 
> part of ocn.


Good. That is understandable.

*But,*

The entire context of this thread is about gaming. Not benching.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> How is either one of the cards i linked 3dmark scores of duds? Both are excellent overclokers...


My schpeel wasn't aimed towards your 3DMark link. It was a general comment. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## yesitsmario

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> HD 7950 is the most futureproof card. 3GB VRAM and excellent bandwidth. HD 7950 and GTX 670 are competitors with the GTX 760 slower than both these cards.
> 
> HD 7950(1150 mhz) beats GTX 760(1280 mhz)
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/07/02/msi_n760_tf_2gd5oc_gtx_760_overclocking_review/5


This!


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Metro LL 1080p with SSAA x 4 is essentially 4k res
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Some like to run that to smooth the edges. That would be unplayable on GK104. Useless cards.


The HD7970GHz can't either, probably even a Titan won't.
Whats your point??


----------



## MangoGino

I'm also considering a 7950, although I already have one. Is crossfire worth it now considering the new 13.8 driver has been released? Just want to be safe with future ports of PS4 & Xbox One games.

My rig:
Corsair 650D w/ side mesh & 200mm fan
BitFenix Recon Fan Controller
Corsair h100i w/ SP120 Performance Ed. Fans x 4
Gigabyte z77x-d3h
Intel i5 3570k @4.1 Stock Voltage
Sapphire 7950 OC V3 @1030/1545 Stock Voltage
Corsair HX850
G.Skill Sniper 2133 2x4gb
Corsair K95 Keyboard
Corsair M95 Mouse
Corsair 2000 Headset
Logitech 5.1 Speakers
AOC 24" 1020p Monitor x2

I'm pretty new to the modern age computers as my previous rig was 5 yrs old lol, I've already made errors with picking parts as I bought a 500r case and it didn't fit push/pull with the h100i. Also the ram I think should've only been 1600mhz.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> The HD7970GHz can't either, probably even a Titan won't.
> Whats your point??


My point is that while the 7970 is at 22fps or whatever, a GK104 with 2GB RAM would run out of memory and DROP HARD to 1-4 FPS because the card has to start swapping data to the system RAM.

Think a little, please. If you where knowledgeable on this subject you wouldnt have to ask that.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> Good. That is understandable.
> 
> *But,*
> 
> The entire context of this thread is about gaming. Not benching.
> My schpeel wasn't aimed towards your 3DMark link. It was a general comment. Sorry for the confusion.


op is concerned about benchmarks. I guess as a determining factor. this threads kinda put to light how in some reviews one gpu gets beat by another only to find out they were comparing a gpu with a boost to one that is the slowest of the bunch.

the benchmarking forum in this site helps identify the disparity. a 7950 will always be on top of all 760s. the same with the 7970 against the 770.

it seems to me that the op thinks that the 7950 needs to be oc'ed in order to par with the 760 in games, thus will render as being less power efficient. no. I've owned a 7950 and my games settings for the 7970 is the same exact ones for both with no difference.


----------



## Rangerjr1

OP.

Just dont get the RAM starved 670 or 760. Please.


----------



## Crouch

I would inevitably go for the 7950


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yesitsmario*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> I swear this is like deja vu with bennyhill and his 770s.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
Click to expand...

Valley thread, post #5903 and #5914.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> My point is that while the 7970 is at 22fps or whatever, a GK104 with 2GB RAM would run out of memory and DROP HARD to 1-4 FPS because the card has to start swapping data to the system RAM.
> 
> Think a little, please. If you where knowledgeable on this subject you wouldnt have to ask that.


Both cards can't run 1080p 4X SSAA in that game, FPS won't matter, It will matter at 3X SSAA or lower since at least one of them should be able to run the game at playable FPS.
It seems that you're the one that needs to start thinking.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Both cards can't run 1080p 4X SSAA in that game, FPS won't matter, It will matter at 3X SSAA or lower since at least one of them should be able to run the game at playable FPS.
> It seems that you're the one that needs to start thinking.


Ok now you're getting desperate ahhahaha

3x SSAA? Yep the 7950-7970 would win.

Anyways, i made my point. And you're just making excuses. Im out of this VERY unnecessary thread.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Ok now you're getting desperate ahhahaha
> 
> 3x SSAA? Yep the 7950-7970 would win.
> 
> Anyways, i made my point. And you're just making excuses. Im out of this VERY unnecessary thread.


Since when stating facts become making excuses? Your choice of words are amusing.








Yes an HD7970 GHz will win over a GTX680 using 3X SSAA, but it will lose at 1X and 2X SSAA. But the GTX680 is not its direct competitor, so will it win against the GTX770??


----------



## Snuckie7

Will a 7970 GHz win over an overclocked 680? Sure, if you overclock the 7970 too.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Since when stating facts become making excuses? Your choice of words are amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes an HD7970 GHz will win over a GTX680 using 3X SSAA, but it will lose at 1X and 2X SSAA. But the GTX680 is not its direct competitor, so will it win against the GTX770??


680 = 770. its the same EXACT CARD. 770s seems to be binned higher? Lol. Who cares, their IPCs are horrible, they have to clock 100-300MHz ahead of a 7970 to keep up with it. So 7970GHz = 770/680 @ 1200-1300 on core. Lol, just lol. what happens when you overclock the 7970 to similar speeds? Oh well then you better get the nitrogen out and start clocking 1500+.

Stop living in denial. It looks stupid.


----------



## deafboy

They are all in the same ballpark performance wise...some win in some things, lose in others...such is life.

Buy whichever you can for the best price. If you're playing on a single monitor, with a single card, either will work just fine. If you can find a nice 7950 for a good price, go with that. If you can find a 670 for less, go with that. 760 only if you can't find one of the other two for a good price (although you will, lol).


