# Radeon 7970 will outperform GTX 680 with Catalyst 12.7??



## xerb

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-19.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-9.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-8.html

I don't have a 7970, but I thought this would be interesting for 7800/7900 owners.

What do you guys think?


----------



## xerb

None? Mabye I should post this in the Nvidia section.


----------



## Gabkicks

that is the ghz edition. it comes clocked higher than regular 7970's.


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gabkicks*
> 
> that is the ghz edition. it comes clocked higher than regular 7970's.


Even in some benchmarks the stock 7970 does perform better than the 680.





The only thing the 7970 really bricks in is BF3. Still @ 2560 x 1600 it performs within a couple fps.


----------



## RussianHak

Lol, Cmon AMD, Rise up!


----------



## raghu78

yes the latest drivers have improved perf in Batman AC, Skyrim, Dirt 3 to the extent that AMD HD 7970 now leads GTX 680 in Dirt 3, Skyrim. In Batman AC AMD HD 7970 runs faster with 8X MSAA, though Nvidia has the edge with FXAA. Also in new games like Dirt Showdown the GTX 600 cards are thrashed by the HD 7900 cards. Dirt Showdown uses a new method of rendering called Forward+ rendering. It uses advanced lighting with global illumination and has some very good results. its explained in this pcper video

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Live-Review-Recap-AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-Edition

At 00:51:30 they discuss Dirt showdown and the improvements in lighting when advanced lighting with global illumination is used.

Add to that demanding games like Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Alan Wake, Witcher 2 , all of which run faster on the HD 7900 cards. The HD 7970 is clearly the fastest graphics card. For gaming at the highest settings and at ultra high resolutions like 1440p/1600p and multi monitor the HD 7970 is the best option.


----------



## Chewy

I would like to see benchmark comparisons between nvidia's new 304.48 drivers vs catalyst 12.7









Edit: found some,

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/3


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> I would like to see benchmark comparisons between nvidia's new 304.48 drivers vs catalyst 12.7


If you missed the memo the Nvidia 304.48 beta drivers were used for the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition reviews at techreport, tomshardware, hardwarecanucks.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/3
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-6.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-3.html

hardwarecanucks

"While we may have seen this all before from other pre-overclocked HD 7970 cards, under no circumstance should you overlook the GHz Edition. Performance per watt has certainly taken a step in the right direction, AMD's Boost works when it has to and pricing is actually quite fair considering its framerate advantage at higher detail settings*. In our opinion and with all other things being equal, the HD 7970 GHz Edition is the card to have for ultra high resolution gaming* . "

techreport

"The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition has indeed recaptured the single-GPU performance title for AMD; it's even faster than Zotac's GTX 680 AMP! Edition. And at $499.99, the 7970 GHz Edition is unambiguously a better value than the stock-clocked GeForce GTX 680. Everything seems to be going AMD's way-even our power consumption results turned out to be closer than expected."

tomshardware

"AMD's driver team deserves to take this weekend off. Its beta Catalyst 12.7 build does stellar things to the performance of several games in our benchmark suite. No longer is Nvidia's GeForce GTX 670 faster than the Radeon HD 7970. And, in fact, these new drivers are largely responsible for the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition card outmaneuvering GeForce GTX 680 in most of the tests we ran."

And also AMD addressed the concerns of noise with the ref HD 7970 Ghz edition by saying all AMD partners are coming out with their own custom cards. AMD is only supplying the new chips. The partners are going to come out with their own designs like Sapphire HD 7970 Toxic.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/sapphire-changes-upcoming-hd-7970-toxic-and-vapor-x-models-to-hd-7970-ghz-edition/16379.html

so I guess you will just have to accept that AMD really has the fastest GPU.


----------



## antonis21

Hd7970 ghz edition with catalyst 10.7 its a little bit faster than gtx680.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> If you missed the memo the Nvidia 304.48 beta drivers were used for the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition reviews at techreport, tomshardware, hardwarecanucks.
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/3
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-6.html
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-3.html
> hardwarecanucks
> "While we may have seen this all before from other pre-overclocked HD 7970 cards, under no circumstance should you overlook the GHz Edition. Performance per watt has certainly taken a step in the right direction, AMD's Boost works when it has to and pricing is actually quite fair considering its framerate advantage at higher detail settings*. In our opinion and with all other things being equal, the HD 7970 GHz Edition is the card to have for ultra high resolution gaming* . "
> techreport
> "The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition has indeed recaptured the single-GPU performance title for AMD; it's even faster than Zotac's GTX 680 AMP! Edition. And at $499.99, the 7970 GHz Edition is unambiguously a better value than the stock-clocked GeForce GTX 680. Everything seems to be going AMD's way-even our power consumption results turned out to be closer than expected."
> tomshardware
> "AMD's driver team deserves to take this weekend off. Its beta Catalyst 12.7 build does stellar things to the performance of several games in our benchmark suite. No longer is Nvidia's GeForce GTX 670 faster than the Radeon HD 7970. And, in fact, these new drivers are largely responsible for the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition card outmaneuvering GeForce GTX 680 in most of the tests we ran."
> And also AMD addressed the concerns of noise with the ref HD 7970 Ghz edition by saying all AMD partners are coming out with their own custom cards. AMD is only supplying the new chips. The partners are going to come out with their own designs like Sapphire HD 7970 Toxic.
> http://vr-zone.com/articles/sapphire-changes-upcoming-hd-7970-toxic-and-vapor-x-models-to-hd-7970-ghz-edition/16379.html
> so I guess you will just have to accept that AMD really has the fastest GPU.


Accepting the 7970 as the fastest card just is not true, and ultimately you should accept it really depends on what game you intent to play, They both trade blows in different games
 




























































































































































































































































From anandtech:

Six years is a long time to wait, but patience, perseverance, and more than a few snub moves against NVIDIA have paid off for AMD. For the first time in 6 years we can say that AMD is truly competitive for the single-GPU performance crown. *The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition isn't quite fast enough to outright win, but it is unquestionably fast enough to tie the GeForce GTX 680 as the fastest single-GPU video card in the world today*

The end result is that while AMD has tied NVIDIA for the single-GPU performance crown with the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, the GeForce GTX 680 is still the more desirable gaming card. There are a million exceptions to this statement of course (and it goes both ways), but as we said before, these cards may be tied but they're anything but equal.

Noise issues aside, we're finally seeing something that we haven't seen for a very long time: bona fide, cut throat, brutal competition in the high-end video card segment for the fastest single-GPU video card. To call it refreshing is an understatement; it's nothing short of fantastic. For the first time in six years AMD is truly performance competitive with NVIDIA at the high-end and we couldn't be happier.


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Accepting the 7970 as the fastest card just is not true, and ultimately you should accept it really depends on what game you intent to play, They both trade blows in different games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From anandtech:
> Six years is a long time to wait, but patience, perseverance, and more than a few snub moves against NVIDIA have paid off for AMD. For the first time in 6 years we can say that AMD is truly competitive for the single-GPU performance crown. *The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition isn't quite fast enough to outright win, but it is unquestionably fast enough to tie the GeForce GTX 680 as the fastest single-GPU video card in the world today*
> The end result is that while AMD has tied NVIDIA for the single-GPU performance crown with the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, the GeForce GTX 680 is still the more desirable gaming card. There are a million exceptions to this statement of course (and it goes both ways), but as we said before, these cards may be tied but they're anything but equal.
> 
> Noise issues aside, we're finally seeing something that we haven't seen for a very long time: bona fide, cut throat, brutal competition in the high-end video card segment for the fastest single-GPU video card. To call it refreshing is an understatement; it's nothing short of fantastic. For the first time in six years AMD is truly performance competitive with NVIDIA at the high-end and we couldn't be happier.


Overclock the 7970 to 1300mhz and the GTX680 can't touch it. 1300mhz on the newer cards won't be as hard and the original. The fact that the 7970 is getting closer to the gtx680 with every driver update, and the fact that its a overclocking monster and you got the fastest card money can buy.

I wouldn't be running GTX470's if I was relaying on stock clocks, same would go for the 7970s.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> Overclock the 7970 to 1300mhz and the GTX680 can't touch it. 1300mhz on the newer cards won't be as hard and the original. The fact that the 7970 is getting closer to the gtx680 with every driver update, and the fact that its a overclocking monster and you got the fastest card money can buy.
> I wouldn't be running GTX470's if I was relaying on stock clocks, same would go for the 7970s.


Overclocked 7970GE vs 680

Still depends on what game you play, And not all games were tested.......

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/18

Worth noting the power consumption and heat levels at this overclock too

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/17


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Overclocked 7970GE vs 680
> Still depends on what game you play, And not all games were tested.......
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/18
> Worth noting the power consumption and heat levels at this overclock too
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/17


No 7970 OC vs GTX680 OC. Clock for Clock the 7970 has already seen to come out head in most games, and thats the original with older drivers. Plus most GTX680 would have trouble getting to 1300mhz, while getting to 1300mhz on a 7970 GE would be lot easier. Plus you getting a lot more computational performance with the 7970, which is mainly the reason why the 7970 uses more power and has a bigger die in the fist place. If it was made for the soul reason to play games it would have been optimized in a totally different way. The 7970 is giving the best of both worlds while only using 20-30 more watts

AMD just needs more time to work on drivers, new architecture will take time before it's fully tweaked.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Overclocked 7970GE vs 680
> Still depends on what game you play, And not all games were tested.......
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/18
> Worth noting the power consumption and heat levels at this overclock too
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/17


clock for clock Radeon HD 7970 is faster when compared across a wide range of games. This is now proven with Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition.

Even BF3 is a close fight .goes either way. depends on the exact test case scenario.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-8.html

1920 X 1080 Ultra 4x MSAA (tie)
HD 7970 Ghz edition - 78.66
GTX 680 - 78.40

2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA (HD 7970 Ghz edition is 7% faster)
HD 7970 Ghz edition - 48.22
GTX 680 - 44.86

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/4

1920 X 1080 Ultra 4x MSAA (close enough that hardocp calls a draw , but Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition has a 10% higher min fps which is significant)
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 64.2 min 40
GTX 680 - avg 65.6 min 36

2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA ( close enough that hardocp calls a draw , but Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition has a 12% higher min fps which is significant)
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 43.8 min 27 fps
GTX 680 - avg 42.5 min 24 fps

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/4

BF 2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 41 fps
GTX 680 - 40 fps

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-GHz-Edition-Review-Taking-GTX-680/Battlefield-3

1920 X 1080 Ultra 4x MSAA ( nVIDIA win)
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 69.4 min 45 fps
GTX 680 - avg 72.4 min 49 fps

2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA (HD 7970 Ghz edition is 7% faster)
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 43.7 min 28 fps
GTX 680 - avg 42.6 min 27 fps

At 1600p AMD wins in 1 and is slightly ahead in the rest. Nvidia has not a single lead at 1600p which is where it matters. Because at 1080p both cards are above 60 fps.


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> clock for clock Radeon HD 7970 is faster when compared across a wide range of games. This is now proven with Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition.
> Even BF3 is a close fight .goes either way. depends on the exact test case scenario.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-8.html
> 1920 X 1080 Ultra 4x MSAA (tie)
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - 78.66
> GTX 680 - 78.40
> 2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA (HD 7970 Ghz edition is 7% faster)
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - 48.22
> GTX 680 - 44.86
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/4
> 1920 X 1080 Ultra 4x MSAA (close enough that hardocp calls a draw , but Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition has a 10% higher min fps which is significant)
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 64.2 min 40
> GTX 680 - avg 65.6 min 36
> 2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA ( close enough that hardocp calls a draw , but Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition has a 12% higher min fps which is significant)
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 43.8 min 27 fps
> GTX 680 - avg 42.5 min 24 fps
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/4
> BF 2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 41 fps
> GTX 680 - 40 fps
> http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-GHz-Edition-Review-Taking-GTX-680/Battlefield-3
> 1920 X 1080 Ultra 4x MSAA ( nVIDIA win)
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 69.4 min 45 fps
> GTX 680 - avg 72.4 min 49 fps
> 2560 X 1600 Ultra 4X MSAA (HD 7970 Ghz edition is 7% faster)
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 43.7 min 28 fps
> GTX 680 - avg 42.6 min 27 fps
> At 1600p AMD wins in 1 and is slightly ahead in the rest. Nvidia has not a single lead at 1600p which is where it matters. Because at 1080p both cards are above 60 fps.


You forget that the GTX680 is normally turboing at 1100-1150mhz even at stock settings. If only AMD released the 7970 GE to turbo to those speeds








Wouldn't have to wait for new drivers for it to take the lead.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> Overclock the 7970 to 1300mhz and the GTX680 can't touch it.


Wrong, as the previous owner of a HD 7970 which I had clocked stable to 1275mhz core and now own a GTX 680 I can tell you that the reviews often do not represent real world gaming performances. My GTX 680 at just 1200mhz core is faster than my old HD 7970 at 1275mhz core in many games with the exception of metro 2033. Now with that said my max clock with the GTX 680 is 1300+mhz core and at this speed there really is no comparison especially in BF3 where my 680 blows the doors off my old hd 7970.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Wrong, as the previous owner of a HD 7970 which I had clocked stable to 1275mhz core and now own a GTX 680 I can tell you that the reviews often do not represent real world gaming performances. My GTX 680 at just 1200mhz core is faster than my old HD 7970 at 1275mhz core in many games with the exception of metro 2033. Now with that said my max clock with the GTX 680 is 1300+mhz core and at this speed there really is no comparison especially in BF3 where my 680 blows the doors off my old hd 7970.


Did you read the title of this thread, and the OP?

Did you use the new 12.7 drivers with your ''old'' 7970?

If not, your comments are useless since you are not talking about the subject at all. Sorry.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> No 7970 OC vs GTX680 OC. Clock for Clock the 7970 has already seen to come out head in most games, and thats the original with older drivers. Plus most GTX680 would have trouble getting to 1300mhz, while getting to 1300mhz on a 7970 GE would be lot easier. Plus you getting a lot more computational performance with the 7970, which is mainly the reason why the 7970 uses more power and has a bigger die in the fist place. If it was made for the soul reason to play games it would have been optimized in a totally different way. The 7970 is giving the best of both worlds while only using 20-30 more watts
> AMD just needs more time to work on drivers, new architecture will take time before it's fully tweaked.


the 7970GE is overclocked further whilst the 680 is left standard with its normal boosting clocks

Only 20-30 watts more??



















Anandtech:

The 7970GE was already loud at stock and overclocking it doesn't help. Under Metro noise is now at 63.8dBA, and under OCCT it's tied with the 6990 for noise at 66dBA. Even if you're forgiving of noise, this is reaching the point where it's going to be difficult to ignore. Serious 7970GE overclockers will want to seek other cards and/or aftermarket coolers.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Wrong, as the previous owner of a HD 7970 which I had clocked stable to 1275mhz core and now own a GTX 680 I can tell you that the reviews often do not represent real world gaming performances. My GTX 680 at just 1200mhz core is faster than my old HD 7970 at 1275mhz core in many games with the exception of metro 2033. Now with that said my max clock with the GTX 680 is 1300+mhz core and at this speed there really is no comparison especially in BF3 where my 680 blows the doors off my old hd 7970.


Could you please state the games in which the GTX 680 is faster. HD 7970 is not faster in just Metro 2033. I think you haven't checked enough games.Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, Deus Ex, Alan Wake, Witcher 2, Anno 2070, Dirt Showdown. With the latest drivers even Dirt 3, Skyrim and Batman AC (8x MSAA) are faster on the new HD 7970 Ghz edition. Frankly if you are happy with your GTX 680 thats fine. But don't make a baseless statement.


----------



## Renairy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Could you please state the games in which the GTX 680 is faster. HD 7970 is not faster in just Metro 2033. I think you haven't checked enough games.Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, Deus Ex, Alan Wake, Witcher 2, Anno 2070, Dirt Showdown, Max Payne 3 (MSAA + FXAA). With the latest drivers even Dirt 3, Skyrim and Batman AC (8x MSAA) are faster on the new HD 7970 Ghz edition. Frankly if you are happy with your GTX 680 thats fine. But don't make a baseless statement.


your not helping......
Bottom line is *they trade blows*.. I know for a fact that these new drivers have some sort of optimizations which trade quality for performance from both camps, which sucks really cause all it is they're trying to do is compete with each other for the market while we the consumers have to deal with random optimizations.

In reality, there is no one crown... there is multiple crowns. If u have the card that is doing what u want it to, then by jolly it is wearing a crown !


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Could you please state the games in which the GTX 680 is faster. HD 7970 is not faster in just Metro 2033. I think you haven't checked enough games.Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, Deus Ex, Alan Wake, Witcher 2, Anno 2070, Dirt Showdown. With the latest drivers even Dirt 3, Skyrim and Batman AC (8x MSAA) are faster on the new HD 7970 Ghz edition. Frankly if you are happy with your GTX 680 thats fine. But don't make a baseless statement.


The HD 7970 is not faster than the GTX 680 In Crysis 2, its fairly close but the 680 is the faster of the two cards in that game. Now as for Crysis Warhead I have no idea as I didnt play that game, Alan Wake you are correct the HD 7970 is faster for sure. Batman AC from what I noticed favored the GTX 680 by a fair amount, especially the min fps. Deus Ex I have not played so I cannot comment on that one, Witcher 2 both seemed to be around the same in that one and in Skyrim it was pretty close again.

Im not making a baseless statement, sorry if i didnt give enough details the in the first post. I guess it comes down to which games you like to play the most and for me thats BF3 and from what I saw between the 2 cards in that game the GTX 680 was the clear winner especially when using 4XMSAA.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque*
> 
> Did you read the title of this thread, and the OP?
> Did you use the new 12.7 drivers with your ''old'' 7970?
> If not, your comments are useless since you are not talking about the subject at all. Sorry.


I should have payed better attention, my apologies.


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> the 7970GE is overclocked further whilst the 680 is left standard with its normal boosting clocks
> Only 20-30 watts more??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anandtech:
> The 7970GE was already loud at stock and overclocking it doesn't help. Under Metro noise is now at 63.8dBA, and under OCCT it's tied with the 6990 for noise at 66dBA. Even if you're forgiving of noise, this is reaching the point where it's going to be difficult to ignore. Serious 7970GE overclockers will want to seek other cards and/or aftermarket coolers.


My bad was looking at standard 7970, still 50watts isnt bad. Though what do you expect for overclock power usage. Card still uses less power then my GTX470, which when OCed is crazy high. Also for most people open air versions of the card will be the most bought. I find cards that use blowers are best for multi card setups and cases with poor air circulation. Really your only using more power when playing a game, at idle are about the same. The extra amount of power being used would be like having a desk light on while playing games.