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deafboy*
> 
> They are all in the same ballpark performance wise...some win in some things, lose in others...such is life.
> 
> Buy whichever you can for the best price. If you're playing on a single monitor, with a single card, either will work just fine. If you can find a nice 7950 for a good price, go with that. If you can find a 670 for less, go with that. 760 only if you can't find one of the other two for a good price (although you will, lol).


Its people like you that make people buy the wrong product for their needs. What if the guy who asks for helps want to run high resolutions and you tell him to buy 670s? Fail.


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You do realize that the perfect scaling for a %16/%16 overclock is %16 improvement in performance right??
> I would like the proof of your claims, show me that Tahiti will scale better than %90.6 percent that the GTX770 managed in BF3.


Again, that's one game. It's pretty well known that Tahiti scales better than GK104. If the 3DMark comparison Ranger posted isn't damning evidence, you're in denial.

Quote:


> All of them are AMD Gaming Evolved titles, what did you expect??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they shouldn't be included, I'm saying that the testing suite should be balanced and not biased towards one manufacturer.


Which has been shown to make no difference or even the opposite of what you'd expect depending on the game. Simply saying it's GE doesn't invalidate the comparison.

Also, most of the new releases nowadays are all part of the GE program, so you're going to have to decide whether you want to complain about GE or old games









Quote:


> Also the GTX760 was running a non-boost 1080/1852, thats well below the TPU average clock of 1174/1833, thats nearly 100MHz less on the core.
> Read this post, I already mentioned that.
> Also for 4K gaming you won't be getting a GTX760, GTX770, HD7950 or HD7970, you'll go Crossfire or SLI and that's another metric which involves drivers, efficiency, memory bandwidth among other things.


And the 7950 was running at a mere 1000MHz, well below the average overclock. These are overclocks every user can expect to achieve; I can assure you Linus did not massively overclock the Radeons while barely touching the Geforces.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Its people like you that make people buy the wrong product for their needs. What if the guy who asks for helps want to run high resolutions and you tell him to buy 670s? Fail.


I'd tell him he'd be just fine...lol. I game at 1600p without a problem.

If he wanted to go triple screens then I'd tell him he's going to need more than a single GPU. The VRAM thing is blown out of proportion.


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> 680 = 770. its the same EXACT CARD. 770s seems to be binned higher? Lol. Who cares, their IPCs are horrible, they have to clock 100-300MHz ahead of a 7970 to keep up with it. So 7970GHz = 770/680 @ 1200-1300 on core. Lol, just lol. what happens when you overclock the 7970 to similar speeds? Oh well then you better get the nitrogen out and start clocking 1500+.
> 
> Stop living in denial. It looks stupid.


The GTX 770 uses the same *core* as the GTX 680.

However, the rest of the card, traces, VRMs, etc. are quite different. They are not the exact same card. No matter what you'd like to think. They are the exact same core, however.

I think this'll be the umpteenth time I've had to link this:

GTX 680:


GTX 770:


And last off. You have to be a fool to think that you can compare both cards at the same frequency. Both architectures are so fundamentally different that doing a clock for clock comparison is asinine.

Its just as stupid as GoldenTiger thinking the GTX 780 is essentially a Titan when OC'd, or people thinking a GTX 760 is a GTX 670, or people thinking an HD 7950 is a 7970 when OC'd.

Its not. Its a fallacy. Both cards can be overclocked. Can you reach the card above? Yeah. Is it the same? No. Can the card above be overclocked? Yes. Does that keep the performance gap between the cards? Yes.

Guess what? We are now back to square one.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Will a 7970 GHz win over an overclocked 680? Sure, if you overclock the 7970 too.


The GTX770 can be overclocked too,you know.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> 680 = 770. its the same EXACT CARD. 770s seems to be binned higher? Lol. Who cares, their IPCs are horrible, they have to clock 100-300MHz ahead of a 7970 to keep up with it. So 7970GHz = 770/680 @ 1200-1300 on core. Lol, just lol. what happens when you overclock the 7970 to similar speeds? Oh well then you better get the nitrogen out and start clocking 1500+.
> 
> Stop living in denial. It looks stupid.


Then please explain to me how a stock GTX770 @ 1130/1753 beats a stock HD7970 GHz edition @ 1050/1500?? The difference on the core is only 80MHz and thats assuming the GTX770 will keep its max boost of 1130MHz in all tested games, stop pulling numbers out of your head please.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> The GTX 770 uses the same *core* as the GTX 680.
> 
> However, the rest of the card, traces, VRMs, etc. are quite different. They are not the exact same card. No matter what you'd like to think. They are the exact same core, however.
> 
> I think this'll be the umpteenth time I've had to link this:
> 
> GTX 680:
> 
> 
> GTX 770:
> 
> 
> And last off. You have to be a fool to think that you can compare both cards at the same frequency. Both architectures are so fundamentally different that doing a clock for clock comparison is asinine.
> 
> Its just as stupid as GoldenTiger thinking the GTX 780 is essentially a Titan when OC'd, or people thinking a GTX 760 is a GTX 670, or people thinking an HD 7950 is a 7970 when OC'd.
> 
> Its not. Its a fallacy. Both cards can be overclocked. Can you reach the card above? Yeah. Is it the same? No. Can the card above be overclocked? Yes. Does that keep the performance gap between the cards? Yes.
> 
> Guess what? We are now back to square one.
> .


Who cares about phases and caps... it doesn't directly impact performance, if it did custom PCB cards would be the good stuff. Which they arent. Atleast not on AMD.
I didn't read the rest, i only read the part about the card not being the same.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> The GTX770 can be overclocked too,you know.
> Then please explain to me how a stock GTX770 @ 1130/1753 beats a stock HD7970 GHz edition @ 1050/1500?? The difference on the core is only 80MHz and thats assuming the GTX770 will keep its max boost of 1130MHz in all tested games, stop pulling numbers out of your head please.


Yea you'd like to assume that wouldn't you? The sad part is that they don't. They clock way past that on their own.