GTX680 is a good card, but I find that nvidia was late to the party. The GTX680 is more or less on par with the 7970. AMD hasn't had flagship card that won out against a nvidia flagship card since the x19xx series. So AMD must be doing something right in that department, though AMD hasn't been the best on pricing. I remember picking up a 4870 for $300 and thinking to myself what a steal, slightly faster then a gtx260 and costs less, couldn't help myself. Though now it seems their whole 7 series is still 20-50 dollars to much.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Renairy*
> 
> your not helping......
> Bottom line is *they trade blows*.. I know for a fact that these new drivers have some sort of optimizations which trade quality for performance from both camps, which sucks really cause all it is they're trying to do is compete with each other for the market while we the consumers have to deal with random optimizations.
> In reality, there is no one crown... there is multiple crowns. If u have the card that is doing what u want it to, then by jolly it is wearing a crown !


trading blows is inaccurate. Radeon HD 7970 wins more games and wins more consistently and clearly at 1600p and multi monitor. If you can't accept that its just plain hyprocrisy. If you are gaming at 1080p maybe its not so clearly in favour of AMD. But 1080p is not going to really stress any of the high end cards. They easily hit 60+ fps in BF3 maxed out. What kind of difference are you going to able to make out at those speeds. But take a game like Alan Wake at 1600p maxed out and the GTX 680 is blown off.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-7/benchmark-alan-wake.html

2560 x 1600 High
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 42 fps
GTX 680 - 34 fps

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/6.html

2560 x 1600 4xAA
HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 60.5 fps
GTX 680 - 46.6 fps

20 - 25% higher frame rates when fps is below 60 fps is what makes a HUGE difference in playability.

Even games like Batman AC (TWIMTBP title) run faster on HD 7970 Ghz edition at 1600p with 8X MSAA. There is definitely only one clear enthusiast GPU for ultra high resolution (1440p / 1600p) and multi monitor gaming. And thats the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> The HD 7970 is not faster than the GTX 680 In Crysis 2, its fairly close but the 680 is the faster of the two cards in that game. Now as for Crysis Warhead I have no idea as I didnt play that game, Alan Wake you are correct the HD 7970 is faster for sure. Batman AC from what I noticed favored the GTX 680 by a fair amount, especially the min fps. Deus Ex I have not played so I cannot comment on that one, Witcher 2 both seemed to be around the same in that one and in Skyrim it was pretty close again.
> Im not making a baseless statement, sorry if i didnt give enough details the in the first post. I guess it comes down to which games you like to play the most and for me thats BF3 and from what I saw between the 2 cards in that game the GTX 680 was the clear winner especially when using 4XMSAA.


If you are running BF3 at 1080p Nvidia might have the edge. But at 1600p not so sure.

In crysis 2 more reviews show the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition running faster, especially at 1600p (which is where it really matters because all cards are not able to get close to even 50 fps at Ultra 4X AA).

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/9
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/14.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-13/benchmark-crysis-2.html
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review/20
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-7.html

even tomshardware's review shows the GTX 680 winning at 1080p . But the gap is very close at 1600p
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-9.html


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> trading blows is inaccurate. Radeon HD 7970 wins more games and wins more consistently and clearly at 1600p and multi monitor. If you can't accept that its just plain hyprocrisy. If you are gaming at 1080p maybe its not so clearly in favour of AMD. But 1080p is not going to really stress any of the high end cards. They easily hit 60+ fps in BF3 maxed out. What kind of difference are you going to able to make out at those speeds. But take a game like Alan Wake at 1600p maxed out and the GTX 680 is blown off.
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-7/benchmark-alan-wake.html
> 2560 x 1600 High
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 42 fps
> GTX 680 - 34 fps
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/6.html
> 2560 x 1600 4xAA
> HD 7970 Ghz edition - avg 60.5 fps
> GTX 680 - 46.6 fps
> 20 - 25% higher frame rates when fps is below 60 fps is what makes a HUGE difference in playability.
> Even games like Batman AC (TWIMTBP title) run faster on HD 7970 Ghz edition at 1600p with 8X MSAA. There is definitely only one clear enthusiast GPU for ultra high resolution (1440p / 1600p) and multi monitor gaming. And thats the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition.


Stillt the 680 is rated as the better card over the 7970 in terms of total relative performance

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/28.html

Now take into count the noise, heat, power consumption of the GE edition i know which card i would choose









Techpowerup:

AMD has achieved its goal: the HD 7970 GHz Edition is the fastest single-GPU graphics card in the world. Thanks to the 125 MHz higher GPU clock, than that of the regular HD 7970, the card beats NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 680 by about 2% averaged over all our benchmarks and resolutions. At 2560x1600 the increase is even larger with 8%, but that's not because HD 7970 GHz is so strong at that resolution, but because NVIDIA is weak. Compared to the non-GHz Edition HD 7970, the card tested today is around 10% faster on average, a sizeable improvement.
Unfortunately this performance increase comes at the cost of increased power draw. It seems that AMD has picked the highest clocking chips and gave them some extra voltage to ensure things are stable. As a result we see significantly higher power draw when gaming. Performance per Watt is also much worse, even with the 10% performance increase taken into account. The jump in power consumption also directly affects temperature and noise. While temperatures are just ok with 83°C under load, noise is completely unacceptable. The card runs at 51 dBA - *one of the noisiest cards ever tested, noisier than NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 480.*
AMD has introduced a new "boost" clocking mechanism with this card, but it is nothing close to what NVIDIA offers. I think a more accurate description would be that the card "boosts" from its default of 1050 MHz down to a clock speed of 1000 MHz and reduced voltage, when it senses a power overload situation, that's it.
AMD's HD 7970 GHz edition is priced at $499, the same as NVIDIA's GTX 680. While this might seem enticing at first glance, since the GHz Edition is faster, NVIDIA's card wins at power-draw, noise, and manual overclocking, with the better card overall. I find $499 is just too high to really draw away much attention from the GTX 680, if the HD 7970 GHz Edition was $450 I'd definitely consider it, until that happens *I'll happily take a GTX 680, or even GTX 670, which offers better price/performance at not much lower performance.*


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Stillt the 680 is rated as the better card over the 7970 in terms of total relative performance
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/28.html
> Now take into count the noise, heat, power consumption of the GE edition i know which card i would choose


Relative performance for all resolutions - HD 7970 Ghz edition - 100 GTX 680 - 98

Relative performance for 1600p - HD 7970 Ghz edition - 100 GTX 680 - 92

Come on man it cannot be more obvious. common sense dictates a USD 500 card is meant to be run on 1080p/ 1200p , 1440p/1600p , 3 X 1080P and 3 x 1600p . At the higher resolutions its clear that Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is the faster card and more suitable card with the huge bandwidth advantage. techpowerup did not put up a 5760 x 1080 performance summary because Nvidia GTX 680 failed to complete few games. In the games that they got results Radeon HD 7970 Ghz was the dominant winner. So its pretty obvious which is the fastest GPU all round.


----------



## xerb

Kind of agree with raghu78.

At higher resolutions even the standard 7970 outperforms. Also, let's consider that the 7970 is *$50-$70 cheaper*.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> Techpowerup:
> 
> Unfortunately this performance increase comes at the cost of increased power draw. It seems that AMD has picked the highest clocking chips and gave them some extra voltage to ensure things are stable. As a result we see significantly higher power draw when gaming. Performance per Watt is also much worse, even with the 10% performance increase taken into account. The jump in power consumption also directly affects temperature and noise. While temperatures are just ok with 83°C under load, noise is completely unacceptable. The card runs at 51 dBA - *one of the noisiest cards ever tested, noisier than NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 480.*


Unfortunately for you and other people who want to use the ref HD 7970 Ghz edition cooler as an excuse AMD has clearly stated that their partners will launch the Ghz edition cards with their own custom cooling designs.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-16.html

"Much more troubling is the noise generated by AMD's problematic reference cooler. I even had to go back and re-test because it seemed inconceivable that the company would ship out cards that were even louder than the Radeon HD 6990.

There's a silver lining on this one, though. Ahead of this review, I let AMD know about our acoustic concerns and the company claims that most *partner boards will employ third-party cooling, not its reference configuration*."

hardwarecanucks

"*Also remember that the vast majority of HD 7970 GHz Edition cards will be released as custom versions and won't be following the reference design you see above*"

Dave Baumann of AMD

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1652097&postcount=3701

"The GHz edition ASIC is explicitly designed to fit within the same thermal / electrical / physical footprint as the standard 7970 and as such, *given that every one of the partners have transistioned to their own designs they will be using their own fansink designs*. The "reference" design is not much more than our qualification mule now and is sampled for the purposes of performance testing"


----------



## BradleyW

The 7970 is the better option.
Better min fps in most tests. King at high res.
Outperform a 680 when overclocked and great driver support such as 12.7 which boosts fps by a lot per game.
Also, 3GB VRAM! And the 7970 can come in different versions with better cooling.
Also, great voltage control and so on.

Please note, I am not an AMD fanboy. I have had more Nvidia cards than most people.


----------



## specopsFI

As for the 7970GE, the reference cooler is totally irrelevant but the power consumption most certainly is not. This GHz Edition nonsense didn't bring anything new to the table: it is the exact same video card that the 7970 has been all along, but with a part of the OC/OV headroom used by AMD. That shows in the power consumption numbers.

But this round of the driver game goes to AMD: the 12.7b brings more consistent gains than the 304.48. As of right now, I'd say GTX 680 is the better card for 1080p, but 7970 for anything above that.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> As for the 7970GE, the reference cooler is totally irrelevant but the power consumption most certainly is not. This GHz Edition nonsense didn't bring anything new to the table: it is the exact same video card that the 7970 has been all along, but with a part of the OC/OV headroom used by AMD. That shows in the power consumption numbers.
> But this round of the driver game goes to AMD: the 12.7b brings more consistent gains than the 304.48. As of right now, I'd say GTX 680 is the better card for 1080p, but 7970 for anything above that.


When the GTX 680 is shown to fall in bandwidth hungry games even at 1080p like Crysis Warhead , Metro 2033 (DOF With MSAA), Dirt Showdown the only reason for choosing a GTX 680 is for power consumption. And you will be giving up future proofness because the HD 7970 is certainly more futureproof with its abundant bandwidth. So personally I think going for a GTX 680 is not a smart choice. Others can obviously differ in their opinion.


----------



## Arizonian

I strongly believe more than before these cards are on par. The quibbling that one is better than the other is subjective because neither win outright in all games. Neither undisputed. Depending on what games one plays will determine which is better for each individual.

This is boiling down to two on par hardware performance cards and a driver battle now. Shown in this graph very well as shown by previous poster in this thread. The difference between 12.6 to 12.7 beta vs 301.42 to 301.48 beta brings them on each others heels again.



*As consumers and game enthusiast we should be happy this little feud is taking place as we benefit from both companies putting a good amount of time into their drivers is a huge plus for us and free added performance for our money.*









Also keep in mind that everyone has their opinion on the matter regarding which is better or preferred. Trying to convince someone by repeating your view when both cards are so similar is subjected to opinion and beating a dead horse. To each person what's important to them will vary whether it is power consumption, fan noise, or performance based (multi-monitor or single monitor) on which games they play most and will not weigh the same to everyone else.


----------



## adridu59

After reading arguments from boh sides the 7970 seems like win to me.









(Only real issue would be games sponsored by Nvidia or games like GTAIV which often run like crap on AMD card, but that's very few games.)


----------



## Shiveron

Sweet. Good news for me.

Now if only they'd fix the damn gray screen and OpenGl issues.


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> When the GTX 680 is shown to fall in bandwidth hungry games even at 1080p like Crysis Warhead , Metro 2033 (DOF With MSAA), Dirt Showdown the only reason for choosing a GTX 680 is for power consumption. And you will be giving up future proofness because the HD 7970 is certainly more futureproof with its abundant bandwidth. So personally I think going for a GTX 680 is not a smart choice. Others can obviously differ in their opinion.


You never responded to my question in the other thread: what exactly makes you think that bandwidth is the key to future proofness of a graphics card? Crysis and Metro are old, BF3 and Max Payne 3 are new.

http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM0MDE1NTYzNTVKanB2VmxiR3ZfNF8zX2wuanBn
http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM0MDE1NTYzNTVKanB2VmxiR3ZfM18zX2wuanBn

Dirt Showdown is not about bandwidth. It is about computing power. It is a taylor made title for the 7900 series and as such, does not tell much of anything else than the close relationship between AMD and Codemasters. There is a reason for Dirt Showdown being included in AMD's "Three for Free" campaign...


----------



## diaBoliQu3

But from what I observed and read, AMD facing a lot of driver issue. Even a HD 7970 also advice me to stick to Green Camp. I know that Catalyst 12.7 does improve 7970 performance, but how is the bugs and issue? Read somewhere, HD 7970 is a great card for oc'ing. But for gaming, to many problem related to driver, and never released WHQL if compare to Nvidia. Hopefully not just the benchmark but the gaming experience. That's why I'm still dilemma choosing between GTX 670 DCUii and Sapphire HD 7970.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> You never responded to my question in the other thread: what exactly makes you think that bandwidth is the key to future proofness of a graphics card? Crysis and Metro are old, BF3 and Max Payne 3 are new.
> http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM0MDE1NTYzNTVKanB2VmxiR3ZfNF8zX2wuanBn
> http://hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM0MDE1NTYzNTVKanB2VmxiR3ZfM18zX2wuanBn
> Dirt Showdown is not about bandwidth. It is about computing power. It is a taylor made title for the 7900 series and as such, does not tell much of anything else than the close relationship between AMD and Codemasters. There is a reason for Dirt Showdown being included in AMD's "Three for Free" campaign...


So if a game is old and clearly exposes a weakness or a constraint you would ignore it. what a logic. While purchasing a card for USD 500 and wanting to run 1600p monitor or multi monitor the last thing you want is to run into bandwidth constraints.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/4

"Since the launch of the GTX 680 it's been clear that Crysis is a game that favors AMD's products and this is no clearer than with the 7970GE. AMD was already handily beating the GTX 680 here, most *likely due to the GTX 680's more limited memory bandwidth* - so the faster 7970GE widens that gap even further"

Notice the improvement from a GTX 580. Its just 20% . This is what happens when all the shading power can't be utilised because of bandwidth constraints. In most other games like BF3 GTX 680 is atleast 30 to 40% faster than GTX 580.

Lets take a recent game like Alan Wake. Its a very demanding game graphically with a state of the art engine. the features of the engine are talked about here.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,865125/Alan-Wake-PC-Better-graphics-compared-to-360-looks-great-at-60-fps/Download/

The PC version is very demanding graphically especially at 1600p where the high end cards struggle to hit 60 fps

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-7/benchmark-alan-wake.html

Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition leads by just above 10% at 1920 x 1080 High. At 1920 x 1080 Max which uses 8X MSAA the lead widens to a very significant 33%. At 256 x 1600 High the gap is still big at more than 20% . As the graphical load (AA or resolution) is increased the GTX 680 clearly falls behind.

You can ignore this weakness of the GTX 680 if you want. But thats just a personal choice. The weakness still exists and can manifest in a demanding game any time. As for Dirt Showdown you have failed to understand that heavy compute loads require lots of bandwidth. Dirt Showdown uses complex Direct Compute calculations for advanced lighting and global illumination which really pushes bandwidth requirements. I think a simple way to prove it

http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=636&pagenumber=3

At high settings the GTX 680 is faster than HD 7970. But Ultra which enables advanced lighting and global illumination places tremendous compute load . The result is the HD 7970 falls to *49* fps from 134 fps while the GTX 680 falls to *34* fps from 150.

If you still won't accept the GTX 680 is bandwidth constrained well thats fine. keep that opinion to yourself. Don't argue about it any more.









FYI Max Payne runs above 60 fps at 1600p maxed out with FXAA. Its not in any way a demanding game. *The MSAA implementation in Max Payne does not improve image quality and when used with FXAA worsens image quality. Thats why reviewers avoid MSAA with FXAA in Max Payne 3. With MSAA enabled the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is clearly faster. But its of no use because of the botched implementation of MSAA which does not provide any improvments*.









http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1527/pg10/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-graphics-card-review-max-payne-3.html

With 8X MSAA Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than GTX 680 OC by 10%. Still its of no use.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> If you are running BF3 at 1080p Nvidia might have the edge. But at 1600p not so sure.
> In crysis 2 more reviews show the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition running faster, especially at 1600p (which is where it really matters because all cards are not able to get close to even 50 fps at Ultra 4X AA).
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/9
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/14.html
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-13/benchmark-crysis-2.html
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review/20
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-7.html
> even tomshardware's review shows the GTX 680 winning at 1080p . But the gap is very close at 1600p
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-9.html


Yeah I game at 1080P.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> When the GTX 680 is shown to fall in bandwidth hungry games even at 1080p like Crysis Warhead
> .


I cant speak for Crysis Warhead but the very first Crysis in DX10 1920X1080 everything maxed out with 4XAA runs at a constant vsynced 60fps for me and only rarely dips below that when the action really picks up. I guess I will give warhead a try next. Also Dirt Showdown is nothing for the GTX 680 and while Metro 2033 doesnt run quiet as well as it does on the HD 7970 its not like its all that far behind.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> And you will be giving up future proofness because the HD 7970 is certainly more futureproof with its abundant bandwidth. So personally I think going for a GTX 680 is not a smart choice. Others can obviously differ in their opinion.


I always get a kick out of the word "futureproof" because quiet honestly nothing is entirely futureproof when it comes to PC gaming and the truth is that while the HD 7970 offers more bandwidth its really only an issue for those who game at more than 1920X1200 res. By the time bandwidth is an issue in gaming at 1920X1200 or lower both cards will be old news anyway.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *diaBoliQu3*
> 
> But from what I observed and read, AMD facing a lot of driver issue. Even a HD 7970 also advice me to stick to Green Camp. I know that Catalyst 12.7 does improve 7970 performance, but how is the bugs and issue? Read somewhere, HD 7970 is a great card for oc'ing. But for gaming, to many problem related to driver, and never released WHQL if compare to Nvidia. Hopefully not just the benchmark but the gaming experience. That's why I'm still dilemma choosing between GTX 670 DCUii and Sapphire HD 7970.


For single card configurations AMD's drivers are just fine, never had a single driver issue with my old HD 7970.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> I cant speak for Crysis Warhead but the very first Crysis in DX10 1920X1080 everything maxed out with 4XAA runs at a constant vsynced 60fps for me and only rarely dips below that when the action really picks up. I guess I will give warhead a try next. Also Dirt Showdown is nothing for the GTX 680 and while Metro 2033 doesnt run quiet as well as it does on the HD 7970 its not like its all that far behind.
> 
> I always get a kick out of the word "futureproof" because quiet honestly nothing is entirely futureproof when it comes to PC gaming and the truth is that while the HD 7970 offers more bandwidth its really only an issue for those who game at more than 1920X1200 res. By the time bandwidth is an issue in gaming at 1920X1200 or lower both cards will be old news anyway.


The mistake you are making is assuming that a USD 500 card is only for 1080p/1200p gaming. Actually the high end cards are expected to perform well at 1440p/1600p and multi monitor. Most games like BF3 are not going to stress these high end graphics cards at 1080p. You will easily get 60+ fps . You can't tell any playability differences.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/4

But push to 1600p and the demanding games start to really push these cards. BF3, Crysis 2, Alan Wake, Batman AC, Witcher 2, Anno 2070 all run at less than 60 fps. Even a 5 fps difference makes things smoother and can be felt. Its even more stressful with multi monitor gaming. So these high end cards have to be judged by their performance at high end resolutions because at lower resolutions the high end cards are all going to be rarely stressed.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> The mistake you are making is assuming that a USD 500 card is only for 1080p/1200p gaming. Actually the high end cards are expected to perform well at 1440p/1600p and multi monitor. Most games like BF3 are not going to stress these high end graphics cards at 1080p. You will easily get 60+ fps . You can't tell any playability differences.
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/4
> But push to 1600p and the demanding games start to really push these cards. BF3, Crysis 2, Alan Wake, Batman AC, Witcher 2, Anno 2070 all run at less than 60 fps. Even a 5 fps difference makes things smoother and can be felt. Its even more stressful with multi monitor gaming. So these high end cards have to be judged by their performance at high end resolutions because at lower resolutions the high end cards are all going to be rarely stressed.