770 @ 1600~ http://www.3dmark.com/fs/571791
7970 @ 1375 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/221487


----------



## tsm106

^^lol i recognize that 3dm run.

Is he really that clueless about nvidia boost cheating in benches?


----------



## Kinaesthetic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Who cares about phases and caps... it doesnt directly impact performance, if it did custom PCB cards would be the good stuff. Which they arent. Atleast not on AMD.


There are a couple things that help Tahiti to scale well in overclocking and allowing it to reach very high clocks:


Tahiti is temp sensitive. The cooler your card runs, the higher chance of a better clock-speed. Hence why Tahiti does well on water.
Unlocked voltage.

Now, what do you think helps #2? Oh right. Power delivery. Guess what #2 helps? The ability to overclock.

Its almost common sense, but that doesn't seem to click to you. Anybody who has an inkling of how overclocking works knows that the key to a good OC is power delivery. If you have large ripple in your PSU, that is going to either kill your entire system (or highly degrade it). Or it will cause instability if your motherboards VRMs aren't able to deliver proper, clean power, to your components connected to it.

Same thing happens on a GPU. That's whether it is AMD or Nvidia.

EVERY component on a GPU matters. Not just the core. Your ICs (Hynix vs Elpida on Tahiti makes a huge difference), your VRMs, everything.

And its disturbing that you don't know that.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> ^^lol i recognize that 3dm run.
> 
> Is he really that clueless about nvidia boost cheating in benches?


Obviously, he even pulled out the good ole TPU Relative performance benchmarks.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kinaesthetic*
> 
> There are a couple things that help Tahiti to scale well in overclocking and allowing it to reach very high clocks:
> 
> 
> Tahiti is temp sensitive. The cooler your card runs, the higher chance of a better clock-speed. Hence why Tahiti does well on water.
> Unlocked voltage.
> 
> Now, what do you think helps #2? Oh right. Power delivery. Guess what #2 helps? The ability to overclock.
> 
> Its almost common sense, but that doesn't seem to click to you. Anybody who has an inkling of how overclocking works knows that the key to a good OC is power delivery. If you have large ripple in your PSU, that is going to either kill your entire system (or highly degrade it). Or it will cause instability if your motherboards VRMs aren't able to deliver proper, clean power, to your components connected to it.
> 
> Same thing happens on a GPU. That's whether it is AMD or Nvidia. Wouldn't matter on anything else but extreme cooling anyways, its not like stock power delivery can't push a card on water or something any worse than these l33t custom cards.
> 
> EVERY component on a GPU matters. Not just the core. Your ICs (Hynix vs Elpida on Tahiti makes a huge difference), your VRMs, everything.
> 
> And its disturbing that you don't know that.


Power delivery doesn't matter if the core is crap. Wouldn't matter anyways unless you got extreme cooling, its not like stock power delivery system wont get you high clocks on water or something. Irrelevant argument sir.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Again, that's one game. It's pretty well known that Tahiti scales better than GK104. If the 3DMark comparison Ranger posted isn't damning evidence, you're in denial.


For the third time, you can't tell that card A is faster than card B using one game/benchmark, to compare actual performance improvement after overclocking vs the % of overclock, what card retains the higher percentage is the one that scales better with overclock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Which has been shown to make no difference or even the opposite of what you'd expect depending on the game. Simply saying it's GE doesn't invalidate the comparison.


Yes it does, when a benchmarker only benches using games that are developed and optimized only on one manufacturer card, its bias.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Also, most of the new releases nowadays are all part of the GE program, so you're going to have to decide whether you want to complain about GE or old games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the 7950 was running at a mere 1000MHz, well below the average overclock. These are overclocks every user can expect to achieve; I can assure you Linus did not massively overclock the Radeons while barely touching the Geforces.


There are a lot of popular and new games not part of the AMD Gaming Evolved Program, why they weren't included??
Also the HD7950 was running 1100/1575, no need to lie about it dude.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Yea you'd like to assume that wouldn't you? The sad part is that they don't. They clock way past that on their own.
> 
> 770 @ 1600~ http://www.3dmark.com/fs/571791
> 7970 @ 1375 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/221487


Haha, The GTX770 was running 1130MHz max boost, W1zzard didn't provide the average boost clocks under all games, so it either runs at 1130MHz or lower on some games.
Still my point still stands, answer my question please.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Obviously, he even pulled out the good ole TPU Relative performance benchmarks. You know, back when the AMD drivers where broken to the point where a 680 COULD ACTUALLY beat it.


NVIDIA: 314.22 WHQL
GTX 770 & GTX 780: 320.18 Beta
ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/6.html
Stop embarssing yourself with every post.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> For the third time, you can't tell that card A is faster than card B using one game/benchmark, to compare actual performance improvement after overclocking vs the % of overclock, what card retains the higher percentage is the one that scales better with overclock.
> Yes it does, when a benchmarker only benches using games that are developed and optimized only on one manufacturer card, its bias.
> There are a lot of popular and new games not part of the AMD Gaming Evolved Program, why they weren't included??
> Also the HD7950 was running 1100/1575, no need to lie about it dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, The GTX770 was running 1130MHz max boost, W1zzard didn't provide the average boost clocks under all games, so it either runs at 1130MHz or lower on some games.
> Still my point still stands, answer my question please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NVIDIA: 314.22 WHQL
> GTX 770 & GTX 780: 320.18 Beta
> ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
> HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/6.html
> Stop embarssing yourself with every post.


I didn't embarrass myself. The 680 didn't beat the 7970 in that benchmark. And the 770 is clocked higher (I don't care for your different architecture crap because both can clock about as high as each other) And i was wrong about the driver part, which is why i removed it.

You still don't know how boost works.


----------



## MangoGino

I think the 770 is better because it's easier to say than the 7970. Well, unless you say GTX770, then the HD7970 is now on par.