Im not disagreeing with any of that at all, the HD 7970 would be my choice card if I was to go beyond 1920X1080 or 1920X1200.

Im impressed with AMD's latest drivers for the HD 7000 series too, good job to them!


----------



## Jayjr1105

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> For single card configurations AMD's drivers are just fine, never had a single driver issue with my old HD 7970.


Having driver isues with my single 7870 (i.e. Diablo 3 crashes on 12.4) But I'm on 12.7 now as well with good results.

Back on topic. Glad to see AMD pull their heads above water. Remember, competition is good for us


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jayjr1105*
> 
> Having driver isues with my single 7870 (i.e. Diablo 3 crashes on 12.4) But I'm on 12.7 now as well with good results.
> Back on topic. Glad to see AMD pull their heads above water. Remember, competition is good for us


I'm guessing you are using the leaked 12.7 beta drivers, correct? Did you get a performance boost? If so, by how much?

I'm thinking about trying it out on my 7850.


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> So if a game is old and clearly exposes a weakness or a constraint you would ignore it. what a logic. While purchasing a card for USD 500 and wanting to run 1600p monitor or multi monitor the last thing you want is to run into bandwidth constraints.
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/4
> "Since the launch of the GTX 680 it's been clear that Crysis is a game that favors AMD's products and this is no clearer than with the 7970GE. AMD was already handily beating the GTX 680 here, most *likely due to the GTX 680's more limited memory bandwidth* - so the faster 7970GE widens that gap even further"
> Notice the improvement from a GTX 580. Its just 20% . This is what happens when all the shading power can't be utilised because of bandwidth constraints. In most other games like BF3 GTX 680 is atleast 30 to 40% faster than GTX 580.
> Lets take a recent game like Alan Wake. Its a very demanding game graphically with a state of the art engine. the features of the engine are talked about here.
> http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,865125/Alan-Wake-PC-Better-graphics-compared-to-360-looks-great-at-60-fps/Download/
> The PC version is very demanding graphically especially at 1600p where the high end cards struggle to hit 60 fps
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-7/benchmark-alan-wake.html
> Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition leads by just above 10% at 1920 x 1080 High. At 1920 x 1080 Max which uses 8X MSAA the lead widens to a very significant 33%. At 256 x 1600 High the gap is still big at more than 20% . As the graphical load (AA or resolution) is increased the GTX 680 clearly falls behind.
> You can ignore this weakness of the GTX 680 if you want. But thats just a personal choice. The weakness still exists and can manifest in a demanding game any time. As for Dirt Showdown you have failed to understand that heavy compute loads require lots of bandwidth. Dirt Showdown uses complex Direct Compute calculations for advanced lighting and global illumination which really pushes bandwidth requirements. I think a simple way to prove it
> http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=636&pagenumber=3
> At high settings the GTX 680 is faster than HD 7970. But Ultra which enables advanced lighting and global illumination places tremendous compute load . The result is the HD 7970 falls to *49* fps from 134 fps while the GTX 680 falls to *34* fps from 150.
> If you still won't accept the GTX 680 is bandwidth constrained well thats fine. keep that opinion to yourself. Don't argue about it any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI Max Payne runs above 60 fps at 1600p maxed out with FXAA. Its not in any way a demanding game. *The MSAA implementation in Max Payne does not improve image quality and when used with FXAA worsens image quality. Thats why reviewers avoid MSAA with FXAA in Max Payne 3. With MSAA enabled the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is clearly faster. But its of no use because of the botched implementation of MSAA which does not provide any improvments*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1527/pg10/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-graphics-card-review-max-payne-3.html
> With 8X MSAA Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster than GTX 680 OC by 10%. Still its of no use.


I do not ignore Metro 2033. In fact, I am one of the rather few who still play Metro, it's an awesome game. What I do not do, however, is take it for the future of PC gaming. I'm sure Last Light will continue more or less down the same path, but that don't change the fact that bandwidth hungry games haven't exactly taken the PC gaming by storm. Metro 2033 was published more than two years ago. Crysis was published in 2007 and Warhead in 2008.

What I also do not do is take Alan Wake as a modern day PC graphics milestone. The game was published for X360 in May 2010 and ported to PC around that time, as well. For various reasons, the PC version was published only recently, but that doesn't make it a fresh title. It is a two year old console port. Those have a tendency to run poorly at 1600p. Still, a great game made by my fellow countrymen.

As for Dirt Showdown, the main reason why it runs poorly on GTX 680 is that it was basicly designed to run poorly on GTX 680. GTX 680 does not have the computing power that the ultra settings require. Bandwidth might or might not have something to do with it as well but it is not the actual reason for GTX 680's troubles. If there ever were two titles that should be ignored when comparing ATI/AMD vs nVidia, those would be HAWX2 and Dirt Showdown. Crysis 2 was up there, too but since GCN it seems a more or less balanced title between the two.

I do not ignore the bandwidth restrictions of the GTX 680. That is the reason I don't recommend it for resolutions above FullHD or rather 1920x1200. On the other hand, you seem to ignore the fact that bandwidth is just one possible bottleneck for a graphics card. True, all the shading power in the world won't do much good if the card doesn't have the bandwidth to go with it. You would be wise to remember that the opposite is true as well: excessive bandwidth won't do any good for a card lacking the shader power. It's a balancing act and it's clear AMD and nVidia are not in agreement as to what the optimal ratio is or should be.

What you are also ignoring is that even for the high-end GPUs it's not all about the 1600p. FullHD is the most popular resolution and it can be a demanding resolution. There are many, many games and gaming scenarios that don't run at constant 60+ FPS at FullHD, one of them (but not the most demanding, not by a long shot) being Max Payne 3. If you were to look at the [H] graph I posted, you would see that even there it shows dips below 60FPS. What's more, 60FPS is not the be-all-end-all framerate goal. 120Hz displays are aplenty these days and there most definitely is a visual difference between 60FPS and 120FPS on one of those.

Lastly: please, do not tell me to keep my opinion to myself. As far as I'm aware, you do not dictate the opinions that are worthy of being published. You seem very vocal about your opinions and the least you can do is have the decency to allow the same for others.


----------



## Jayjr1105

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xerb*
> 
> I'm guessing you are using the leaked 12.7 beta drivers, correct? Did you get a performance boost? If so, by how much?
> I'm thinking about trying it out on my 7850.


Honestly I think my 3dmark scores were about the same as they were with 12.6 beta. I think the 7950 and 7970 owners are seeing the big increases. If you are rock solid stable I wouldn't upgrade to 12.7. I did it because I couldn't play D3 without crashes on 12.4


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> Lastly: please, do not tell me to keep my opinion to myself. As far as I'm aware, you do not dictate the opinions that are worthy of being published. You seem very vocal about your opinions and the least you can do is have the decency to allow the same for others.


I fully agree.


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jayjr1105*
> 
> Honestly I think my 3dmark scores were about the same as they were with 12.6 beta. I think the 7950 and 7970 owners are seeing the big increases. If you are rock solid stable I wouldn't upgrade to 12.7. I did it because I couldn't play D3 without crashes on 12.4


I'll give it a try when I get home.


----------



## grifers

http://ht4u.net/reviews/2012/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_tahiti_2/index5.php


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> I do not ignore Metro 2033. In fact, I am one of the rather few who still play Metro, it's an awesome game. What I do not do, however, is take it for the future of PC gaming. I'm sure Last Light will continue more or less down the same path, but that don't change the fact that bandwidth hungry games haven't exactly taken the PC gaming by storm. Metro 2033 was published more than two years ago. Crysis was published in 2007 and Warhead in 2008.


What I see is you are telling games like Metro 2033 and Metro Last Light (2013) don't matter because they are the minority. I cannot agree with that. When a title exposes a certain weakness in a graphics card just acknowledge it and move on.
Quote:


> What I also do not do is take Alan Wake as a modern day PC graphics milestone. The game was published for X360 in May 2010 and ported to PC around that time, as well. For various reasons, the PC version was published only recently, but that doesn't make it a fresh title. It is a two year old console port. Those have a tendency to run poorly at 1600p. Still, a great game made by my fellow countrymen.


" a two year old console port has tendency to run poorly at 1600p". Thats the most ridiculous statement. Have you played Alan Wake on the PC. I have played it. I would rate the PC version graphics as one of the best in recent times. Remedy Entertainment took their own time to make significant improvements to the PC version wrt Xbox 360. Textures are much higher resolution which means images look crisper. More options for improved lighting and anti aliasing (FXAA) are present. The result is a much better experience. So please don't comment just for the sake of arguing.

http://asia.gamespot.com/alan-wake/reviews/alan-wake-review-6351154/

"Exploring the diverse terrain through each distinct area, often with little more than a flashlight or dim lamp in the distance to light the way, is simply captivating. These remote vistas were hauntingly beautiful on the Xbox 360, but the extra visual details, enhanced lighting, and overall crispness found in the PC version make it even more impressive"

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,865125/Alan-Wake-PC-Better-graphics-compared-to-360-looks-great-at-60-fps/Download/

Since I don't know whether you read the interview before replying I am going to quote the improvements from the Xbox version

PCGH: As far as we know Alan Wake features a state of the art Deferred Renderer including FP16-HDR, Screen-Space Ambient Occlusion, a great Motion Blur, amazing Dynamic Shadows, Depth of Field and more. Can you confirm that and can we besides these effects expect other rendering technologies like soft filtered Dynamic Shadows or over again better Lighting for PC version?

Markus Mäki, Remedy: The engine is pretty advanced, and there are some nice quality settings we can turn up on the PC - *for example God Rays were enabled on the Xbox360 in only some specific locations, on the PC they can be on at all times.*

PCGH: What is your personal highlight of the renderer? The Lighting and Shadows, the extremely far view distance (I guess it was about 2 km according to Remedy), the fantastic volumetric fog system or something completely different? By the way we love the Hide HUD feature!

Markus Mäki, Remedy: I'm proud of quite a few things in the renderer. My favourite perhaps is deferred shading combined with MSAA. I also like the dynamic range of tones and "feelings" we can get out of the engine. And of course the landscape and foliage system, how it's "procedural but artist controllable" allowing the wide range of scenery and large landscapes.

PCGH: Remedy's Markus confirmed FXAA in the company's forums and talked about MSAA in case of Deferred Rendering; the Console version utilizes Multisampling-Antialiasing and also Alpha to Coverage for Alan's hairs. Will the PC version of Alan in fact be shipped with support for MSAA, FXAA and A2C?

Markus Mäki, Remedy: Yes, Alan Wake PC will be shipped with MSAA, FXAA and A2C - on DX9.

PCGH: *The Console version of Alan Wake is locked at 30 Fps* with double-buffered Vertical Sync and Remedy confirmed double-buffered Vertical Sync also for PC version. Can we expect an unlocked framerate in case of the PC version or will there be a (Vsync) cap at 30 or 60 Fps?

Markus Mäki, Remedy: *The frame rate is not locked to 30 or 60 and there is a option to turn Vsync off in-game. It looks great at 60fps*.

PCGH: Will there be noticeable differences between the Console and PC version of Alan Wake as far as technology and visuals are concerned (e.g. high res textures)? What special effects, graphics and technical features can only be rendered by the PC's powerful hardware?

Markus Mäki, Remedy: While the content and engine are in principle unchanged, *we can turn the quality and resolution up in quite a few areas - I mentioned God Rays earlier, and FXAA was also mentioned, but there are a few other settings that make the game prettier. On a high end graphics card you can boost the quality of things like volumetric light and SSAO*.

Quote:


> As for Dirt Showdown, the main reason why it runs poorly on GTX 680 is that it was basicly designed to run poorly on GTX 680. GTX 680 does not have the computing power that the ultra settings require. Bandwidth might or might not have something to do with it as well but it is not the actual reason for GTX 680's troubles. If there ever were two titles that should be ignored when comparing ATI/AMD vs nVidia, those would be HAWX2 and Dirt Showdown. Crysis 2 was up there, too but since GCN it seems a more or less balanced title between the two.


You are making an even more ridiculous statement. Dirt Showdown released on May 25, 2012. Obviously if you have a clue about game development you would not make such a statement. Developing a high end PC/console game is not a 3 month or 6 month affair. Its usually a multi year affair. Dirt 3 released in May 2011. Even though there are yearly releases of popular franchises like Dirt they are run as parallel projects in development. I mean to say Dirt Showdown must have been in development before May 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirt:_Showdown

"The announcement trailer was released on YouTube on 11 December 2011"

So you see the game must have been close to beta stage in Dec 2011. Because testing video games and quality assurance is a tedious and time consuming process. They usually take atleast 6 months. There is no way Dirt showdown could have been developed knowing GTX 680's architecture or weaknesses by any stretch of imagination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHBml7qvVow

Dirt showdown uses a new rendering method called FORWARD+ rendering which AMD used in its LEO demo. Forward+ rendering and its advantages is explained at 00:44:00 . They also discuss Dirt Showdown at 00:51:00. The improvements using advanced lighting and global illumination are shown too.
Quote:


> I do not ignore the bandwidth restrictions of the GTX 680. That is the reason I don't recommend it for resolutions above FullHD or rather 1920x1200. On the other hand, you seem to ignore the fact that bandwidth is just one possible bottleneck for a graphics card. True, all the shading power in the world won't do much good if the card doesn't have the bandwidth to go with it. You would be wise to remember that the opposite is true as well: excessive bandwidth won't do any good for a card lacking the shader power. It's a balancing act and it's clear AMD and nVidia are not in agreement as to what the optimal ratio is or should be.


So effectively you recommend a USD 500 GTX 680 card for 1080p/1200p. For higher resolutions you feel its not the best. You are only making it easy to prove my point. And that is to be competing at the high end of the graphics market performance at the high resolutions should be judged.

Quote:


> What you are also ignoring is that even for the high-end GPUs it's not all about the 1600p. FullHD is the most popular resolution and it can be a demanding resolution. There are many, many games and gaming scenarios that don't run at constant 60+ FPS at FullHD, one of them (but not the most demanding, not by a long shot) being Max Payne 3. If you were to look at the [H] graph I posted, you would see that even there it shows dips below 60FPS. What's more, 60FPS is not the be-all-end-all framerate goal. 120Hz displays are aplenty these days and there most definitely is a visual difference between 60FPS and 120FPS on one of those.


This argument of 1080p being the most popular resoultion is evading the topic. For that matter the most popular graphics card segment by volume of graphics cards sold is USD 200 - 300. We aren't talking about those price brackets. We are talking about USD 500 high end flagship cards from both companies AMD and Nvidia. So you better deliver performance at ultra high resolutions when you are charging top dollar for the product and positioning it at the high end of the market.

I play Max Payne 3 maxed out at 1080p with FXAA and I have to say the game runs very very smooth at 60 fps. An occasional fall to 50 fps does not in any way affect my gaming experience .I do not believe Max Payne 3 is demanding by any stretch of imagination. No where near Alan Wake, BF3 or Crysis 2
Quote:


> Lastly: please, do not tell me to keep my opinion to myself. As far as I'm aware, you do not dictate the opinions that are worthy of being published. You seem very vocal about your opinions and the least you can do is have the decency to allow the same for others.


fine. agreed.


----------



## CULLEN

http://www.overclock.net/t/1272206/q-fully-overclocked-gtx680-vs-hd7970

Bottom line, pick out your card based on what games you play. At first I would have taken the GTX680 since it performed better in BF3 but today I'd probably go for the HD7970 since they are almost identical in BF3 and over all the HD7970 GHz is a more powerful card..


----------



## Penryn

Let's keep this discussion civil. Thanks~


----------



## specopsFI

raghu78,

Alan Wake is a console port. Everything you quoted from that article screams "console port!" I have played Alan Wake both on X360 and PC. I also know a thing or two about Alan Wake beyond the main stream marketing articles, being it is one of the biggest Finnish game projects of all times and I am a Finn interested in such projects.

To put your quoting in perspective, let's take the key sentence out of all that. You quote it like this: "While the content and engine are in principle unchanged, *we can turn the quality and resolution up in quite a few areas - I mentioned God Rays earlier, and FXAA was also mentioned, but there are a few other settings that make the game prettier.*" Now let me bold what I see is the key: "*While the content and engine are in principle unchanged*, we can turn the quality and resolution up in quite a few areas - I mentioned God Rays earlier, and FXAA was also mentioned, but there are a few other settings that make the game prettier." Yup, that's console porting for you right there.

Dirt Showdown is taylor made for the 7900 series cards. What that in effect means it is taylor made against nVidia's top cards. That doesn't have anything to do with when the game was done or published. You even said it yourself: Dirt Showdown uses a new rendering method which AMD used in its LEO demo. Can it be any more obvious? Is it a coincidence that Showdown is the main title in AMD's game bundle? Is it a coincidence that AMD specifically asked the 7970GE reviewers to include Showdown in their articles?

I do recommend GTX 680 for gaming at 1920-resolutions. If one is gaming at such a resolution, one does not need to worry about what their graphics card can do with 2560-resolutions and up. So if a FullHD gamer wants to know which card is the best for him/her, I do not lash out my view of all the possible aspects of high-end gaming. For that specific need, GTX 680 is the best card, even though GTX 670 is usually an even better deal.

I play at FullHD. I play with 7970 OC CF. Overkill? Probably, in your perspective. Obviously I don't agree. There is no absolute need for such graphics power, but it does provide that extra push to max out, tweak and mod games to their full potential. And why no GTX 680 SLI? Because I got an absolutely brilliant deal on the 7970s. I am not a fan, I am a consumer.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> raghu78,
> Alan Wake is a console port. Everything you quoted from that article screams "console port!" I have played Alan Wake both on X360 and PC. I also know a thing or two about Alan Wake beyond the main stream marketing articles, being it is one of the biggest Finnish game projects of all times and I am a Finn interested in such projects.


What does console porting have to do with a game being demanding on the PC. If a game is a console port does it make it a lesser game. In fact the PC version is the better version compared to Xbox 360. Why is it such a problem to accept that GTX 680 just performs poorly in this game at max settings and at higher resolutions.
Quote:


> Dirt Showdown is taylor made for the 7900 series cards. What that in effect means it is taylor made against nVidia's top cards. That doesn't have anything to do with when the game was done or published. You even said it yourself: Dirt Showdown uses a new rendering method which AMD used in its LEO demo. Can it be any more obvious? Is it a coincidence that Showdown is the main title in AMD's game bundle? Is it a coincidence that AMD specifically asked the 7970GE reviewers to include Showdown in their articles


So according to you Forward+ rendering should not be used because AMD developed it. This is absurd. When a new rendering method gives you the best features of deferred rendering without the drawbacks of it you chose to just plainly ignore it. Thats a fantastic logic. So any more games in future which use forward+ rendering should be ignored acording to you. So any improvements in lighting performance which can be had by forward+ rendering should be ignored by developers. I can't make any sense of that argument. And in future when GTX 780 based on GK110 does extremely well with its compute architecture and huge bandwidth we should revert back to accepting titles like Dirt Showdown. very convenient.
Quote:


> I do recommend GTX 680 for gaming at 1920-resolutions. If one is gaming at such a resolution, one does not need to worry about what their graphics card can do with 2560-resolutions and up. So if a FullHD gamer wants to know which card is the best for him/her, I do not lash out my view of all the possible aspects of high-end gaming. For that specific need, GTX 680 is the best card, even though GTX 670 is usually an even better deal.