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> For the third time, you can't tell that card A is faster than card B using one game/benchmark, to compare actual performance improvement after overclocking vs the % of overclock, what card retains the higher percentage is the one that scales better with overclock.


Just like how you used a single game to show that the GTX 770 apparently has 90% scaling?








Quote:


> Yes it does, when a benchmarker only benches using games that are developed and optimized only on one manufacturer card, its bias.
> There are a lot of popular and new games not part of the AMD Gaming Evolved Program, why they weren't included??


So Metro Last Light is a Gaming Evolved title now?







Like I said, it's not really Linus's fault if most of the new, graphical heavy hitters are Gaming Evolved, not that it makes a difference of course.
Quote:


> Also the HD7950 was running 1100/1575, no need to lie about it dude.


My mistake, I remembered it incorrectly. Still below the average overclock though, and my point remains.


----------



## Rangerjr1

7970s just are better.

1. More transistors.
2. 384 bit bus width, and not 256 lol. (Faster RAM. 350-380 GB/s instead of 250-260GB/s when overclocked hahahah)
3. Better architecture (Better IPC)
4. Real voltage control
5. 3GB not a lousy 2GB that will choke on it self if you play anything over 1080p.
6. They clock just as high as 770s and 680s, but the IPC is still higher so it will perform better anyways.

Get over it. 7970 has RAW force. Unlike your crippled GK104s.

And yea, i give up. You wont listen to real arguments, all you pull up are bad fallacies.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> I didn't embarrass myself. The 680 didn't beat the 7970 in that benchmark. And the 770 is clocked higher (I don't care for your different architecture crap because both can clock about as high as each other) And i was wrong about the driver part, which is why i removed it.
> 
> You still don't know how boost works.


You are wrong on many things not just the drivers part, which clearly shows that you talk out of your head instead of actually providing proof for every claim you make. Also the GTX770 is very similar to the GTX680 but it improved a lot (by ~1GHz on both stock and overclocked) on its weakest aspect, the memory speed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Just like how you used a single game to show that the GTX 770 apparently has 90% scaling?


Except that I, unlike you, didn't claim that GK104 scales better than HD7970 with overclock, I just said that %90 overclock efficiency is nearly perfect for GTX770, and that disprove that member point that Kepler is inefficient with overclock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> So Metro Last Light is a Gaming Evolved title now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's not really Linus's fault if most of the new, graphical heavy hitters are Gaming Evolved, not that it makes a difference of course.
> My mistake, I remembered it incorrectly. Still below the average overclock though, and my point remains.


I missed the Metro slide since I was skipping for results and it was the first one, still one games that aren't, and a few that are.
Still he could've put some of the popular games, like BF3 and CoD BO2...etc.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You are wrong on many things not just the drivers part, which clearly shows that you talk out of your head instead of actually providing proof for every claim you make. Also the GTX770 is very similar to the GTX680 but it improved a lot (by ~1GHz on both stock and overclocked) on its weakest aspect, the memory speed.
> Except that I, unlike you, didn't claim that GK104 scales better than HD7970 with overclock, I just said that %90 overclock efficiency is nearly perfect for GTX770, and that disprove that member point that Kepler is inefficient with overclock.
> I missed the Metro slide since I was skipping for results and it was the first one, still one games that aren't, and a few that are.
> Still he could've put some of the popular games, like BF3 and CoD BO2...etc.


I dont need to prove anything because my last post speaks for itself, unless ofcourse you cant comprehend it.
Quote:


> 7970s just are better.
> 
> 1. More transistors.
> 2. 384 bit bus width, and not 256 lol. (Faster RAM. 350-380 GB/s instead of 250-260GB/s when overclocked hahahah)
> 3. Better architecture (Better IPC)
> 4. Real voltage control
> 5. 3GB not a lousy 2GB that will choke on it self if you play anything over 1080p.
> 6. They clock just as high as 770s and 680s, but the IPC is still higher so it will perform better anyways.
> 
> Get over it. 7970 has RAW force. Unlike your crippled GK104s.
> 
> And yea, i give up. You wont listen to real arguments, all you pull up are bad fallacies.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> 7970s just are better.
> 
> 1. More transistors.
> 2. 384 bit bus width, and not 256 lol. (Faster RAM. 350-380 GB/s instead of 250-260GB/s when overclocked hahahah)
> 3. Better architecture (Better IPC)
> 4. Real voltage control
> 5. 3GB not a lousy 2GB that will choke on it self if you play anything over 1080p.
> 6. They clock just as high as 770s and 680s, but the IPC is still higher so it will perform better anyways.
> 
> Get over it. 7970 has RAW force. Unlike your crippled GK104s.
> 
> And yea, i give up. You wont listen to real arguments, all you pull up are bad fallacies.


1. Yup
2. Yup, although slower RAM, just larger bandwidth
3. Yup
4. Yup
5. Nope
6. Yup


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Except that I, unlike you, didn't claim that GK104 scales better than HD7970 with overclock, I just said that %90 overclock efficiency is nearly perfect for GTX770, and that disprove that member point that Kepler is inefficient with overclock.


But yet, one example doesn't prove or disprove anything, as you've made clear three times now was it?
Quote:


> I missed the Metro slide since I was skipping for results and it was the first one, still one games that aren't, and a few that are.
> Still he could've put some of the popular games, like BF3 and CoD BO2...etc.


"Oh noes but those games are too old!"

Doesn't matter though, because you only need one non-GE title to see if there is bias or not, and the results are in line with the rest of the review.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deafboy*
> 
> 1. Yup
> 2. Yup, although slower RAM, just larger bandwidth
> 3. Yup
> 4. Yup
> 5. Nope
> 6. Yup


Bandwidth is directly related to speed. Bandwidth is the end result you want. And about the 2gb RAM, you get the point.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Bandwidth is directly related to speed. Bandwidth is the end result you want. And about the 2gb RAM, you get the point.


Yeah, didn't say you were wrong, just noting that the ICs themselves aren't faster, the just have more "lanes" if you will.

A bunch of slow dump trucks on a wide freeway and a faster faster dump truck on a single lane road, if you will, lol. The trucks being the modules and the lanes being the bus.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> 7970s just are better.
> 
> 1. More transistors.
> 2. 384 bit bus width, and not 256 lol. (Faster RAM. 350-380 GB/s instead of 250-260GB/s when overclocked hahahah)
> 3. Better architecture (Better IPC)
> 4. Real voltage control
> 5. 3GB not a lousy 2GB that will choke on it self if you play anything over 1080p.
> 6. They clock just as high as 770s and 680s, but the IPC is still higher so it will perform better anyways.
> 
> Get over it. 7970 has RAW force. Unlike your crippled GK104s.
> 
> And yea, i give up. You wont listen to real arguments, all you pull up are bad fallacies.


1- Doesn't matter how many transistor it has, performance and other metrics is where its decided.
2- Memory bandwidth is the important part,not bus bandwidth, yes bus bandwidth * Memory speed= Memory bandwidth, but you'll get what I mean if you were around when the 256bit GDDR5 HD4870 were competing with the GDDR3 512bit GTX280.
3- Faster architicture but not better IMO.
4- Thats a solid point.
5- Yes 3GB is better and more future proof, but 2GB doesn't choke on 1600p. get your facts straight.
6- They don't clock as high on average.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> But yet, one example doesn't prove or disprove anything, as you've made clear three times now was it?
> "Oh noes but those games are too old!"
> 
> Doesn't matter though, because you only need one non-GE title to see if there is bias or not, and the results are in line with the rest of the review.


Thats the only example I could find, and I stated that its on BF3, please prove me wrong then.
Techpowerup results show that with a better non biased game selection, the GTX770 will come at the top.


----------



## AddictedGamer93

7950.

/thread


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deafboy*
> 
> Yeah, didn't say you were wrong, just noting that the ICs themselves aren't faster, the just have more "lanes" if you will.
> 
> A bunch of slow dump trucks on a wide freeway and a faster faster dump truck on a single lane road, if you will, lol. The trucks being the modules and the lanes being the bus.


Yep, that works!


----------



## Darklyric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AddictedGamer93*
> 
> 7950.
> 
> /thread


^^^this and /thread as well. Point is 7950 is fast oc'd 95% of the time(5% for those duds that only hit 1050 core) 760 if you want to use nivida's features phyx and so forth. Just buy 7990*(=most future proof) lol there only 650$ @newegg and with 13.8 most MS issues are fixed with a new driver coming in less than a month as well.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> 1- Doesn't matter how many transistor it has, performance and other metrics is where its decided.
> 2- Memory bandwidth is the important part,not bus bandwidth, yes bus bandwidth * Memory speed= Memory bandwidth, but you'll get what I mean if you were around when the 256bit GDDR5 HD4870 were competing with the GDDR3 512bit GTX280.
> 3- Faster architicture but not better IMO.
> 4- Thats a solid point.
> 5- Yes 3GB is better and more future proof, but 2GB doesn't choke on 1600p. get your facts straight.
> 6- They don't clock as high on average.
> Thats the only example I could find, and I stated that its on BF3, please prove me wrong then.
> Techpowerup results show that with a better non biased game selection, the GTX770 will come at the top.


Nvm, incorrect formula. Forgot.

But yea the point is, the 7970s RAM moves a lot more data then GK104 can.


----------



## Rangerjr1

384 / 8 x RAM Speed x 4

So ex: 384 / 8 x 1890 (My bench clocks) x 4 = 362880 Divided by 1000 = 362.88

362.88GB/s

Faster than GK104 will ever be.


----------



## Nevk

7950


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Thats the only example I could find, and I stated that its on BF3, please prove me wrong then.


http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/05/31/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-review/9
Quote:


> Techpowerup results show that with a better non biased game selection, the GTX770 will come at the top.


Ah yes, TPU where they recycle all their old results, so you have Radeons from last year competing against the brand new GTX 700 cards. Yep seems legit.

Meanwhile, a comparison where all cards were tested at the same time.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/05/31/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-review/9
> Ah yes, TPU where they recycle all their old results, so you have Radeons from last year competing against the brand new GTX 700 cards. Yep seems legit.
> 
> Meanwhile, a comparison where all cards were tested at the same time.












#2Legit SWAG.


----------



## MURDoctrine

I would go for the 7950. Like others have said its got 3gb of vram and performs close to the 670. If you plan on playing anything with heaving modding such as skyrim that vram will make the difference.


----------



## Quesoblanco

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B008WAMV3Y/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1375854537&sr=1-6

USED GIGABYTE 7970 GHZ EDITION 255 bucks! comes with warranty and everything!


----------



## Darklyric

the crazy part is how a 7950 boost @850 core can score so high lol. Just imagine if you get an average card at 1150 core....it would be near 7970 ghz lvls

An there's always this (Not reccomended http://www.overclock.net/t/1416451/newegg-powercolor-radeon-hd-7950-boost-3gb-199-99-ar-ends-8-7-promo-code


----------



## youpekkad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darklyric*
> 
> the crazy part is how a 7950 boost @850 core can score so high lol. Just imagine if you get an average card at 1150 core....it would be near 7970 ghz lvls
> 
> An there's always this (Not reccomended http://www.overclock.net/t/1416451/newegg-powercolor-radeon-hd-7950-boost-3gb-199-99-ar-ends-8-7-promo-code


[email protected] core would be faster than a stock 7970GHz.

BTW how does that Nvidia boost exactly work? Friend of mine has a bone stock GTX670, 906MHz or something, max boost 980MHz, yet it still boosts itself to steady 1084MHz in BF3 even though temps are in the high 70s? Quite confusing...