There are games at 1080p (Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Dirt Showdown) where GTX 680 falls behind clearly because of architectural choices (compute) or chip level design choices (256 bit memory). You can choose to ignore them. Every user can make his choices. But if they make after knowing about it thats better.
Quote:


> I play at FullHD. I play with 7970 OC CF. Overkill? Probably, in your perspective. Obviously I don't agree. There is no absolute need for such graphics power, but it does provide that extra push to max out, tweak and mod games to their full potential. And why no GTX 680 SLI? Because I got an absolutely brilliant deal on the 7970s. I am not a fan, I am a consumer.


If you are enjoying your HD 7970 CF good for you. Personally I am happy with my HD 6950 2GB running a 1080p monitor. Other than BF3 which I played at Ultra 2X MSAA I can run all the other games maxed out. I have played Deus Ex, Alan Wake, Metro 2033, COD MW3, Rage, Skyrim, Batman AC, Crysis 2.Batman AC and Crysis 2 games I played the DX9 version when the games launched. I am currently playing Max Payne 3 maxed out with FXAA. Its running very smooth at 60 fps. for me this is enough.


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> What does console porting have to do with a game being demanding on the PC. If a game is a console port does it make it a lesser game. In fact the PC version is the better version compared to Xbox 360. Why is it such a problem to accept that GTX 680 just performs poorly in this game at max settings and at higher resolutions.


So you seriously are taking a X360 console port as a sign of what future proof PC gaming is all about? That is a much more pessimistic view on the future of PC gaming than I am willing to allow. I do not deny that 7970 is stronger than GTX 680 in Alan Wake, of that there is more than enough proof, but I do not give that fact any more weight than that of one console port title giving the edge to the Tahiti. It is not an indication of things to come, IMHO. Besides, Alan Wake is not exactly unplayable in 1920x1200 with a GTX 680, either. You would do well to take note: I'm only recommending the Keplers for gaming at or below 1920x1200.
Quote:


> So according to you Forward+ rendering should not be used because AMD developed it. This is absurd. When a new rendering method gives you the best features of deferred rendering without the drawbacks of it you chose to just plainly ignore it. Thats a fantastic logic. So any more games in future which use forward+ rendering should be ignored acording to you. So any improvements in lighting performance which can be had by forward+ rendering should be ignored by developers. I can't make any sense of that argument. And in future when GTX 780 based on GK110 does extremely well with its compute architecture and huge bandwidth we should revert back to accepting titles like Dirt Showdown. very convenient.


So according to you, there is not a single problem taking the only game using this AMD tech and reporting it as the future of PC rendering? Talk about logic. When (or rather if) AAA titles using Forward+ start to pop out, I'll get back to this. I seriously doubt they will, if not for any other reason then because a rendering method that runs like crap on the flagship GPU of the discrete graphics market leader is not a great improvement with no drawbacks. As it is, Dirt Showdown is an AMD title through and through, still not a sign of things to come.
Quote:


> There are games at 1080p (Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Dirt Showdown) where GTX 680 falls behind clearly because of architectural choices (compute) or chip level design choices (256 bit memory). You cn choose to ignore them. Every user can make his choices. But if they make after knowing about it thats better.


There are even more titles where the GTX 680 comes ahead of the 7970 because of its architectural choices. Then there is the fact that GTX 680 absolutely thrashes the 7970 in power consumption especially when both are overclocked. That's also mainly because of architectural choices. In my opinion, the Kepler architecture fits FullHD gaming better than the Tahiti's and that is the basis for my recommendations.
Quote:


> If you are enjoying your HD 7970 CF good for you. Personally I am happy with my HD 6950 2GB running a 1080p monitor. Other than BF3 which I played at Ultra 2X MSAA I can run all the other games maxed out. I have played Deus Ex, Alan Wake, Metro 2033, COD MW3, Rage, Skyrim, Batman AC, Crysis 2.Batman AC and Crysis 2 games I played the DX9 version when the games launched. I am currently playing Max Payne 3 maxed out with FXAA. Its running very smooth at 60 fps. for me this is enough.


I've had a couple of 6950's (not in CF though) and a 6970. With the titles I play there were more of those where I couldn't max out the settings than there were ones I could. That's not a satisfactory situation to me. I know for a fact that you can not max out Metro 2033 and play it through with a single 6950. We are talking single digits FPS there. I also will not play in DX9 if there is the possibility to use DX11. Also, it seems that not even a GTX 680 or 7970GE can get constant 60+ FPS in Max Payne 3 with FXAA. Still, if it makes you happy, I've got no problem with that.


----------



## superericla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> Overclock the 7970 to 1300mhz and the GTX680 can't touch it. 1300mhz on the newer cards won't be as hard and the original. The fact that the 7970 is getting closer to the gtx680 with every driver update, and the fact that its a overclocking monster and you got the fastest card money can buy.
> I wouldn't be running GTX470's if I was relaying on stock clocks, same would go for the 7970s.


And then what happens when you overclock the GTX680 to 1300MHz as well? Mine can make it well past 1300.


----------



## Acefire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superericla*
> 
> And then what happens when you overclock the GTX680 to 1300MHz as well? Mine can make it well past 1300.


Performance doesn't scale as well as the 7970. 7970 @ 1300mhz is better.


----------



## superericla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Acefire*
> 
> Performance doesn't scale as well as the 7970. 7970 @ 1300mhz is better.


Proof?
This review says differently. It compares a 7970 to a GTX680 at the same clocks and the 680 comes out on top in every bench they ran. Sure, it's using older drivers, but the point still remains.


----------



## Arizonian

I'm sorry but I can't imagine that game developers are going to alienate either card company by ignoring any limitations from either AMD nor Nvidia. It's also subjectional to a lot of speculation.

An example of this would be PhysX. Even though it was well supported on a hardware level as well as a good idea you didn't see game developers rushing out PyhsX games only. No amount of R&D money could change that and you only have a few strong game titles that use it today. Those that do, allow for an option to turn it 'off'. Game developers were not ready to leave behind money on the table by making PhysX games only that would have left AMD users from playing thier games. AMD has even less R&D money to make up for the diffence that game delveoprs would lose by implementing bandwidth hungry or heavy compute games only either. Nvidia couldn't squeeze out AMD from the picture because thier hardware wasn't capable and you will see the same hold true on the flip side.

Just like you won't see game developers rush to create games consoles can't play well and PC's that software will choke out either AMD or Nvidia.

Most importantly the points made are going off topic from "current" beta driver performance from "current" games out today. So I ask if this is a passionate discussion a new post should be made rather derail this one that's been clouded.


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superericla*
> 
> Proof?
> This review says differently. It compares a 7970 to a GTX680 at the same clocks and the 680 comes out on top in every bench they ran. Sure, it's using older drivers, but the point still remains.


It doesnt, the point of this thread is the new drivers.

I think the 7970GE and GTX680 are more or less on par at resolutions of 1920x1200 and lower
I think the 7970GE is faster then a GTX680 at resolutions higher then 1920x1200.

One thing i noticed in reviews and people's comments here is that a 7970 would be so much more noisy.
I find it wierd that nobody complains about the Nvidia reference coolers that even make an anoying rattling noise when idle.
Yes at full load an AMD card is louder but it doesnt make any noise when idle like an Nvidia card.

Fact is for me, both AMD and Nvidia's reference coolers are crap.


----------



## Renairy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *superericla*
> 
> Proof?
> This review says differently. It compares a 7970 to a GTX680 at the same clocks and the 680 comes out on top in every bench they ran. Sure, it's using older drivers, but the point still remains.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt, the point of this thread is the new drivers.
> 
> I think the 7970GE and GTX680 are more or less on par at resolutions of 1920x1200 and lower
> I think the 7970GE is faster then a GTX680 at resolutions higher then 1920x1200.
> 
> One thing i noticed in reviews and people's comments here is that a 7970 would be so much more noisy.
> I find it wierd that nobody complains about the Nvidia reference coolers that even make an anoying rattling noise when idle.
> Yes at full load an AMD card is louder but it doesnt make any noise when idle like an Nvidia card.
> 
> Fact is for me, both AMD and Nvidia's reference coolers are crap.
Click to expand...

I dno wat rattling sound ur on about mate but my two 680's are dead silent at idle and absolutely bearable in game compared to AMD's.
I think EK, Koolance wasted time and metals making water blocks for the 680's cause ill tell u now.... They dnt need em!


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> I'm sorry but I can't imagine that game developers are going to alienate either card company by ignoring any limitations from either AMD nor Nvidia. It's also subjectional to a lot of speculation.
> An example of this would be PhysX. Even though it was well supported on a hardware level as well as a good idea you didn't see game developers rushing out PyhsX games only. No amount of R&D money could change that and you only have a few strong game titles that use it today. Those that do, allow for an option to turn it 'off'. Game developers were not ready to leave behind money on the table by making PhysX games only that would have left AMD users from playing thier games. AMD has even less R&D money to make up for the diffence that game delveoprs would lose by implementing bandwidth hungry or heavy compute games only either. Nvidia couldn't squeeze out AMD from the picture because thier hardware wasn't capable and you will see the same hold true on the flip side.
> Just like you won't see game developers rush to create games consoles can't play well and PC's that software will choke out either AMD or Nvidia.
> Most importantly the points made are going off topic from "current" beta driver performance from "current" games out today. So I ask if this is a passionate discussion a new post should be made rather derail this one that's been clouded.


yes I agree that the argument is going from whether the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition is faster with catalyst 12.7 to the particular games where AMD has commanding leads. But thats inevitable because people always are trying to take a side. So in trying to prove the GTX 680 is not signficantly slower they resort to talking down the title in which HD 7970 has significant leads. Anyway I take this as a advice from you to just let things be as they are and not precipitate the matter.


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> Fact is for *US*, both AMD and Nvidia's reference coolers are crap.


This.

Who buys reference coolers these days, especially on high-end cards? Just get a nice twin frozr for an extra $20.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Penryn*
> 
> Let's keep this discussion civil. Thanks~


Not possible when the words "Radeon" and "Nvidia" are in the same title, IMO.


----------



## Penryn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xerb*
> 
> This.
> Who buys reference coolers these days, especially on high-end cards? Just get a nice twin frozr for an extra $20.
> Not possible when the words "Radeon" and "Nvidia" are in the same title, IMO.


My reference cooler is just fine and I am running at 1100mhz on stock volts. Nice and quiet and keeps me at around 75C with 3 screens.









And civilized debate on the merits of graphics cards can be had without personally attacking each other for those that are mature enough to do so.


----------



## inertia

Quote:


> And civilized debate on the merits of graphics cards can be had without personally attacking each other for those that are mature enough to do so. thumb.gif


I do agree, however not on ocn.......









Can't wait getting a 680 jetstream this friday.

Going all out this generation, last generation I couldn't afford the the 580 so had to settle for the 6970/570.
Went with the 6970 cause I would rather have best from one team than second best from the other


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Renairy*
> 
> I dno wat rattling sound ur on about mate but my two 680's are dead silent at idle and absolutely bearable in game compared to AMD's.
> I think EK, Koolance wasted time and metals making water blocks for the 680's cause ill tell u now.... They dnt need em!


Google it, GTX670 and GTX680 noise... its more commen with the GTX670 though but there are lots of people complaining about this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xerb*
> 
> This.
> Who buys reference coolers these days, especially on high-end cards? Just get a nice twin frozr for an extra $20.


I always buy reference cards so i know for sure aftermarket coolers and waterblocks fit.
A twin Frozr cooler is still a rather crappy cooler IMO compared to an aftermarket cooler from Arctic or Gelid and such.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inertia*
> 
> Quote:
> Went with the 6970 cause I would rather have best from one team than second best from the other


Lol, i like your reasoning


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *inertia*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> And civilized debate on the merits of graphics cards can be had without personally attacking each other for those that are mature enough to do so. thumb.gif
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree, however not on ocn.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait getting a 680 jetstream this friday.
> Going all out this generation, last generation I couldn't afford the the 580 so had to settle for the 6970/570.
> Went with the 6970 cause I would rather have best from one team than second best from the other
Click to expand...

If you have not yet purchased a GTX 680 you should consider getting a HD 7970. AMD driver performance and new titles like Dirt Showdown are clearly highlighting the superiority of the HD 7970 architecture. Also if you are in the US some excellent deals can be had on the HD 7970 .

XFX HD 7970 DD - USD 460 (USD 440 with mail in rebate)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150596

XFX HD 7970 Black edition(1 Ghz) - USD 480 (USD 460 with mail in rebate)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150586

Sapphire HD 7970 OC (1 Ghz) - USD 480
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102982

I suggest you read a few reviews of the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition before making the purchase.


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> If you have not yet purchased a GTX 680 you should consider getting a HD 7970. AMD driver performance and new titles like Dirt Showdown are clearly highlighting the superiority of the HD 7970 architecture. Also if you are in the US some excellent deals can be had on the HD 7970 .
> XFX HD 7970 DD - USD 460 (USD 440 with mail in rebate)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150596
> XFX HD 7970 Black edition(1 Ghz) - USD 480 (USD 460 with mail in rebate)
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150586
> Sapphire HD 7970 OC (1 Ghz) - USD 480
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102982
> I suggest you read a few reviews of the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition before making the purchase.


Just to set the record straight: there are no new titles like Dirt Showdown, with the lone exception of Dirt Showdown.


----------



## Arizonian

It's clear some love thier 7970's and 680's but it's misleading to say that only the 7970's are of value. Both GPU's are are doing great and have thier strengths and weaknesses. Yes I said both have weaknesses. No cookie cutter answer as being suggested is true when you take the fact it's boiling down to a performance going back and forth with driver updates.

When you take all the games out there and not base it off one game you'll see they are both closely on par. As I've read both sides of the arguments in this thread I don't see either a clear winner of perfomance and I see no loser regardless which is purchased. You pick a poision this round.


----------



## Bloodys

Bouth video cards are same good.
All depends on drivers ....atm ATI released better ones well Nvidia will release better ones also...talking about 1-5fps diference is dumb.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> Google it, GTX670 and GTX680 noise... its more commen with the GTX670 though but there are lots of people complaining about this.


Personally when I had a GTX 680 with the stock cooler I never experienced any of that either, not saying it doesnt happen to some. Now to be fair google "coil whine HD 7970" and see how many hits you get, hd 7970 has a very common issue with coil whine which to me is a far more annoying problem to have because it is one that cannot be fixed most of the time.


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Personally when I had a GTX 680 with the stock cooler I never experienced any of that either, not saying it doesnt happen to some. Now to be fair google "coil whine HD 7970" and see how many hits you get, hd 7970 has a very common issue with coil whine which to me is a far more annoying problem to have because it is one that cannot be fixed most of the time.


Yes thats VERY anoying to.

Havent had it yet with any new AMD card that has past through my hands though, [about 12] This MSI GTX670 i have does have a coil whine at full load, luckely when i overclock it just slightly its gone. Also this is the only GTX670 that i had here with coil whine, all others dit not have it either, including the GTX680

I didnt mean to rant about the Nvidia GTX670/680 reference coolers, [In my eyes all reference coolers are crap anyways] i just found it strange that people compare heat produced by both cards and the noise levels at full load but never looked at how much noise alot of Nvidia reference coolers make when idle compared to AMD. Noise levels at idle are almost just important to me as noise levels at full load.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> Yes thats VERY anoying to.
> Havent had it yet with any new AMD card that has past through my hands though, [about 12] This MSI GTX670 i have does have a coil whine at full load, luckely when i overclock it just slightly its gone. Also this is the only GTX670 that i had here with coil whine, all others dit not have it either, including the GTX680
> I didnt mean to rant about the Nvidia GTX670/680 reference coolers, [In my eyes all reference coolers are crap anyways] i just found it strange that people compare heat produced by both cards and the noise levels at full load but never looked at how much noise alot of Nvidia reference coolers make when idle compared to AMD. Noise levels at idle are almost just important to me as noise levels at full load.


I totally understand where your coming from, its cool man.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Heat and noise issues are only relevant to people who are running reference coolers. I definitely know which card I'd rather water cool (mostly because with locked voltage there is not much point in water cooing the 680's). The 7970's under water absolutely own the 680's (until the Classy comes out that is)...


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The 7970's under water absolutely own the 680's (until the Classy comes out that is)...


That isnt true and you dont need to place the HD 7970 under water for extreme overclocking either.










My old HD 7970 maxed out at 1275mhz core with the voltage as far as I could push it via software and my absolute highest load temp after hours of heavy gaming/benching was 52c for the core and 67c for the VRM's. So temps certainly were not my limiting factor in my overclock, the core just simply wouldnt go any further. Now on the other hand we have I have seen plenty of 680's hitting 1300-1350mhz core on stock cooling as well as some really good HD 7970's doing the same. Too say either card owns the other after overclocking is just bad info.

Anyway, the best part about these arctic coolers is that they are cheaper than water cooling and not nearly as much hassle plus its definently safer. Water is only really a benefit if the core runs hot to begin with and that simply isnt the case with either of the new cards from NV or ATI.

Only issue some might have is the fact that this particular cooler needs 3 slots but if your just running a single card config its not really an issue.


----------



## narmour

Both cards are awesome, nobody is going to be disappointed with either purchase. Interesting though if this is the case.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *narmour*
> 
> Both cards are awesome, nobody is going to be disappointed with either purchase. Interesting though if this is the case.


Thats the problem with these discussions, you have certain people from both camps trying to say that one is sooooooo much better than the other when the truth is that its a very very close match this go round and either choice will be a GOOD choice.


----------



## Hokies83

Umm you do know there is a Gtx 680 4gb now...


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hokies83*
> 
> Umm you do know there is a Gtx 680 4gb now...


Yep, also a 4gb 670.


----------



## Penryn

According to one of OCNs members who tested a few games with 680s and 7970s at multi monitor resolutions, 4GB won't mean anything. His tests showed VRAM usage on most games below 2GB. Also, at higher resolutions, as previously stated by many reviewers the 7970 is a better choice for most games, not all. For anyone on a single screen, if you have the nerve to complain about a single card with either the 680 or 7970, you need to reconsider your life.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*
> 
> Still doing some more testing. Seems there are a ton of quirks. Like Crysis 2 crashes with DX11 but runs pretty good DX9. BF3 seems a little better with 12.6 vs 12.7 but I wouldn't call it very smooth.
> Witcher 2 is just abysmal with both. Shows 100 FPS but plays like 15 FPS. WoW in quad-fire gets less FPS than 2 cards and has unplayable hitching. In 2 cards it runs great though. Skyrim will only use a max of 2 GPU's no matter what I do.
> Diablo 3 runs great though In Quad fire LOL I get over 220 FPS with all settings maxed.
> So far a mixed bag, not overly impressed. Also might be a bit of me losing interest in multi-screen gaming. Eyefinity was a pain to set up. Had to use the custom .sys file to get past the pixel clock limit and I found out the 330 MHz Accel adapters don't all overclock the same. Then I get the standard AMD "DP link degradation blah blah" with the adapter 6 inches from the DP output. Don't even know how that's possible. Then the monitor goes black and/or glitches show up.
> I might just pick the two fastest Lightnings and run those single screen. Going to try tr-fire now and see what I get.
> In testing 2x 7970's beat out 2x 680's at this resolution besides Skyrim (first number is FPS, second VRAM usage):
> Skyrim - All Ultra/4x MSAA
> 2x 680- 72/1863
> 2x 7970- 55/1942
> 4x 7970- Doesn't work
> BF3 - Texture H/Shadow M/Effects L/Mesh L/Terrain L/Decor L/MSAA 0X/FXAA H/BLur Off/AF 16X/HBAO
> 2x 680- 59/1848
> 2x 7970- 69/1876
> Diabo III - All in-game settings maxed
> 2x 680- 109/1242
> 2x 7970- 112/1247
> 4x 7970- 224
> Metro2033 - Normal/0x MSAA
> 2x 680- 82/1323
> 2x 7970- 93/1342
> Witcher 2 Enhanced - Medium
> 2x 680- 39/1491
> 2x 7970- 49/1377
> 4x 7970- 92 - Stuttering mess unplayable
> Crysis 2 - High/DX11/Texture Pack
> 2x 680- 60/2025
> 2x 7970- 63/2515
> 4x 7970- DX11 Crash, DX9 works well 110 FPS
> WoW - Max/4x MSAA
> 2x 680- 107/1702
> 2x 7970- 134/1675
> 4x 7970- 126 - Low GPU usage and hitching
> I'd say 2x 7970's at stock average around 5-20% faster speed than 2x 680's at stock.