But I think OP must´ve found answer for his question after 14 pages


----------



## Darklyric

well i guess i got lucky with my 2x vapor-x 7950s which both hit 1300 core at 1.28vcore but came with elpedia and only hit 1450 mem so not great miners


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Nvm, incorrect formula. Forgot.
> 
> But yea the point is, the 7970s RAM moves a lot more data then GK104 can.


Yes it does, that why it does better against GK104 on 1600p vs 1080p
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> 384 / 8 x RAM Speed x 4
> 
> So ex: 384 / 8 x 1890 (My bench clocks) x 4 = 362880 Divided by 1000 = 362.88
> 
> 362.88GB/s
> 
> Faster than GK104 will ever be.


And yet even with that big memory bandwidth gap the fastest Tahiti card (HD7970 GHz) is slower than the fastest GK104 card (GTX770).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/05/31/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-review/9


From the article:-
were able to add 130MHz to the boost curve, making for a 12% increase. This was accompanied by a much more modest 75MHz increase to the memory speed.
So thats a %12 overclock on the core and only a %4 overclock on the memory, this netted a %7 improvement on BF3 and %2 improvement on Heavens @ 1600P which is more demanding on the memory bandwidth.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Ah yes, TPU where they recycle all their old results, so you have Radeons from last year competing against the brand new GTX 700 cards. Yep seems legit.


TPU recycle their old results?? lol.
Please just read !!

Thats an GTX770 review that was published June 27th.
NVIDIA: 320.18 WHQL
GTX 760: 320.39 Beta
ATI: Catalyst 13.6 Beta 2

Thats an GTX780 review that was published May 23rd.
NVIDIA: 314.22 WHQL
GTX 780: 320.18 Beta
ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2

Thats an GTX Titan review that was published Feb 21st.
NVIDIA: 310.70 WHQL
ATI: Catalyst 13.1 WHQL
GTX Titan: 314.09 Beta

Shall I continue??
Yes that clearly recycling, if you are *blind*.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Meanwhile, a comparison where all cards were tested at the same time.


Please give me the link to that review.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Please give me the link to that review.


http://ht4u.net/reviews/2013/55_directx11_grafikkarten_im_test/index6.php

HD 7950 Boost even at stock edges out the GTX 670 in that site, interesting ...


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Yes it does, that why it does better against GK104 on 1600p vs 1080p
> And yet even with that big memory bandwidth gap the fastest Tahiti card (HD7970 GHz) is slower than the fastest GK104 card (GTX770).
> From the article:-
> were able to add 130MHz to the boost curve, making for a 12% increase. This was accompanied by a much more modest 75MHz increase to the memory speed.
> So thats a %12 overclock on the core and only a %4 overclock on the memory, this netted a %7 improvement on BF3 and %2 improvement on Heavens @ 1600P which is more demanding on the memory bandwidth.
> TPU recycle their old results?? lol.
> Please just read !!
> 
> Thats an GTX770 review that was published June 27th.
> NVIDIA: 320.18 WHQL
> GTX 760: 320.39 Beta
> ATI: Catalyst 13.6 Beta 2
> 
> Thats an GTX780 review that was published May 23rd.
> NVIDIA: 314.22 WHQL
> GTX 780: 320.18 Beta
> ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
> HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2
> 
> Thats an GTX Titan review that was published Feb 21st.
> NVIDIA: 310.70 WHQL
> ATI: Catalyst 13.1 WHQL
> GTX Titan: 314.09 Beta
> 
> Shall I continue??
> Yes that clearly recycling, if you are *blind*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please give me the link to that review.


AMD is being very conservative with their clocks on the cards.You can easily get 1250 on core for 24/7 usage on air. You're comparing a GHz edition to a card that does 1200-1300 on it self.


----------



## Snuckie7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Yes it does, that why it does better against GK104 on 1600p vs 1080p
> And yet even with that big memory bandwidth gap the fastest Tahiti card (HD7970 GHz) is slower than the fastest GK104 card (GTX770).
> From the article:-
> were able to add 130MHz to the boost curve, making for a 12% increase. This was accompanied by a much more modest 75MHz increase to the memory speed.
> So thats a %12 overclock on the core and only a %4 overclock on the memory, this netted a %7 improvement on BF3 and %2 improvement on Heavens @ 1600P which is more demanding on the memory bandwidth.


Meanwhile with the 7970

Quote:


> TPU recycle their old results?? lol.
> Please just read !!
> 
> Thats an GTX770 review that was published June 27th.
> NVIDIA: 320.18 WHQL
> GTX 760: 320.39 Beta
> ATI: Catalyst 13.6 Beta 2
> 
> Thats an GTX780 review that was published May 23rd.
> NVIDIA: 314.22 WHQL
> GTX 780: 320.18 Beta
> ATI: Catalyst 13.3 Beta 3 (newer than 13.4)
> HD 7990: 13.5 Beta 2
> 
> Thats an GTX Titan review that was published Feb 21st.
> NVIDIA: 310.70 WHQL
> ATI: Catalyst 13.1 WHQL
> GTX Titan: 314.09 Beta
> 
> Shall I continue??


I was more referring to the GPU performance summary at the end where they recycle all the results not done specifically in that review, but I'm not sure why these reviews are relevant. This isn't stockclock.net after all.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Meanwhile with the 7970
> I was more referring to the GPU performance summary at the end where they recycle all the results not done specifically in that review, but I'm not sure why these reviews are relevant. This isn't stockclock.net after all.


Yep, Nvidia people like to compare a card that overclocks by itself and call it stock (680/770) to a GHz or stock 7970 that doesnt overclock itself. Its stupid. Why wont they compare them clock for clock? Both are capable of doing 1300...


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HeadlessKnight*
> 
> http://ht4u.net/reviews/2013/55_directx11_grafikkarten_im_test/index6.php
> 
> HD 7950 Boost even at stock edges out the GTX 670 in that site, interesting ...


Thanks for the link. REP+
Interesting results.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> AMD is being very conservative with their clocks on the cards.*You can easily get 1250 on core for 24/7 usage on air.* You're comparing a GHz edition to a card that does 1200-1300 on it self.


No you can't, from my research the average is around 1225MHz, so you can't "easily" hit 1250MHz unless you get a good chip.
Plus, nobody forced AMD to conservatively clock Tahiti chips, if hitting 1250MHz is easy like you say, they would've clocked the GHz edition @ 1100MHz- 1150MHz, probably did that because of the actual gaming power consumption, since the overclock from the HD7970 to the GHz edition added like 40W more.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Snuckie7*
> 
> Meanwhile with the 7970
> I was more referring to the GPU performance summary at the end where they recycle all the results not done specifically in that review, but I'm not sure why these reviews are relevant. This isn't stockclock.net after all.


The HD7970 was %30, %33 and %28 faster for a %36 core and %25 memory overclock @ 1600p, then again an HD7970 bottleneck is on the core not the memory and those big gains are mainly because of that %36 core overclock, you are just using extreme examples to show your point.
In simple words, GK104 needs as much memory clock as possible, a %4 overclock won't do a lot @ 1600p.

BTW you can calculate the GPU Performance Summary yourself, if you go into each review I linked it would show that there's difference between the results.
Please don't resort to funny excuses, and read the damn review before judging first !!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Yep, Nvidia people like to compare a card that overclocks by itself and call it stock (680/770) to a GHz or stock 7970 that doesnt overclock itself. Its stupid. Why wont they compare them clock for clock? *Both are capable of doing 1300...*


Yes it shows, not even one of the six HD7970 cards reviewed at Techpowerup managed to hit 1300MHz on the core, in comparison most GTX770 does hit 1300MHz max boost.

Clock for clock comparison is irrelevant since I'm not comparing architecture, Tahiti is faster than GK104 clock for clock thats no brainer, but I'm comparing actual products based on these chips.
If NVIDIA overclock their cards automatically depending on thermals and power consumption without any alteration from the user then its a STOCK card, AMD should do that as well.


----------



## Bruennis

Personally, I don't like being told what I can and cannot do with my hardware. To hell with Green Light

Radeons are also vastly superior at mining. If you don't know what that is, look it up


----------



## Darklyric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Personally, I don't like being told what I can and cannot do with my hardware. To hell with Green Light
> 
> Radeons are also vastly superior at mining. If you don't know what that is, look it up


wait you trying to say that they actually pay for themselves overtime....blasphemy!


----------



## Darklyric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bruennis*
> 
> Personally, I don't like being told what I can and cannot do with my hardware. To hell with Green Light
> 
> Radeons are also vastly superior at mining. If you don't know what that is, look it up


wait you trying to say that they actually pay for themselves overtime....blasphemy!


----------



## CravinR1

1150 7950 > 1300 770


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CravinR1*
> 
> 1150 7950 > 1300 770


Afaik GTX 770 1300 MHz is faster than HD 7950 @ 1150 MHz although slightly. GTX 770 @ 1300 MHz requires at least an HD 7970 clocked at 1150-1200 MHz to match it.
From my experience HD 7950 @ 1150 MHz is about slightly slower, as fast, or slightly faster than GTX 670 @ 1300 MHz depending on the game.
But 7950 offers great value against GTX 760 or 670 IMO. I like the 3 GB on my 7950







.


----------



## CravinR1

I meant 1150 7970.


----------



## Spectre-

hi guys just a noob question even though the GK104 architecture is slower than 7970 Ghz

why is that HD7970 has lower fps than the GTX770/680 in bf3, fc3 , crysis 3 etc

i know that bf3 and few other games are nvidia optimised but that really shouldnt make a huge difference ?
or is the nvidia team just working on the software side of things more than the hardware itself


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> hi guys just a noob question even though the GK104 architecture is slower than 7970 Ghz
> 
> why is that HD7970 has lower fps than the GTX770/680 in bf3, fc3 , crysis 3 etc
> 
> i know that bf3 and few other games are nvidia optimised but that really shouldnt make a huge difference ?
> or is the nvidia team just working on the software side of things more than the hardware itself


Yes optimizations makes a difference. And the 770/680 has a higher texel/pixel rate on the get go, because the 770/680 has boost, it basically overclocks itself to 1200-1300. While the 7970s in benchmarks are usually stock or at 1GHz and not 1200. So the nvidia cards have a headstart. Because of the 7970s supperior IPC it will run circles around 770/680s at similar clocks (Which shouldnt be too hard to get).

And because of the bigger framebuffer and faster RAM it will handle big resolutions a lot better.


----------



## Spectre-

well thanks for explaining that REP+

i was really confused since i was getting better fps with my GTX660 sli setup before i got my HD7950 crossfire setup

so the optimisation of a certain game will make a difference of 15-20fps ~ bf3

from what i recall my 660 setup got- 85-140 fps on bf3
7950 setup ~ 80- 125 fps


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> well thanks for explaining that REP+
> 
> i was really confused since i was getting better fps with my GTX660 sli setup before i got my HD7950 crossfire setup
> 
> so the optimisation of a certain game will make a difference of 15-20fps ~ bf3
> 
> from what i recall my 660 setup got- 85-140 fps on bf3
> 7950 setup ~ 80- 125 fps


Well, boost and optimization in favor of Nvidia is the reason that you got better FPS with the 660tis. Try Metro or something!


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> hi guys just a noob question even though the GK104 architecture is slower than 7970 Ghz
> 
> why is that HD7970 has lower fps than the GTX770/680 in bf3, fc3 , crysis 3 etc
> 
> i know that bf3 and few other games are nvidia optimised but that really shouldnt make a huge difference ?
> or is the nvidia team just working on the software side of things more than the hardware itself


Partly due to drivers and partly due to hardware and certainly partly on how the game was made.