----------



## Renairy

Bad testing is bad.... At what clocks and since wen does the 7970 win by that much?


----------



## Mygaffer

Lets all be very honest with ourselves and each other and say they are essentially equal. One performs better in a couple games, the other performs better a in couple other games. But switching from one to the other is not going to make a playable game unplayable or an unplayable game playable.

They are as close as close can be in this industry.


----------



## sugarhell

Its the bandwidth that slow down gtx680. Thats why 7970 wins at higher resolution.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> Lets all be very honest with ourselves and each other and say they are essentially equal. One performs better in a couple games, the other performs better a in couple other games. But switching from one to the other is not going to make a playable game unplayable or an unplayable game playable.
> They are as close as close can be in this industry.


Not really with the latest drivers AMD simply has the faster card with the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition, more so at 1600p and multi monitor. check these games in all reviews. Dirt 3, Skyrim, Alan Wake, Deus Ex, Batman AC (8X MSAA), Witcher 2, Witcher 2 EE, Anno 2070, Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite v2, AvP all run faster on HD 7970. Nvidia has clear wins in Shogun 2 , Lost Planet 2, Batman (FXAA). Crysis 2 at 1080p is close enough to a draw, but at 1600p HD 7970 is faster. BF3 at 1080p goes to Nvidia and at 1600p is a draw. The HD 7970 is the fastest card and the best option for high resolution and multi monitor gaming.


----------



## veyron1001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Renairy*
> 
> Bad testing is bad.... At what clocks and since wen does the 7970 win by that much?


Since the 7950 in cfx pretty much equals gtx680 sli. Its well known that ati has much more superior crossfire scaling than nvidia. Nvidia has less claimed micro stuttering.


----------



## onthemour

Ya I have both cards and npw i am using the 7970. it is faster now with 12.7 I got a high oc and it performs better in BF3 and Skyrim than the 680 with 3x27" monitors. It is a no brainer now to get the 7970 for it is also cheaper


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Not really with the latest drivers AMD simply has the faster card with the Radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition, more so at 1600p and multi monitor. check these games in all reviews. Dirt 3, Skyrim, Alan Wake, Deus Ex, Batman AC (8X MSAA), Witcher 2, Witcher 2 EE, Anno 2070, Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Dirt Showdown, Sniper Elite v2, AvP all run faster on HD 7970. Nvidia has clear wins in Shogun 2 , Lost Planet 2, Batman (FXAA). Crysis 2 at 1080p is close enough to a draw, but at 1600p HD 7970 is faster. BF3 at 1080p goes to Nvidia and at 1600p is a draw. The HD 7970 is the fastest card and the best option for high resolution and multi monitor gaming.


If you still insist on including Dirt Showdown and want to draw Sniper Elite v2 and AvP into it, then let me introduce a few more titles giving nVidia the edge. All of these are on 12.7b drivers at least for the 7970 GHz Edition, but most are _not_ on latest nVidia drivers.

nVidia wins in Wargame: European Escalation, Just Cause 2, Hard Reset, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Passion Leads Army, WoW and Diablo III. Most tests seem to indicate Max Payne 3 being stronger on nVidia too, but there is so much variation in the results that for now I call it a draw. There are others still, but mostly they're getting in the 120+ FPS region where the difference has no meaning for anyone.

Other than that, Batman AC is still a nVidia title. 8xMSAA is choppy to put it mildly, 4xMSAA or FXAA is where it's at. Plus there is the fact that AC is one of the few titles where PhysX is an important factor, giving nVidia the win by default.

In Skyrim, AMD seems to finally be competitive with the 12.7b's but still more sites seem to give the edge to nVidia. Some by rather large margins if I may say so. Crysis 2 is far from clear cut AMD win, as well.

Once more, what I get out of all this is: GTX 680 for 1920x1200 and below, 7970 for 2560 and multi-monitor resolutions.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> If you still insist on including Dirt Showdown and want to draw Sniper Elite v2 and AvP into it, then let me introduce a few more titles giving nVidia the edge. All of these are on 12.7b drivers at least for the 7970 GHz Edition, but most are _not_ on latest nVidia drivers.
> nVidia wins in Wargame: European Escalation, Just Cause 2, Hard Reset, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Passion Leads Army, WoW and Diablo III. Most tests seem to indicate Max Payne 3 being stronger on nVidia too, but there is so much variation in the results that for now I call it a draw. There are others still, but mostly they're getting in the 120+ FPS region where the difference has no meaning for anyone.
> Other than that, Batman AC is still a nVidia title. 8xMSAA is choppy to put it mildly, 4xMSAA or FXAA is where it's at. Plus there is the fact that AC is one of the few titles where PhysX is an important factor, giving nVidia the win by default.
> In Skyrim, AMD seems to finally be competitive with the 12.7b's but still more sites seem to give the edge to nVidia. Some by rather large margins if I may say so. Crysis 2 is far from clear cut AMD win, as well.
> Once more, what I get out of all this is: GTX 680 for 1920x1200 and below, 7970 for 2560 and multi-monitor resolutions.


Well said and also what raghu78 neglects to mention is all the bugs in the 12.7 beta driver, especially for crossfire which is all but broken. Head over to rage3d.com or guru3d.com and look at all the problem reports, even many from single GPU users.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> If you still insist on including Dirt Showdown and want to draw Sniper Elite v2 and AvP into it, then let me introduce a few more titles giving nVidia the edge. All of these are on 12.7b drivers at least for the 7970 GHz Edition, but most are _not_ on latest nVidia drivers.
> nVidia wins in Wargame: European Escalation, Just Cause 2, Hard Reset, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Passion Leads Army, WoW and Diablo III. Most tests seem to indicate Max Payne 3 being stronger on nVidia too, but there is so much variation in the results that for now I call it a draw. There are others still, but mostly they're getting in the 120+ FPS region where the difference has no meaning for anyone.
> Other than that, Batman AC is still a nVidia title. 8xMSAA is choppy to put it mildly, 4xMSAA or FXAA is where it's at. Plus there is the fact that AC is one of the few titles where PhysX is an important factor, giving nVidia the win by default.
> In Skyrim, AMD seems to finally be competitive with the 12.7b's but still more sites seem to give the edge to nVidia. Some by rather large margins if I may say so. Crysis 2 is far from clear cut AMD win, as well.
> Once more, what I get out of all this is: GTX 680 for 1920x1200 and below, 7970 for 2560 and multi-monitor resolutions.


Just cause 2 -

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=9

HD 7970 ghz edition faster at 1600p, GTX 680 faster at 1080p. but both cards are very close in perf.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-Edition-Review/?page=6

HD 7970 ghz edition faster at 1600p and 1080p wrt GTX 680. but again both cards are very close.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/9/

Sapphire HD 7970 (1 Ghz) is 1 fps slower than GTX 680 at 1600p and 3 fps at 1080p. the MSI HD 7970 (1070) was slower because its results were from older drivers. Radeon HD 7970 ghz edition would have tied the GTX 680. check sapphire HD 7970 at 950 and 1000 Mhz to get a clue of perf scaling.

*I think you will agree GTX 680 is not faster in Just Cause 2*

*Hard reset runs faster on GTX 680. agreed.*

*Bad company 2 runs faster on GTX 680. agreed.*

crysis 2 at 1080p can go to either card. in 1600p lets take as many cases as possible. i compare HD 7970 Ghz edition in all cases

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect1 HD 7970 - 9% faster , 20% when both cards are oc'd
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=8 GTX 680 - 3% faster
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-9.html GTX 680 - 4% faster
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-15.html HD 7970 - 3% faster
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-13/benchmark-crysis-2.html HD 7970 - 8% faster
http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/9 HD 7970 - 15% faster
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/14.html HD 7970 - 14% faster.

*I think you can agree that simply more reviews agree on the HD 7970 being the faster card and by larger margins at 1600p .*

As for skyrim its simply faster on HD 7970. the margins are literally massive at 1600p in most reviews. let me state a few

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/22.html - 22% faster
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-16.html - 25% faster
http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/7 - 18% faster
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html - 31% faster
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-GHz-Edition-Review-Taking-GTX-680/Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyr - 8% faster

*The HD 7970 is faster than GTX 680 in skyrim. Period.*

Max payne 3 is similar on both cards

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/3
http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/5

Diablo is such a easy game and does 100+ fps on both cards. not really a game to distinguish between the cards. passion leads army and wargame european assault do not have more reviews. and their relevance in questionable

*So bad company 2 and hard reset are the other major games running faster on Nvidia GTX 680 in addition to shogun 2 , lost planet 2 and batman (FXAA) .* It still does not change the fact that HD 7970 wins more games easily and by significant margins.


----------



## drbaltazar

The driver do most of thecjob. It isnt the gpu.tom does say you ll be better served buying better cooling for your actual 7970


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drbaltazar*
> 
> The driver do most of thecjob. It isnt the gpu.tom does say you ll be better served buying better cooling for your actual 7970


tomshardware clarifies

"There's a silver lining on this one, though. Ahead of this review, I let AMD know about our acoustic concerns and the company claims that most partner boards *will employ third-party cooling, not its reference configuration*. Just a little earlier this week we saw in Radeon HD 7950 3 GB: Six Cards, Benchmarked And Reviewed *that new heat sinks and fans can work wonders on Tahiti-based boards*"


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Just cause 2 -
> http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=9
> HD 7970 ghz edition faster at 1600p, GTX 680 faster at 1080p. but both cards are very close in perf.
> http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-Edition-Review/?page=6
> HD 7970 ghz edition faster at 1600p and 1080p wrt GTX 680. but again both cards are very close.
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/9/
> Sapphire HD 7970 (1 Ghz) is 1 fps slower than GTX 680 at 1600p and 3 fps at 1080p. the MSI HD 7970 (1070) was slower because its results were from older drivers. Radeon HD 7970 ghz edition would have tied the GTX 680. check sapphire HD 7970 at 950 and 1000 Mhz to get a clue of perf scaling.
> *I think you will agree GTX 680 is not faster in Just Cause 2*
> *Hard reset runs faster on GTX 680. agreed.*
> *Bad company 2 runs faster on GTX 680. agreed.*
> crysis 2 at 1080p can go to either card. in 1600p lets take as many cases as possible. i compare HD 7970 Ghz edition in all cases
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect1 HD 7970 - 9% faster , 20% when both cards are oc'd
> http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=8 GTX 680 - 3% faster
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-9.html GTX 680 - 4% faster
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-15.html HD 7970 - 3% faster
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-13/benchmark-crysis-2.html HD 7970 - 8% faster
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/9 HD 7970 - 15% faster
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/14.html HD 7970 - 14% faster.
> *I think you can agree that simply more reviews agree on the HD 7970 being the faster card and by larger margins at 1600p .*
> As for skyrim its simply faster on HD 7970. the margins are literally massive at 1600p in most reviews. let me state a few
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/22.html - 22% faster
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-16.html - 25% faster
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/7 - 18% faster
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html - 31% faster
> http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-GHz-Edition-Review-Taking-GTX-680/Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyr - 8% faster
> *The HD 7970 is faster than GTX 680 in skyrim. Period.*
> Max payne 3 is similar on both cards
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/3
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/5
> Diablo is such a easy game and does 100+ fps on both cards. not really a game to distinguish between the cards. passion leads army and wargame european assault do not have more reviews. and their relevance in questionable
> *So bad company 2 and hard reset are the other major games running faster on Nvidia GTX 680 in addition to shogun 2 , lost planet 2 and batman (FXAA) .* It still does not change the fact that HD 7970 wins more games easily and by significant margins.


You have yet to prove a thing, all you do is post the same old links and same old dribble over and over again. Anyone can surf through different reviews and HAND PICK the ones that show favor for the hardware that they so love. For every link you post I can come right behind you with 1 or 2 more which show nvidia in the lead, this hand picked stuff by you only shows your brand loyalty.

Oh btw how are you liking those CUDA effects for the water in Just Cause 2? oh wait thats right.....................lol.

Anyway I run Just Cause 2 with all the goodies turned on at 1920X1080 Along with 8XMSAA and 16XAF and get a consistent 60fps with vsync turned on.

And lastly heinz68 "aka nvnews user name" I think we pretty much all agree that the HD 7970 is the card of choice for anything over 1920X1200 so would you please stop posting the same links over and over, not only are you embarressing yourself but its very annoying to say the least. You almost sound like a "bot" that has glitched out. lol.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> *Well said and also what raghu78 neglects to mention is all the bugs in the 12.7 beta driver,* especially for crossfire which is all but broken. Head over to rage3d.com or guru3d.com and look at all the problem reports, even many from single GPU users.


Wow, imagine that! Bugs in a beta driver! Whodathunkit!


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Just cause 2 -
> http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=9
> HD 7970 ghz edition faster at 1600p, GTX 680 faster at 1080p. but both cards are very close in perf.
> http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-Edition-Review/?page=6
> HD 7970 ghz edition faster at 1600p and 1080p wrt GTX 680. but again both cards are very close.
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/9/
> Sapphire HD 7970 (1 Ghz) is 1 fps slower than GTX 680 at 1600p and 3 fps at 1080p. the MSI HD 7970 (1070) was slower because its results were from older drivers. Radeon HD 7970 ghz edition would have tied the GTX 680. check sapphire HD 7970 at 950 and 1000 Mhz to get a clue of perf scaling.
> *I think you will agree GTX 680 is not faster in Just Cause 2*
> *Hard reset runs faster on GTX 680. agreed.*
> *Bad company 2 runs faster on GTX 680. agreed.*
> crysis 2 at 1080p can go to either card. in 1600p lets take as many cases as possible. i compare HD 7970 Ghz edition in all cases
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect1 HD 7970 - 9% faster , 20% when both cards are oc'd
> http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/41329-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/?page=8 GTX 680 - 3% faster
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-9.html GTX 680 - 4% faster
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-15.html HD 7970 - 3% faster
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-13/benchmark-crysis-2.html HD 7970 - 8% faster
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/9 HD 7970 - 15% faster
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/14.html HD 7970 - 14% faster.
> *I think you can agree that simply more reviews agree on the HD 7970 being the faster card and by larger margins at 1600p .*
> As for skyrim its simply faster on HD 7970. the margins are literally massive at 1600p in most reviews. let me state a few
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/22.html - 22% faster
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-16.html - 25% faster
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/7 - 18% faster
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html - 31% faster
> http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-GHz-Edition-Review-Taking-GTX-680/Elder-Scrolls-V-Skyr - 8% faster
> *The HD 7970 is faster than GTX 680 in skyrim. Period.*
> Max payne 3 is similar on both cards
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/06/21/amd_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/3
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/5
> Diablo is such a easy game and does 100+ fps on both cards. not really a game to distinguish between the cards. passion leads army and wargame european assault do not have more reviews. and their relevance in questionable
> *So bad company 2 and hard reset are the other major games running faster on Nvidia GTX 680 in addition to shogun 2 , lost planet 2 and batman (FXAA) .* It still does not change the fact that HD 7970 wins more games easily and by significant margins.


You're showing nothing new and are in fact proving my point in a lot of ways. I suppose we are coming to an agreement though not in the way you seem to think.

You provide three links for Just Cause 2, one of which shows a difference of 9.1 % on 1920 resolution (as opposed to the 7.2 % of my link) and another showing the reference 680 on even older drivers ahead of two factory OC'd 7970's. So I suppose you meant to say that we agree on *GTX 680 being faster in Just Cause 2?*

Then you go on and post a handful of reviews saying what I so precisely put as my closing line in my last post: 7970 is better in 2560 res and up. Good job although you _didn't_ take as many cases as possible and _didn't_ compare the 7970 GHz edition in all cases.

Max Payne is not similar, but there is too little data for a conclusive verdict. [H] shows GTX 680 ahead by 8.3 %. Tech Report didn't test at 1920 so no info points there.

Diablo III is easy but 7970 can't seem to get that 120 FPS. Passion Leads Army and Wargame are both new titles and as such have value that many of your AMD favouring titles are lacking.

Again: GTX 680 for 1920 and below, 7970 for above.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

How about 7970 for water cooling and overclocking, 680 for Best Buy types...


----------



## y2kcamaross

Just get two of either then you won't have to worry about performance at either of those resolutions


----------



## sugarhell

what bugs. i dont have any bugs on 12.7...oh wait.....nah i dont have any bugs


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Wow, imagine that! Bugs in a beta driver! Whodathunkit!


Oh please, I have been in this game for a very long time friend and that arguement will not cut it for if it did then the same would apply to nvidia's beta's which are always rock solid. Enough of these pathetic excuses.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slickric21*
> 
> Just ordered one of these today (KFA2 Uk version)
> Sick of my 7970 and AMD drivers since 12.4 onwards nothing but problems.


----------



## Penryn

I don't have any problems on 12.7. But the assumption that every bug will affect every person is just stupid. Calling a driver bad because a small bug affects some people is stupid since every PC is different. By that logic, every driver ever made is bad because there will always be people with problems. This also applies to things outside drivers, like parts and toilet paper.

PEBKAC is also a pretty good source of a lot of peoples woes although no one would ever admit to that.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> You're showing nothing new and are in fact proving my point in a lot of ways. I suppose we are coming to an agreement though not in the way you seem to think.
> You provide three links for Just Cause 2, one of which shows a difference of 9.1 % on 1920 resolution (as opposed to the 7.2 % of my link) and another showing the reference 680 on even older drivers ahead of two factory OC'd 7970's. So I suppose you meant to say that we agree on *GTX 680 being faster in Just Cause 2?*
> Then you go on and post a handful of reviews saying what I so precisely put as my closing line in my last post: 7970 is better in 2560 res and up. Good job although you _didn't_ take as many cases as possible and _didn't_ compare the 7970 GHz edition in all cases.
> Max Payne is not similar, but there is too little data for a conclusive verdict. [H] shows GTX 680 ahead by 8.3 %. Tech Report didn't test at 1920 so no info points there.
> Diablo III is easy but 7970 can't seem to get that 120 FPS. Passion Leads Army and Wargame are both new titles and as such have value that many of your AMD favouring titles are lacking.
> Again: GTX 680 for 1920 and below, 7970 for above.


just cause 2 was tested with latest nvidia drivers in the first and second links i posted. according to the 2nd link GTX 680 is not faster at all even on 1080p. the thrid link is not a radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition review and was not tested with the latest nvidia drivers.

anyway here is a point I wish to make. of the most demanding games which barely hit 60 fps even at 1080p , HD 7970 simply wins more.