In some aspects it's kind of like a car. Brute horsepower isn't everything, it just helps on a lot of things.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Yes optimizations makes a difference. And the 770/680 has a higher texel/pixel rate on the get go, because the 770/680 has boost, *it basically overclocks itself to 1200-1300*. While the 7970s in benchmarks are usually stock or at 1GHz and not 1200. So the nvidia cards have a headstart. Because of the 7970s supperior IPC it will run circles around 770/680s at similar clocks (Which shouldnt be too hard to get).
> 
> And because of the bigger framebuffer and faster RAM it will handle big resolutions a lot better.


Maximum boost for a stock GTX770 is 1130MHz.


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Maximum boost for a stock GTX770 is 1130MHz.


Care to prove it?

Also, most TPU benchmarks are done with stock 7970s (925 on core). Thats a 205 advantage.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> hi guys just a noob question even though the GK104 architecture is slower than 7970 Ghz
> 
> why is that HD7970 has lower fps than the GTX770/680 in bf3, fc3 , crysis 3 etc i know that bf3 and few other games are nvidia optimised but that really shouldnt make a huge difference ?
> or is the nvidia team just working on the software side of things more than the hardware itself


none of the games are faster on GTX 770 if you compare a equal clocked HD 7970. the only thing is GTX 770 clocks 100 mhz higher out of the box and on average overclocks compared to HD 7970. so for average clocking cards GTX 770 is faster as its binned to clock better. but if you get a golden HD 7970 it will definitely be on par even in these games.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/17/asus_geforce_gtx_770_directcu_ii_video_card_review/6
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/17/asus_geforce_gtx_770_directcu_ii_video_card_review/7
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/06/msi_n770_lightning_overclocking_review/3

2560 x 1600 Farcry 3 Ultra 2x MSAA

ASUS GTX 770( 1.3 ghz core / 8 Ghz memory) - 39.4
MSI GTX 770 (1.24 Ghz / 7.8 ghz memory) - 38.0
HD 7970(1.275 Ghz / 6.8 Ghz memory) - 38.8

2560 x 1600 Crysis 3 High settings 2x SMAA

ASUS GTX 770( 1.3 ghz core / 8 Ghz memory) - 58.5
MSI GTX 770 (1.24 Ghz / 7.8 ghz memory) - 56.3
HD 7970(1.275 Ghz / 6.8 Ghz memory) - 56.1

as for BF3 depending on review either card can come out faster. they are very close to be considered par.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-im-test/25/
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/896-11/benchmark-battlefield-3.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-4.html
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-770-Review-GK104-Speed-Bump/Battlefield-3


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> none of the games are faster on GTX 770 if you compare a equal clocked HD 7970. the only thing is GTX 770 clocks 100 mhz higher out of the box and on average overclocks compared to HD 7970. so for average clocking cards GTX 770 is faster as its binned to clock better. but if you get a golden HD 7970 it will definitely be on par even in these games.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/17/asus_geforce_gtx_770_directcu_ii_video_card_review/6
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/17/asus_geforce_gtx_770_directcu_ii_video_card_review/7
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/06/06/msi_n770_lightning_overclocking_review/3
> 
> 2560 x 1600 Farcry 3 Ultra 2x MSAA
> 
> ASUS GTX 770( 1.3 ghz core / 8 Ghz memory) - 39.1
> MSI GTX 770 (1.24 Ghz / 7.8 ghz memory) - 38.0
> HD 7970(1.275 Ghz / 6.8 Ghz memory) - 38.8
> 
> 2560 x 1600 Crysis 3 High settings 2x SMAA
> 
> ASUS GTX 770( 1.3 ghz core / 8 Ghz memory) - 58.5
> MSI GTX 770 (1.24 Ghz / 7.8 ghz memory) - 56.3
> HD 7970(1.275 Ghz / 6.8 Ghz memory) - 56.1
> 
> as for BF3 depending on review either card can come out faster. they are very close to be considered par.
> 
> http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2013/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-im-test/25/
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/896-11/benchmark-battlefield-3.html
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-4.html
> http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-770-Review-GK104-Speed-Bump/Battlefield-3


This, this, this!

Also, whats with the horrible RAM OC on the 7970s?


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Maximum boost for a stock GTX770 is 1130MHz.


1149 mhz max boost at 1.212v for stock GTX 770.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6994/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-review/2

Overclocked models like lightning run at 1.2 Ghz out of the box.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/05/30/msi_geforce_gtx_770_lightning_video_card_review/3


----------



## Rangerjr1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> 1149 mhz max boost at 1.212v for stock GTX 770.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6994/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-review/2
> 
> Overclocked models like lightning run at 1.2 Ghz out of the box.
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/05/30/msi_geforce_gtx_770_lightning_video_card_review/3


EXACTLY. Im starting to like you Mr. Raghu.

Repped... TWICE.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> EXACTLY. Im starting to like you Mr. Raghu.
> 
> Repped... TWICE.


thanks.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rangerjr1*
> 
> Care to prove it?
> 
> Also, most TPU benchmarks are done with stock 7970s (925 on core). Thats a 205 advantage.


Proof:- http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/31.html
Also in the performance summary there is a HD7970 GHz edition, which is clocked at 1050MHz core, thats only 80MHz less than the GTX770 max boost clock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> 1149 mhz max boost at 1.212v for stock GTX 770.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6994/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-review/2
> 
> Overclocked models like lightning run at 1.2 Ghz out of the box.
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/05/30/msi_geforce_gtx_770_lightning_video_card_review/3


From the article:-
and a very mild overvoltage of +0.012v is available, *unlocking one higher boost bin*.

The 1149MHz boost step is only available if you over-volt your card, on stock everything the max voltage will be 1.2V and the max boost will be 1136MHz.


----------



## Arizonian

Thread has run it's course as thread starter received his answer a while back.


----------