METRO 2033

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/10/ HD 7970 is 22% faster
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review/16 HD 7970 Ghz is 17.5% faster

CRYSIS WARHEAD
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/4 HD 7970 Ghz is 17% faster

DIRT SHOWDOWN
http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=636&pagenumber=3
1920 X 1080 Ultra 4X AA - HD 7970 (925) is 40% faster than GTX 680

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-14/benchmark-dirt-showdown.html&usg=ALkJrhgqOfv1rCaIb0xqsMoiWqCxs3VBQw
1920 X 1080 Ultra 4X AA *Advanced Lighting on* - HD 7970 Ghz wins by 50%

SNIPER ELITE V2
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review/23 Radeon HD 7970 Ghz is 13% faster

ALAN WAKE
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-7/benchmark-alan-wake.html&usg=ALkJrhioGOveB1gObhlirWu3GzXEzbP9Fg

1920 x 1080 Max HD 7970 Ghz is 35% faster

Witcher 2 EE

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-16/benchmark-the-witcher-2-enhanced-edition.html&usg=ALkJrhjAR4qAK9zFGU61TAtyK1gVhWicCw

1920 X 1080 Max ubersampling on - Radeon HD 7970 Ghz is 25% faster

*Shogun 2 is the one game which is really faster on the GTX 680 and struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p on the high end cards.*

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-17/benchmark-total-war-shogun-2.html&usg=ALkJrhiIrQ7DBVLH5TkcopVJE6tvtenU1w

GTX 680 is 12% faster than Radeon HD 7970 Ghz.

So really in the games which need that extra performance to get close to 60 fps the HD 7970 wins more games and with big margins. Frankly I don't care for a game which is doing 100+ fps at 1080p/1200p . When "push comes to shove" HD 7970 really proves itself.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Both are great cards but only the 7970's allow you to overclock properly (ignoring the awesome 680 Lightning of course). My personal opinion is:

680 Lightning > 7970 Lightning > reference 7970 > reference 680


----------



## onthemour

12.7 beta gives rediculous performance on my oced 7970. It even allowed me to crank my oc up to 1260 on 12.62v!. I am still on reference cooler and its not loud enough to bother me. The best part is this beta has zero bugs for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My freind uses crossfinity and he has no more problems with it

I was using my 680 for awhile until my friend got me to try the 12.7 and he was right. I was going to sell my 7970 but thasnk god I didn't cause on 3 screens i get ALOT BETTER PERFORMANCE ON THE 7970 compared to the oced 680

ps I don't care about other ppls problems with drivers. All that matters is that it works perfect for me. I mean really! fix your comp if you have driver problems. If it works perfect for others then you MUST be doing something wrong. end of story


----------



## onthemour

All these stupid posts of benchs mean nobody knows anything. If you dont have both cards then stop trying to convince ppl

The only ppl that can argue performance are owners of both!!!!


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> just cause 2 was tested with latest nvidia drivers in the first and second links i posted. according to the 2nd link GTX 680 is not faster at all even on 1080p. the thrid link is not a radeon HD 7970 Ghz edition review and was not tested with the latest nvidia drivers.
> anyway here is a point I wish to make. of the most demanding games which barely hit 60 fps even at 1080p , HD 7970 simply wins more.
> METRO 2033
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/10/ HD 7970 is 22% faster
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review/16 HD 7970 Ghz is 17.5% faster
> CRYSIS WARHEAD
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/4 HD 7970 Ghz is 17% faster
> DIRT SHOWDOWN
> http://www.rwlabs.com/article.php?cat=&id=636&pagenumber=3
> 1920 X 1080 Ultra 4X AA - HD 7970 (925) is 40% faster than GTX 680
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-14/benchmark-dirt-showdown.html&usg=ALkJrhgqOfv1rCaIb0xqsMoiWqCxs3VBQw
> 1920 X 1080 Ultra 4X AA *Advanced Lighting on* - HD 7970 Ghz wins by 50%
> SNIPER ELITE V2
> http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review/23 Radeon HD 7970 Ghz is 13% faster
> ALAN WAKE
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-7/benchmark-alan-wake.html&usg=ALkJrhioGOveB1gObhlirWu3GzXEzbP9Fg
> 1920 x 1080 Max HD 7970 Ghz is 35% faster
> Witcher 2 EE
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-16/benchmark-the-witcher-2-enhanced-edition.html&usg=ALkJrhjAR4qAK9zFGU61TAtyK1gVhWicCw
> 1920 X 1080 Max ubersampling on - Radeon HD 7970 Ghz is 25% faster
> *Shogun 2 is the one game which is really faster on the GTX 680 and struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p on the high end cards.*
> http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-17/benchmark-total-war-shogun-2.html&usg=ALkJrhiIrQ7DBVLH5TkcopVJE6tvtenU1w
> GTX 680 is 12% faster than Radeon HD 7970 Ghz.
> So really in the games which need that extra performance to get close to 60 fps the HD 7970 wins more games and with big margins. Frankly I don't care for a game which is doing 100+ fps at 1080p/1200p . When "push comes to shove" HD 7970 really proves itself.


It seems clear you only care for those resolutions, frame rates, games, reviews, tests and opinions that give the advantage to the 7970. That don't make it the undisputed truth, though.

You can give Metro 2033, Crysis and Dirt Showdown (sigh) all the importance you want. Others may value performance in BF3, Batman AC and yes, even Wargame: EE, all of which are demanding titles struggling to get that 60 FPS even at 1920.

You can give all the credit you want for truly unplayable settings like ubersampling in Witcher 2 and none at all for getting that 120 FPS for a 120Hz monitor. That is still not the only way to think about it.

Considering this, maybe you should restrain yourself from demanding everyone to come to the same conclusion you've made regarding the 7970 and the GTX 680.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> It seems clear you only care for those resolutions, frame rates, games, reviews, tests and opinions that give the advantage to the 7970. That don't make it the undisputed truth, though.


When you say tests which give HD 7970 the advantage are you conceding the GTX 680 does not perform as well when its bandwidth constrained even at 1080p.
Quote:


> Considering this, maybe you should restrain yourself from demanding everyone to come to the same conclusion you've made regarding the 7970 and the GTX 680.


I don't expect anyone to tell me what conclusion I have to come to. neither do I tell anybody else to come to a particular conclusion. What you find difficult is that you may believe the GTX 680 is as fast or faster than HD 7970 while someone else clearly believe HD 7970 is faster.


----------



## PrincetonM

Nothing in this review tells me that the GTX 680 is slower than a 7970. Even with 12.7 installed.

*Acoustical Test System

Processor: Intel 2600K @ stock
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB 1600MHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD5
Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Passive
SSD: Corsair Performance Pro 256GB
Power Supply: Seasonic X-Series Gold 800W

Drivers:
NVIDIA 304.48 Beta
AMD 12.7 Beta

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55064-asus-gtx-680-directcu-ii-top-review-2.html
The reference GTX 680 wins nearly all benchmarks head 2 head vs the 7970/7970 GHz. While the GTX 680 DCii sweeps nearly all benchmarks in this review.( Yeah I know it's pre-overclocked)

BF3 with* 4xMSAA


Batman with 4xMSAA



Crysis 2


Deus Ex



Dirt 3



Metro 2033



Shogun 2:Total War



Skyrim



Wargame: EU Escalation



The Witcher 2


----------



## dklimitless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrincetonM*
> 
> Nothing in this review tells me that the GTX 680 is slower than a 7970. Even with 12.7 installed.
> Acoustical Test System
> *Processor: Intel 2600K @ stock*
> Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB 1600MHz
> *Motherboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD5*
> Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Passive
> SSD: Corsair Performance Pro 256GB
> Power Supply: Seasonic X-Series Gold 800W
> Drivers:
> NVIDIA 304.48 Beta
> AMD 12.7 Beta
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55064-asus-gtx-680-directcu-ii-top-review-2.html
> The reference GTX 680 wins nearly all benchmarks head 2 head vs the 7970/7970 GHz. While the GTX 680 DCii sweeps nearly all benchmarks in this review.( Yeah I know it's pre-overclocked)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> BF3 with[/B] 4xMSAA
> 
> 
> Batman with 4xMSAA
> 
> 
> Crysis 2
> 
> 
> Deus Ex
> 
> 
> Dirt 3
> 
> 
> Metro 2033
> 
> 
> Shogun 2:Total War
> 
> 
> Skyrim
> 
> 
> Wargame: EU Escalation
> 
> 
> The Witcher 2


I know that's what the site says, but I'm pretty sure you can't fit a 2600K on an X58 board ...

Anyway, as has been said a million times, it is too hard to call a clear winner with these cards. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. Not to mention that the various reviews report ridiculously different results.
I stand by the statement that they trade blows depending on setup and drivers. Both teams have done a great job with their beta drivers this time round.

We can keep pulling benches and reviews back and forth but that is not going to change the opinion of *anyone* favoring either camp. *sigh*


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrincetonM*
> 
> Nothing in this review tells me that the GTX 680 is slower than a 7970. Even with 12.7 installed.
> *Acoustical Test System
> Processor: Intel 2600K @ stock
> Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB 1600MHz
> Motherboard: Gigabyte EX58-UD5
> Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Passive
> SSD: Corsair Performance Pro 256GB
> Power Supply: Seasonic X-Series Gold 800W
> Drivers:
> NVIDIA 304.48 Beta
> AMD 12.7 Beta
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55064-asus-gtx-680-directcu-ii-top-review-2.html
> The reference GTX 680 wins nearly all benchmarks head 2 head vs the 7970/7970 GHz. While the GTX 680 DCii sweeps nearly all benchmarks in this review.( Yeah I know it's pre-overclocked)
> BF3 with* 4xMSAA
> 
> 
> Batman with 4xMSAA
> 
> 
> Crysis 2
> 
> 
> Deus Ex
> 
> 
> Dirt 3
> 
> 
> Metro 2033
> 
> 
> Shogun 2:Total War
> 
> 
> Skyrim
> 
> 
> Wargame: EU Escalation
> 
> 
> The Witcher 2










Nice to see some different benchmarks other than the cherry picked ones that keep popping up


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Both are great cards but only the 7970's allow you to overclock properly (ignoring the awesome 680 Lightning of course). My personal opinion is:
> 680 Lightning > 7970 Lightning > reference 7970 > reference 680


Overclock properly? lol. Referrence GTX 680's clock anywhere between 1200-1300mhz core without the ability to adjust voltage while the HD 7970 averages around the same frequency yet usually need voltage increases to break past 1150-1200mhz.

Point is both cards average around the same frequency on air.


----------



## Farih

Somebody called me to lock this thread ?

Calm it down guys.

All the fanboyism and accusations is starting to get pathetic


----------



## MunneY

Back on topic, no way, even with the bios it beats nvidia. Sorry, having played with both, they are great, but 680 wins out


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I went reference 7970's for my newest upcoming build because of unlocked voltages and water block availability. If I was sticking to air cooling I'd definitely go with 680 Lightnings. The 3dmark11 numbers those guys are getting are unbelievable and they don't even have unlocked voltages yet!


----------



## superericla

You guys are crazy. Who seriously cares if one card beats another by a couple fps in some benches? They're both fast cards and play the games with decent framerates so there's really no need to dispute which is an infinitesimally small amount faster than the other.


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MunneY*
> 
> Back on topic, no way, even with the bios it beats nvidia. Sorry, having played with both, they are great, but 680 wins out


Yes, back on topic !

I have had all cards to, 7850 CF, 7950, 7970, GTX670 and GTX680's

The 7850CF gave me best performance for the price, no 7970 or GTX680 came close.

I like the AMD cards more because its more fun to overclock them then a Nvidia GTX680/670.

I have a GTX670 only so i can fold on it while not gaming.
I do believe atm the 7970 is the faster card but a new Nvidia driver might swoop that around again, they are that close to eachother.

Edit:
And yes this is the line !

*No more fanboyism and accusations after this post.
All will get deleted and if you persist infractions will/might follow.*


----------



## PrincetonM

^ My experience was the total opposite. Bought three 7970's at launch, good performance. Switched to 680's and never looked back. And how is overclocking more "fun" as you put it, with the 7970? You guys really sound silly at times trying to justify your purchase. One has a voltage slider, the other doesn't. Big whoop.







Even without it my 680's clocked higher.


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrincetonM*
> 
> ^ My experience was the total opposite. Bought three 7970's at launch, good performance. Switched to 680's and never looked back. And how is overclocking more "fun" as you put it, with the 7970? You guys really sound silly at times trying to justify your purchase. One has a voltage slider, the other doesn't. Big whoop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even without it my 680's clocked higher.


I havent tryed 7970's and GTX680's in CF/SLI so cant really comment on that.
7850CF worked great though and vastly outperforms any 7970 or GTX680 no matter how high they are overclocked.

You probably didnt look back because you bought the 7970s at an early stage *?*, the GTX680 drivers was better at release.

I find overclocking on AMD cards more fun just because of the voltage control.
Its more fun when your OC create's an instabillity and you can raise voltage to solve it, its fun to get the highest OC with the lowest voltage.
With Nvidia its only moving the sliders of the clocks till you reach instabillity and thats about it.
Some might even find Nvidia's ways of overclocking better because of this.

Edit:
I cant and dont want to justify my purchase's either.
Changing that many cards only cost money.
And wich to justify, the AMD or Nvidia cards lol


----------



## PrincetonM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> I havent tryed 7970's and GTX680's in CF/SLI so cant really comment on that.
> 7850CF worked great though and vastly outperforms any 7970 or GTX680 no matter how high they are overclocked.
> You probably didnt look back because you bought the 7970s at an early stage *?*, the GTX680 drivers was better at release.
> I find overclocking on AMD cards more fun just because of the voltage control.
> Its more fun when your OC create's an instabillity and you can raise voltage to solve it, its fun to get the highest OC with the lowest voltage.
> With Nvidia its only moving the sliders of the clocks till you reach instabillity and thats about it.
> Some might even find Nvidia's ways of overclocking better because of this.


Oh ok, cool. I didn't mean to come off jerkish.


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrincetonM*
> 
> Oh ok, cool. I didn't mean to come off jerkish.


Lol dont worry, your not.
We can take a little bit of beating here on OCN.

The "real" "jerkish" stuff has all been removed


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see some different benchmarks other than the cherry picked ones that keep popping up


Quoting huge numbers of images for the lose...


----------



## Balsagna

Have both 2x 7970's and 2x GTX 680's. At around the same clock they both trade blows with each other, even when overclocked. If you're looking at a better card all around, in my opinion it's the GTX 680's.

Lower heat output, lower power use, quieter and... just as fast as an overclocked Radeon 7970 aka the ghz edition where basically nearly every single 7970 could reach with a tap. The 7970 ghz edition was to just close the gap and add a similar feature to the GTX 680's. They still overclock nearly the same as the old 7970's where they're reaching anywhere from 1200-1300mhz with voltages maxed out and the same is done with the GTX 680's (On STOCK VOLTAGES) are able to achieve

When it comes to overclocking, the GTX 680's headroom is locked thanks to voltages, but even then. One of my GTX 680's is a 1300mhz+ and the other is 1250. Both boostable depending on temps. The 7970 that are reference to achieve that, stay stable and not be overwhelming in heat, noise and power isn't as simple and sometimes just not do-able. The GTX 680's are all fine. At 65% fan speed, I can't hear the cards. Try that with a 7970 and see what happens.

That's the honest truth, it might not matter to some, it does matter to some. But the GTX 680 is still a great card all the way around. The only thing the 7970's have is trading blows in FPS.... that's it.

And this is 100% unbiased -- Check my sig rig's specs. I own them both and in crossfire/sli.

Pick the GPU depending on the games you play and the features/warranty they offer vs's each other.


----------



## specopsFI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> When you say tests which give HD 7970 the advantage are you conceding the GTX 680 does not perform as well when its bandwidth constrained even at 1080p.
> I don't expect anyone to tell me what conclusion I have to come to. neither do I tell anybody else to come to a particular conclusion. What you find difficult is that you may believe the GTX 680 is as fast or faster than HD 7970 while someone else clearly believe HD 7970 is faster.


For Metro 2033 and Crysis there was never any doubt about the importance of bandwidth. For Dirt Showdown the jury is still out on whether the key is bandwidth or computing power. For any of the other titles, the cause for performance differences is either in the hardware _or_ in the software. Bandwidth is not the only factor in GPU performance.

Bandwidth is most definitely the thing that the 7970 has an advantage on the GTX 680. But whether the bottleneck is in bandwidth, shader power or drivers is more or less irrelevant: what matters is the result. That extra bandwidth doesn't keep 7970 owner's warm if the GTX 680 could provide a better user experience in their favorite games. There is a bottleneck in each and every GPU architecture, plain and simple. The Tahiti architecture makes the 7970 a better match for high res gaming whereas the Kepler architecture is balanced for gaming at FullHD. Tahiti has bandwidth and computing power, Kepler has shader power combined with great power efficiency. Different cards with different pros and cons.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Heat and noise are irrelevant when you are water cooling chaps! Besides, with locked voltages there is no point to water cooling the 680's anyway...


----------



## armartins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I went reference 7970's for my newest upcoming build because of unlocked voltages and water block availability. If I was sticking to air cooling I'd definitely go with 680 Lightnings. The 3dmark11 numbers those guys are getting are unbelievable and they don't even have unlocked voltages yet!


Will they ever see an unlock? It may be done via BIOS release? How attached to the kepler architecture is that damn voltage lock? I know hard mods are there for it, but is there any info about an "official" unlock from MSI?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> For Metro 2033 and Crysis there was never any doubt about the importance of bandwidth. For Dirt Showdown the jury is still out on whether the key is bandwidth or computing power. For any of the other titles, the cause for performance differences is either in the hardware _or_ in the software. Bandwidth is not the only factor in GPU performance.
> Bandwidth is most definitely the thing that the 7970 has an advantage on the GTX 680. But whether the bottleneck is in bandwidth, shader power or drivers is more or less irrelevant: what matters is the result. That extra bandwidth doesn't keep 7970 owner's warm if the GTX 680 could provide a better user experience in their favorite games. There is a bottleneck in each and every GPU architecture, plain and simple. The Tahiti architecture makes the 7970 a better match for high res gaming whereas the Kepler architecture is balanced for gaming at FullHD. Tahiti has bandwidth and computing power, Kepler has shader power combined with great power efficiency. Different cards with different pros and cons.


Nice post!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The Lightnings will get voltage unlocked with the next AB release (2.2.3). Reference 680's will likely never see voltage control...


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Heat and noise are irrelevant when you are water cooling chaps! Besides, with locked voltages there is no point to water cooling the 680's anyway...


That isnt entirely true when many water cooled 680's have been volt modded via a hard mod. But yes, I would rather have voltage adjustment in the software.


----------



## onthemour

3 screens the 7970 is a no brainer. the 680 is amazing for 3 screens but if you are buying high-end cards you want the highest smoothest gameplay and the 7970 with 12.7 oced definitely beats the 680. anyone who owns both would know this. These arguments are pointless. Right now the 7970 is on top and when nvidia gets better drivers then they will be and I will put my 680 back in


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *specopsFI*
> 
> For Metro 2033 and Crysis there was never any doubt about the importance of bandwidth. For Dirt Showdown the jury is still out on whether the key is bandwidth or computing power. For any of the other titles, the cause for performance differences is either in the hardware _or_ in the software. Bandwidth is not the only factor in GPU performance.
> Bandwidth is most definitely the thing that the 7970 has an advantage on the GTX 680. But whether the bottleneck is in bandwidth, shader power or drivers is more or less irrelevant: what matters is the result. That extra bandwidth doesn't keep 7970 owner's warm if the GTX 680 could provide a better user experience in their favorite games. There is a bottleneck in each and every GPU architecture, plain and simple. The Tahiti architecture makes the 7970 a better match for high res gaming whereas the Kepler architecture is balanced for gaming at FullHD. Tahiti has bandwidth and computing power, Kepler has shader power combined with great power efficiency. Different cards with different pros and cons.


thats a reasonable argument. GTX 680 gets better perf/watt because of certain design choices. the same design choices could really restrict / handicap performance in cases. HD 7970 has lesser perf/watt because of the different design choices but is able to deliver good performance when things get demanding. Tahiti is nowhere as efficient as Pitcairn or GK104. But the way I see it if you stay at the cutting edge and buy graphics cards every year the GTX 680 is a reasonable option for 1080p. But if you want to keep the graphics card for 2 - 3 years that bandwidth of HD 7970 is going to make a huge difference. The next generation of consoles will allow developers to get more aggresive in their push for titles with significantly improved graphics. And the PC version normally has improvements over and above the consoles. You don't have to look at any better example than the GTX 480 and HD 5870. At launch the GTX 480's architecture did not have titles to showcase its DX11 architecture. But fast forward a couple of years and the DX11 games like Crysis 2, BF3, Batman AC just run much faster on the GTX 480. With better compute perf and bandwidth this HD 7970 card will prove its worth in the days to come as it does in today's most demanding games.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Neither is at the "top" is what I have been saying all along. It just depends on what you want: 7970 for voltage control, higher resolutions, and water cooling. 680 for driver support, single monitor 1200p performance, and user friendly execution.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Neither is at the "top" is what I have been saying all along. It just depends on what you want: 7970 for voltage control, higher resolutions, and water cooling. 680 for driver support, single monitor 1200p performance, and user friendly execution.


No. The 7970 with an oc over 1200 has better performance than the 680 oced when using 12.7 beta on single screen and when it comes to 3 screens the fps is higher and clearly noticeable in games like BF3


----------



## onthemour

I don't know why ppl who don't own both cards are contesting this? Those that own both know the 7970 is currently on top with the new drivers. When nvidia releases better drivers then the game will change.

When it comes to stock the 7970 ghz appears to be the winner. when I mean winner I mean by a frame or two which probably will not even be noticeable in games except for 3 screens


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> I don't know why ppl who don't own both cards are contesting this? Those that own both know the 7970 is currently on top with the new drivers. When nvidia releases better drivers then the game will change.
> When it comes to stock the 7970 ghz appears to be the winner. when I mean winner I mean by a frame or two which probably will not even be noticeable in games except for 3 screens


I have them both in Crossfire/Sli (check rigs). I can honestly tell you that the GTX 680 is faster than a 7970 in the majority of the games I play at Full HD at 1200mhz and at anything clock for clock. At same clock levels, they're bout the same. A GTX 680 at 1ghz will outperform almost all games against a 7970 that's under 1ghz. A 7970 will outperform most games against a GTX 680 when it's over 1ghz.

Now, get into the overclocking and see which cards can clock the highest. If you have 7970's that clock higher than the GTX 680's... you're golden and it works vicer versa.

Now take into the feature set the cards have. Are a few FPS difference worth the extra heat and power? I know a lot of people don't care, but then again, a lot of people do. Me, I cared about heat and noise. I don't like to watercool GPU's. I just like the room it takes up in the case vs's it being on water.

The GTX 680 for me, is a better card in that area. There are a couple things I liked about the 7970's more, most of the features I didn't intentend on using for quite some time.


----------



## onthemour

I'm at 1270 oc reference cooler on my 7970 and with 3x27" it clearly can't be beat. If I could oc the 680 high I would use it but it just can't compare to the oc potential of the 7970. The fan is easily tolerable and completely silent with earphones lol. I don't care about heat or consumption...why would i? I am all about performance with screens after all. I demand the highest frames in bf3


----------



## bobmanL11

I own both the GTX 680's in SLI and 7970's in Crossfire. And they without a doubt, even with the 12.7 drivers, trade blows on games.

The 7970's overclock like beasts and definitely can achieve higher Frames Per Second in a handful of games than the 680's, but the GTX 680's really do have a much smoother and fluid gameplay. It's because the GTX 680's are able to pump out frames in a more _time synchronize_ manner than the 7970's. Higher FPS =/= better gameplay.

Not to mention of course heat dissipation and noise levels (if on air still).

I love my 7970's since I bought them at launch, but I have to say I prefer my 680's.


----------



## jtom320

7970 is pretty clearly the faster card with the new drivers and updated cards. That said the 680 is still really tempting as it's a better performer in every area except absolute max top-end performance. If you're the kind of dude that doesn't need the absolute best of the best but wants fast and a hassle free experience 680s the way to go. Or even the 670 which offers 95%+ (depending on your OC) of the performance for 100 bucks less. If you held a gun to my head though I'd personally get the 7970 mainly just because of the voltage control. If you have a bad card you can jack your voltage and still get a good OC with it. If you get a bad 680 you are stuck.

Would not begrudge someone for going with either card. Plenty of pluses on both sides.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobmanL11*
> 
> I own both the GTX 680's in SLI and 7970's in Crossfire. And they without a doubt, even with the 12.7 drivers, trade blows on games.
> The 7970's overclock like beasts and definitely can achieve higher Frames Per Second in a handful of games than the 680's, but the GTX 680's really do have a much smoother and fluid gameplay. It's because the GTX 680's are able to pump out frames in a more _time synchronize_ manner than the 7970's. Higher FPS =/= better gameplay.
> Not to mention of course heat dissipation and noise levels (if on air still).
> I love my 7970's since I bought them at launch, but I have to say I prefer my 680's.


There are tests which show that HD 7970 CF does pretty good on frame times. Different games could run better on either one of those setups you have.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22890/6

Having said that if you are personally more satisified with GTX 680 SLI thats what matters.


----------



## bobmanL11

I would still not recommend friends to buy a 680, rather I'd tell them to get 670's. The 7970 with the latest drivers really does step it up a notch you're totally right. It's just a shame it took them 6 months haha.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobmanL11*
> 
> I would still not recommend friends to buy a 680, rather I'd tell them to get 670's. The 7970 with the latest drivers really does step it up a notch you're totally right. It's just a shame it took them 6 months haha.


Didn't really take them six months though. I had a 7970 at 1320 in February. They just released the card with such low clock speeds in the beginning it looked bad in reviews that didn't bother to properly overclock it.

Now drivers do have some to do with the performance increases but looking over the comparisons it seems to me the clock bump helped more then anything.

I'd agree with you however in that the 670 is clearly the card to get. Really even if you don't mind paying extra I think the 670 in a lot of ways is a better option then both.


----------



## bobmanL11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Didn't really take them six months though. I had a 7970 at 1320 in February. They just released the card with such low clock speeds in the beginning it looked bad in reviews that didn't bother to properly overclock it.
> Now drivers do have some to do with the performance increases but looking over the comparisons it seems to me the clock bump helped more then anything.
> I'd agree with you however in that the 670 is clearly the card to get. Really even if you don't mind paying extra I think the 670 in a lot of ways is a better option then both.


I totally agree with you. All I meant by the 6 months comment was for them to really bring out a stable driver that took advantage of the hardware on the 7970. I was not a big fan of blue screens after putting my computer to sleep







. Definitely, the GTX 670 gets my vote too.

And I'm jealous of your overclocks!







My reference cards from launch get angry past 1155 for one and 1205 for the other. (on air that is)


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobmanL11*
> 
> I totally agree with you. All I meant by the 6 months comment was for them to really bring out a stable driver that took advantage of the hardware on the 7970. I was not a big fan of blue screens after putting my computer to sleep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Definitely, the GTX 670 gets my vote too.
> And I'm jealous of your overclocks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reference cards from launch get angry past 1155 for one and 1205 for the other. (on air that is)


Don't be too jealous. I got a 670 that will barely touch 1180. Runs cooler then any other card I ever owned. Makes it even worse the dumb thing doesn't have unlocked voltage. Asic is relatively high too at 80% but it seems to me from my limited experience with both that Asic is done a bit differently with both manufacturers. My 7970 had an Asic of 83% and it was a total boss. It also was one of the model that ran at a lower voltage at stock. Who knows though. I never paid attention to Asic with my previous cards so I don't have much to go off of.


----------



## onthemour

If I was playing on one screen I would get the 670 also. That is a good price/performance. Now with 3 screens the 670 just won't cut it. I am still fighting to get my frames up in BF3. With the new drivers I can play on a mix of ultra and high with shadows on med and ssao butter smooth on everything BF3 has to offer and easily max out skyrim with tonnes of mods and tex ugrids 9. Before the 12.7 it was impossible and the 680 was happier in my system.

Once again if you are fighting for frames the 7970 is the only choice...for now


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> The end result is that while AMD has tied NVIDIA for the single-GPU performance crown with the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition, *the GeForce GTX 680 is still the more desirable gaming card.* There are a million exceptions to this statement of course (and it goes both ways), but as we said before, these cards may be tied but they're anything but equal.


They are equal, but the GTX 680 is more desirable? I disagree.
The 7970 indisputably benefits more from overclocking than the 680, excels more in extremely demanding scenarios, and is consistently improving with drivers. For people who chiefly concern themselves with performance and do push their hardware further than stock, I would expect the 7970 to be more desirable. It's certainly a more desirable card, to me.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> They are equal, but the GTX 680 is more desirable? I disagree.
> The 7970 indisputably benefits more from overclocking than the 680, excels more in extremely demanding scenarios, and is consistently improving with drivers. For people who chiefly concern themselves with performance and do push their hardware further than stock, I would expect the 7970 to be more desirable. It's certainly a more desirable card, to me.


I just played BF3 and I agree!!!!!!! I am shocked with how much these drivers have improved this card! it FEELS like 10 frames faster than the 680 on 3 screens. If they don't improve the drivers for the 680 for a huge boost in performance then I think I made my choice and will sell the 680


----------



## bobmanL11

I hadn't bothered looking at the estimated ASIC values on either the GTX 680's or the AMD 7970's. Thanks for bringing that up, I'll look into that. Haha I haven't looked at those values on cards I've owned in a loooong time.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobmanL11*
> 
> I hadn't bothered looking at the estimated ASIC values on either the GTX 680's or the AMD 7970's. Thanks for bringing that up, I'll look into that. Haha I haven't looked at those values on cards I've owned in a loooong time.


I'd be interested in what they were if you don't mind actually along with the OCs you got on each card. It's just something I noticed but with one card on each side it's not much of a sample size.


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Don't be too jealous. I got a 670 that will barely touch 1180. Runs cooler then any other card I ever owned. Makes it even worse the dumb thing doesn't have unlocked voltage. Asic is relatively high too at 80% but it seems to me from my limited experience with both that Asic is done a bit differently with both manufacturers. My 7970 had an Asic of 83% and it was a total boss. It also was one of the model that ran at a lower voltage at stock. Who knows though. I never paid attention to Asic with my previous cards so I don't have much to go off of.


Never take ASIC into consideration. I had a really nice ASIC of 89 on one of my 7970's that couldn't get past 1200 with any voltage. Haven't checked the 680's -- They both are running at 1250 and don't hit 70c under full load and that's before boosting and without adjusting the fan speed.

Good luck finding 7970's doing that on the reference model and keeping quiet/cool


----------



## adridu59

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> Never take ASIC into consideration.


My 470 SOC has an ASIC of 72.9%.


----------



## jtom320

Graph tells you pretty much everything you need to know.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Graph tells you pretty much everything you need to know.


True. A reference regular 7970 is the best bet considering a oced ghz model is the same as a oced regular 7970. Time to jump on all the regular 7970s before the ghz phases them out out and you have to pay more for the ghz


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> True. A reference regular 7970 is the best bet considering a oced ghz model is the same as a oced regular 7970. Time to jump on all the regular 7970s before the ghz phases them out out and you have to pay more for the ghz


Graph isn't accurate.... A 7970 ghz is the same price as a reference GTX 680 and they're basically equal in performance. From my experience, the number of games that are popular and that I play, the GTX 680 is still a little faster (not much to matter though) and they're the same price, yet the Ghz edition is a decent step above the GTX 680?

The GTX 570 is that far below a 6970???? Graph BS is BS


----------



## Penryn

A certain reviewer showed GTX 580s beating 680s and 7970s. I won't say who but I find that kind of amusing. I have also seen some people post links to this reviewer in this thread. And that is why I don't believe in reviewers.

Get the cards and try for yourself is the only way to know.

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> Graph isn't accurate.... A 7970 ghz is the same price as a reference GTX 680 and they're basically equal in performance. From my experience, the number of games that are popular and that I play, the GTX 680 is still a little faster (not much to matter though) and they're the same price, yet the Ghz edition is a decent step above the GTX 680?
> The GTX 570 is that far below a 6970???? Graph BS is BS


I don't think you understand how the graph works.


----------



## onthemour

Lol ya benches and graphs don't mean anything unless you see and watch the owners of the cards test them. I can throw up a bunch of my own benches but who gives a crap. If you are deciding which card to buy get a 7970 and oc it if you want highest frames. But if you want to run stock get a 680. If you already bought a card what the hell are you wasting your time on here go play. I think nvidia fanboys are crying because amd has the better card due to better drivers. Fanboys need to shut up. Go onto hardforum and to try and praise a amd card and see all of them scream that nvidia is always better. That whole site is full of nvidiots! Fanboys are stupid idiots. I just want the fastest card regardless of who makes it


----------



## Penryn

Ok, so I decided to go back through all the reviews everyone posted and grab some random average framerates from 25 games by different reviewers.

The Data doesn't list the game because I didn't want the "this game is better" argument to pop up.

Remember, this data is totally random. I clicked a link, went through some graphs without looking at the game, and then chose another link or graph in the thread and moved on.



I used the 7970 Ghz and a standard 680 for my comparison as these will be considered the "stock" versions of these cards. All at 2560x1600 in their respective games, and any reviewer that listed a decimal fps was rounded to the nearest whole number, i.e 19.77 -> 20 or 27.16 -> 27 etc.

Basically, people are arguing over 2 fps...

I was going to do minimums too, which I call the "playability line" but not enough reviewers record minimums on all their reviews so the sample data was too small to do 25.


----------



## onthemour

7970 GHz IS THE WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by 2 fps so who cares lol We all know the 7970 is about the amazing oc potential so arguing an average based on oc is pointless. If you got a monster oc you are laughing


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> If you are deciding which card to buy get a 7970 and oc it if you want highest frames. But if you want to run stock get a 680.


That is the most ignorant statement that I have ever come across in any forum. 680's are amazing overclockers themselves, especially considering how high the cores can reach without having any vcore control.

Quote:


> I think nvidia fanboys are crying because amd has the better card due to better drivers.


And I think certain AMD fanboys are pretty delusional as well.

Quote:


> Fanboys need to shut up.


Yep, they sure do.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> 7970 GHz IS THE WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> And by 2 fps so who cares lol We all know the 7970 is about the amazing oc potential so arguing an average based on oc is pointless. If you got a monster oc you are laughing


Its not all that amazing when you consider that most refference GTX 680's run between 1200-1300mhz core without any additional voltage added unlike the 7970's which need a nice voltage bump in order to obtain the same clocks.

Not taking away from the HD 7970, its an amazing card in its own right as well. I should know since I had one that did 1275mhz core with the vcore pushed to the max. My PNY GTX 680 did 1325mhz core rock solid all day long.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> *That is the most ignorant statement that I have ever come across in any forum.*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think nvidia fanboys are crying because amd has the better card due to better drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> And I think certain AMD fanboys "such as yourself" are pretty delusional.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Fanboys need to shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, they sure do.
Click to expand...

You must be new to forums. Regardless he's kind of right. Kepler does most of the OCing for you with it's boost feature and as Penryn showed up above the 7970GE is faster on average by..2FPS.









I'll stick with my 670 though and enjoy the same frames for less. Far as I'm concerned it's the best value of the 4 high end cards (7950/70,680/70) by a long shot.


----------



## jamaican voodoo

some of you guys need to chill out and cut out that fan boy thing.... i love both company's and both cards are equal in my opinion i'm just happy that ati can finally keep up with nvidia offerings....at the end of the day competition is what i want to see and what drives the price's down...its ok to be a fanboy, but it's not ok to shove it in people face


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> You must be new to forums. Regardless he's kind of right. Kepler does most of the OCing for you with it's boost feature
> .


Yes but you can still overclock it well above the standard boost clock, also its kinda funny that AMD is following this same trend of dynamic clocking with the new 7970 dont ya think?
Quote:


> and as Penryn showed up above the 7970GE is faster on average by..2FPS.


Yes and at that monster resolution I would expect the HD 7970 to have a slight advantage, however that resolution is certainly not the majority. The majority of PC gamers are at 1920X1200 or below where the GTX 680 pretty much reigns and depending upon the game still trades blows with the HD 7970. For the games that I play such as BF3 the 680 is obviously the card for me.
Quote:


> I'll stick with my 670 though and enjoy the same frames for less.


I agree, 670 is an awesome card.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jamaican voodoo*
> 
> you of guys need to chill out and cut out the fan boy thing.... i love both company's and both cards are equal in my opinion i'm just happy that ati can finally keep up with nvidia offerings....at the end of the day competition is what i want to see and what drives the price's down...its ok to be a fanboy, but it's not ok to shove it in people face


Your not gonna find me disagreeing with any of that, well said.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm very happy with my 7970's but I'd be just as happy with 680's. This generation's top cards are very close...


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm very happy with my 7970's but I'd be just as happy with 680's. This generation's top cards are very close...


Dude hurry up with that build log. No more from you til you finish.









I just have a feeling you have outdone yourself with this. I'm going to be WCing my next 'main' (non-micro) build. Going to be looking at your stuff for tips.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Dude hurry up with that build log. No more from you til you finish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have a feeling you have outdone yourself with this. I'm going to be WCing my next 'main' (non-micro) build. Going to be looking at your stuff for tips.


I've been planning this build since March.







It's just a matter of getting parts ordered now...


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I've been planning this build since March.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just a matter of getting parts ordered now...


See that's my problem. I have no idea really what WCing parts to use and the different barbs and compression fittings and what not confuse my pea brain. Will have to sit down and really research it at some point.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Well, PM me with any questions that you have and I'll be happy to help!


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well, PM me with any questions that you have and I'll be happy to help!


When the time comes I will definitely do that. 'preciate it


----------



## onthemour

Just had a friend bring his 680 over and oced in my system we tried my 680 then the 7970. We didn't bench it or anything. We just checked how it feels in bf3 and skyrim 3 screens. The 7970 was way better. Hers the big thing though. It crashed all the time with the 680s in skyrim. We used hi Res textures ultra settings everything maxed ton of mods and ugrids 11. The 7970 was at 2.9 gigs all the timebut I don't think that was the problem.at 5670 1080 I want the 7970 in my system...now my friend does too


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> Just had a friend bring his 680 over and oced in my system we tried my 680 then the 7970. We didn't bench it or anything. We just checked how it feels in bf3 and skyrim 3 screens. The 7970 was way better. Hers the big thing though. It crashed all the time with the 680s in skyrim. We used hi Res textures ultra settings everything maxed ton of mods and ugrids 11. The 7970 was at 2.9 gigs all the timebut I don't think that was the problem.at 5670 1080 I want the 7970 in my system...now my friend does too


thats good to hear somebody take the time to test both cards in multi monitor and give the feedback. This is what the reviews have been telling for single monitor ultra high res (1600p/1440p) and multi monitor the HD 7970 is the best card. enjoy your HD 7970.


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> You must be new to forums. Regardless he's kind of right. Kepler does most of the OCing for you with it's boost feature and as Penryn showed up above the 7970GE is faster on average by..2FPS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll stick with my 670 though and enjoy the same frames for less. Far as I'm concerned it's the best value of the 4 high end cards (7950/70,680/70) by a long shot.


'

The ghz' editions boost is what's putting it ahead the GTX 680 by the 2fps as well. And yeah, I agree, the GTX 670 is the best bet if you're not into the overclocking. Though, I never got the 670's because as you apply the overclocking, the gap gets bigger for the GTX 670









Oh well.


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Penryn*
> 
> Ok, so I decided to go back through all the reviews everyone posted and grab some random average framerates from 25 games by different reviewers.
> The Data doesn't list the game because I didn't want the "this game is better" argument to pop up.
> Remember, this data is totally random. I clicked a link, went through some graphs without looking at the game, and then chose another link or graph in the thread and moved on.
> 
> I used the 7970 Ghz and a standard 680 for my comparison as these will be considered the "stock" versions of these cards. All at 2560x1600 in their respective games, and any reviewer that listed a decimal fps was rounded to the nearest whole number, i.e 19.77 -> 20 or 27.16 -> 27 etc.
> Basically, people are arguing over 2 fps...
> I was going to do minimums too, which I call the "playability line" but not enough reviewers record minimums on all their reviews so the sample data was too small to do 25.


You know what's funny is how so many reviewers review the GPU's with the same game and exactly the same settings and get totally different results. It's why I don't look at reviews, I buy them both and test for myself lol


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> '
> I agree, the GTX 670 is the best bet if you're not into the overclocking.


What? why do some of you keep saying this? this couldnt be further from the truth. GTX 670's overclock like crazy with many hitting 1250-1300mhz core and beyond and the best part about this is that no additional voltage was required which means less heat!

You make it sound as though its usless to overclock a 670 which is just stupid because an overclocked 670 is a beast of a card which will easily outperform its bigger brother 680 for $100.00 less.

Yes the HD 7970 has voltage control but whats the big deal when the core still maxes between 1250-1300mhz just like a 670 does without even touching the voltage.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Its not all that amazing when you consider that most refference GTX 680's run between 1200-1300mhz core without any additional voltage added unlike the 7970's which need a nice voltage bump in order to obtain the same clocks.
> Not taking away from the HD 7970, its an amazing card in its own right as well. I should know since I had one that did 1275mhz core with the vcore pushed to the max. My PNY GTX 680 did 1325mhz core rock solid all day long.


They have different architectures. You cant compare the clocks from different chips. If a 7970 can overclock at 1275 mhz its a totally beast and wins against any gtx680. Thats why the reviews with the same clocks is just dumb.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> What? why do some of you keep saying this? this couldnt be further from the truth. GTX 670's overclock like crazy with many hitting 1300mhz core and beyond and the best part about this is that no additional voltage was required which means less heat!
> Yes the HD 7970 has voltage control but big deal with the core still maxes between 1250-1300mhz just like a 670 does without even touching the voltage.


Yeah that's not what I was really saying. The 670 especially the models with the full PCB are beast overclockers. A 1300mhz 670 vs a 1300mhz 7970 is going to win as many as it loses. Do not disagree however that the 7970GE is going to give you the most absolute power.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> They have different architectures. You cant compare the clocks from different chips. If a 7970 can overclock at 1275 mhz its a totally beast and wins against any gtx680. Thats why the reviews with the same clocks is just dumb.


I realize its a different architecture, that wasnt really my point. However your wrong when you say that a HD 7970 at 1275mhz core will win against any GTX 680. I had both cards and stuck with the faster one when both were overclocked to their max, I will let you figure out which one I kept.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> A 1300mhz 670 vs a 1300mhz 7970 is going to win as many as it loses.


I absolutely agree with that.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Yeah that's not what I was really saying. The 670 especially the models with the full PCB are beast overclockers. A 1300mhz 670 vs a 1300mhz 7970 is going to win as many as it loses. Do not disagree however that the 7970GE is going to give you the most absolute power.


Thats completely untrue. You might not be comparing with the latest drivers. clock for clock HD 7970 beats GTX 680 when compared across a wide range of games.


----------



## Farih

OMG, you kids stop it please !

I dont want to close a thread just because of a few.........


----------



## XiZeL

considering i mainly play Starcraft 2 and Battlefield 3 im mooving to nVidia, its a no brainer.

but resuming that its all down to what you play, there is no real king of the hill, just depends what hill you are climbing.

Also, not a fanboy here, there is a slight favoritisme for AMD but when i comes to money i always go for what gives me more bang for my buck.
since 4870 its been the case but this time i will be going for a GTX670, for the reasons stated above.


----------



## RobsM6S

BTW nvidias latest beta driver has really opened up my GTX 680 in a number of my games, particularly BF3 which as fast enough before but now is even faster with much much better mins.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> WRONG..........
> http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/37209-geforce-gtx-680-vs-radeon-hd-7970-clocks/?page=3
> Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, Take your ati bath robe off before posting


Here is the way I see it. Nobody should have a different opinion than yours. So what makes you think you aren't biased. You won't look at any review which does not suit your conclusion. Sorry but you can call whatever names you want but there are going to be people to disagree with you.

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-18/recapitulatif-performances.html

Perf summary

1920 X 1080
GTX 680 - 127
HD 7970 Ghz - 140

2560 x 1600
GTX 680 - 129
HD 7970 Ghz - 145

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/28.html

Pef summary

1920 x 1200

GTX 680 - 98
HD 7970 Ghz - 100

2560 X 1600

GTX 680 - 92
HD 7970 Ghz - 100

And for a difference please read the reviews you quote fully.

AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB GHz Edition Review by hardwarecanucks

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-21.html

"In our opinion and with all other things being equal, the HD 7970 GHz Edition is the card to have for ultra high resolution gaming"

Please look at 2560 Extreme settings and 5760 x 1080. HD 7970 Ghz leads by 5% and 7% in the site which you so much like to quote.

So i guess you should start mud slinging HWC too.


----------



## Chewy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Here is the way I see it. Nobody should have a different opinion than yours. So what makes you think you aren't biased. You won't look at any review which does not suit your conclusion. Sorry but you can call whatever names you want but there are going to be people to disagree with you.
> http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-18/recapitulatif-performances.html
> Perf summary
> 1920 X 1080
> GTX 680 - 127
> HD 7970 Ghz - 140
> 2560 x 1600
> GTX 680 - 129
> HD 7970 Ghz - 145
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/28.html
> Pef summary
> 1920 x 1200
> GTX 680 - 98
> HD 7970 Ghz - 100
> 2560 X 1600
> GTX 680 - 92
> HD 7970 Ghz - 100
> And for a difference please read the reviews you quote fully.
> AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB GHz Edition Review by hardwarecanucks
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-21.html
> "In our opinion and with all other things being equal, the HD 7970 GHz Edition is the card to have for ultra high resolution gaming"
> Please look at 2560 Extreme settings and 5760 x 1080. HD 7970 Ghz leads by 5% and 7% in the site which you so much like to quote.
> So i guess you should start mud slinging HWC too.


I have quoted many 7950's 7970 to people if it suits their needs, You on the otherhand may aswell sig your posts and be done with it as they are all the same and very anti nvidia, And i am not the only one to say the same thing to you..........

I could also sit here and cherry pick reviews that state the 680 is the better card but i really cant be bothered, Taking a can opener to a nuclear submarine would be easier than removing your red tinted glasses


----------



## xerb

Overclocked Zotac GTX 670 AMP! > Overclocked GTX 680 and its only $440!

also Stock Zotac GTX 670 AMP! > Stock GTX 680



http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_670_Amp_Edition/31.html

Edit: It seems like everyone wakes up at around 10AM Pacific Standard Time.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chewy*
> 
> I have quoted many 7950's 7970 to people if it suits their needs, You on the otherhand may aswell sig your posts and be done with it as they are all the same and very anti nvidia, And i am not the only one to say the same thing to you..........
> I could also sit here and cherry pick reviews that state the 680 is the better card but i really cant be bothered, Taking a can opener to a nuclear submarine would be easier than removing your red tinted glasses


You don't read all my posts. People in these forums have appreciated my posts at many times. I don't want to force my view on anyone. But I won't change my view because somebody calls me names. My opinion is very clear . *For perf/watt GTX 600 cards are ahead by quite a margin. They are good cards at 1080p/1200p.* But even at 1080p there are games where their bandwidth constraints are exposed. You might consider them corner cases or rare. But its up to the person/user/gamer to decide for himself what he considers important. Also in the most demanding games which don't hit 60+ fps with max settings at 1080p HD 7970 wins more games and with significant margins.
I make my recommendations expecting a person to own his USD 500 card for 2 - 3 years. For that time frame HD 7970 has the edge with the bandwidth and superior compute performance. If the person is constantly going to be upgrading every year and he is at 1080p GTX 680 is a good fit. And at single monitor ultra high res (1600p) and multi monitor I don't need to say anything. The opinion is shared by a majority of gamers/reviewers.


----------



## sugarhell

lol why i think 7850 power edition is the best performance/watt card? And when you overclock it its a beast. two of this at the price of gtx670 its an awesome deal


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Raghu, you are the very last person who should be pointing the finger with this accuastion! Everything you just stated fits you to a tee 100%.


If I and you disagree on which is the faster card - HD 7970 or GTX 680, what makes you neutral and me biased. Not everybody at ocn is going to agree with you. Heck even websites all don't come to the same conclusion. There are websites which say HD 7970 is faster than GTX 680 at 1600p. There are other websites which don't come to that conclusion. Obviously the games you are looking at matters. The settings you test at matters. I can tell you there are sites which test games doing 100+ fps at 1080p but don't max out AA settings (4x AA instead of 8x AA). So I look quite a bit into the games / settings and the fps they are doing. I give most importance to games doing less than 60 fps at 1080p, because thats where a 5 fps diff makes a big difference. I agree there are people who play on 120 Hz monitors. But I believe a person can distinguish a 5 fps diff at 50 fps more easily than a 5 fps diff at 100 fps and that it makes a bigger impact on playability.


----------



## onthemour

LMAO everyone throwing up benches and saying this site says this and this site says that. The only person you should trust are the ones that own both. With the new drivers amd is slightly ahead of it oces well. If you use 3 screens then the 7970 is definitely the winner. These high and cards are mainly for higher than normal resolutions anyways.


----------



## brettjv

GUYS, SERIOUSLY









We just had to clean this up again, and our patience grows thin.

There is to be no more calling each other fanboys (or things of that nature) on this thread.

A legitimate case can be for either the 680 or 7970 being the 'faster' of the two cards. They're both great, they trade off wins depending on the game being better designed for the strengths of one architecture over the other. ANYBODY who tries to argue that one is 'faster' than the other in any absolute sense ... is in the wrong.

You guys are welcome to post benches, and politely debate until the cows come home, but LEAVE THE PERSONAL STUFF OUT OF IT, or sanctions will be forthcoming for everyone involved in the flame-war.

Thank You!


----------



## Balsagna

What I am saying about the GTX 670 vs the GTX 680 overclocking isn't that the GTX 670 doesn't overclock as well as a GTX 680 does. It's the small changes that already make it somewhat slower than a GTX 680. When you apply overclocking, clock to clock, the GTX 680 gets more of an improvment than the GTX 670 does expanding the gap on the performance. You can research that just as I have.

I'm not the review posting type like I've stated in the past. I go and own the cards and test them myself because I have the availability to do so. However, that is just my opinion from my research of the GTX 670's since I haven't owned them.... yet

As for the 7970 vs the GTX 680's -- Installed the latest drivers on both and the GTX 680 is still faster than my 7970's with them all running at 1200 each. One of my GTX 680's is the best clockers at 1.3ghz and while one of my 7970's can achieve that. It's too hot and audibility is too loud to keep it cooled where as the GTX 680 isn't breaking a sweat... just stock voltages









This is at 1920x1080p though I might add. I am sure my 7970's are faster at much higher resolution and I wouldn't consider using GTX 680's in multimonitor setups.

I shouldn't comment on the reviews that people post but once you actually start owning these cards, you'll find that the reviewers results are all almost BS in some form or fashion with varying results.

I'm not crapping on the 7970or the GTX 670 or the GTX 680 -- Each gpu has their own advantages and I've said it before. the 7970 ghz edition merely closed the gap on performance. It till is a hot card and a loud one at that and a hungry thing. But it's sweet


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Again what people around this forums overlook are the benches of crysis 2 (crysis 3 same engine as 2) and metro (raw fps game) which of course favors ati.. Thats the only 2 upcoming games what will test this 2 cards before new gpus come out...
They are also overlooking that every bench out there nvidia cards are automatic overclocked (THE BOOST lol) ati shame on you by the way....

Games to keep in mind for upgrading right now crysis 3 and Last Light... Everything else is playable in any card.


----------



## brettjv

Balsagna, I would be willing to bet that the OC scaling % works out identically for 670's vs 680's, at least in the vast majority of games. In other words, if a +10% core OC gets you +7.5% more FPS on the 680, the exact same thing will happen on a 670









And Gunblade, I've seen no evidence that 7970 is faster on Crysis 2 than a 680. They are extremely close, that is for certain. Depends on what website you 'believe'. On Metro OTOH the AMD card shows a distinct advantage.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> Balsagna, I would be willing to bet that the OC scaling % works out identically for 670's vs 680's, at least in the vast majority of games.


It does, that guy doesnt know what he is talking about.

Quote:


> And Gunblade, I've seen no evidence that 7970 is faster on Crysis 2 than a 680. They are extremely close, that is for certain. Depends on what website you 'believe'.


+1


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> They are also overlooking that every bench out there nvidia cards are automatic overclocked (THE BOOST lol) ati shame on you by the way....
> .


Here you go, a review with the GHZ edition HD 7970 which also automatically overclocks itself.









Drivers:
NVIDIA 304.48 Beta
AMD 12.7 Beta
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55064-asus-gtx-680-directcu-ii-top-review-2.html
The reference GTX 680 wins nearly all benchmarks head 2 head vs the 7970/7970 GHz. While the GTX 680 DCii sweeps nearly all benchmarks in this review.( Yeah I know it's pre-overclocked)
BF3 with[/B] 4xMSAA


Batman with 4xMSAA


Crysis 2


Deus Ex


Dirt 3


Metro 2033


Shogun 2:Total War


Skyrim


Wargame: EU Escalation


The Witcher 2

[/quote]


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Why don't you do some benchmarking of your own instead of posting the same tired review results ad nauseam. Post some scores of your amazing 680 in the benchmarking section if you think its so much better than the 7970's.


----------



## xerb

Can someone please answer this honest question?

Why would someone buy a GTX 680 for $500, when you can get a pre-overclocked GTX 670 for $399 and get the same performance *and still overclock further*?!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121637



DAT THING IS ONLY *25 DECIBELS* ON FULL LOAD!

Seriously, if I wasn't on a budget, I would have gotten that asus 670 without even thinking twice.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Because its not the best. Period. I don't want any ROPs disabled or missing CUDA cores on my cards even if the performance difference is negligible. Of course I also bought a 3960X so what does that tell ya? Lol...


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Because its not the best. Period. I don't want any ROPs disabled or missing CUDA cores on my cards even if the performance difference is negligible. Of course I also bought a 3960X so what does that tell ya? Lol...


Ok, that is ridiculous.

How can you tell how many cuda cores you have while gaming? How is it not the best when it performs like the best?

It's WAYY quieter and uses less power.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I know its not the best and that can't happen in my rig. Top of the line CPU's and GPU's. ONLY.









Never said I wasn't an idiot!


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Never said I wasn't an idiot!


Good. Next.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Here you go, a review with the GHZ edition HD 7970 which also automatically overclocks itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drivers:
> NVIDIA 304.48 Beta
> AMD 12.7 Beta
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55064-asus-gtx-680-directcu-ii-top-review-2.html
> The reference GTX 680 wins nearly all benchmarks head 2 head vs the 7970/7970 GHz. While the GTX 680 DCii sweeps nearly all benchmarks in this review.( Yeah I know it's pre-overclocked)
> --snip, see screen shot above


Just shows how bad the GTX 680 is in my opinion, they are uber high end enthusiast level cards aimed at 2560x1600 or higher and yet as the resolution grows its lead drops and in some games it even loses.

It also tanks more as well when anti-aliasing is enabled compared to the 7970

Completely and utterly bnadwidth and fill rate limited.

Keplar is a card aimed at 1080/1200p and nothing more.


----------



## jtom320

Kepler being aimed at 1080p isn't really a criticism. The vast vast majority of gamers are using 1080p and will be for the forseeable future.

It's not like it's performance drops off a cliff after that either. Performance across the board is within margin of error basically. These arguments are getting stupid.


----------



## y2kcamaross

This is ridiculous, the 680s, 7970s, 670s and 7950s are all absolute monsters at any resolution, when you add a second there won't be any game that won't run @ 60+fps with 4+ million pixels


----------



## zGunBLADEz

@ RobsM6S
im talking about crysis 2 and metro and you still bombard the thing with a bunch of useless graphics non related to those 2 games..

Dude im on 90 frames average on crysis 2 timesquare adrenaline benchmark (1200/1950=mild overclock) XD 15 frames higher than the 7970ghz edition on your table and over with you already overclocked 680 asus with boost in top of it lol...









Since when power consumption is a issue when you have people running psu's of 1200watts?
.......

I like this part of your source..
Quote:


> Crysis 2 with the DX11 and Texture Package installed not only looks great but it is a strain on any GPU. For this benchmark, *we used a classic runthrough which includes far views, explosions, combat and close-in knifing; basically every hallmark of gameplay.*


*Show us reviews that we can replicate please, with the proper available tools for the users...*


----------



## jamaican voodoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> This is ridiculous, the 680s, 7970s, 670s and 7950s are all absolute monsters at any resolution, when you add a second there won't be any game that won't run @ 60+fps with 4+ million pixels


THIS!!!


----------



## onthemour

All these benches are wrong and or fake lmao

I have tried both cards many times and the 7970 with 12.7 us better.plus no body cares what the 1920 1080 Res or lower is. These cards are only pt to work on high Res like 5760 1080


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> All these benches are wrong and or fake lmao
> I have tried both cards many times and the 7970 with 12.7 us better.plus no body cares what the 1920 1080 Res or lower is. These cards are only pt to work on high Res like 5760 1080


You know what is wrong?
This is wrong
Quote:


> Speaking of air cooling, with a voltage bump of 100mV *we were able to hit a 1388MHz Boost Speed which actually led to between 1425Hz and 1472MHz in-game*. Memory was also raring to go and we eventually hit 6488MHz before the GDDR5's error correction came into effect. Naturally, the associated performance increase with these clock speeds was nothing short of amazing.




















i freaking loled at the gains at those clocks, just a shame really XD


----------



## onthemour

A friend of mine has a GHz model and claims that the his card oces higher than the normal 7970 I doubt this. If they are better binned chips that just means they are probably monster ocers


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> Just shows how bad the GTX 680 is in my opinion, they are uber high end enthusiast level cards aimed at 2560x1600 or higher and yet as the resolution grows its lead drops and in some games it even loses.
> It also tanks more as well when anti-aliasing is enabled compared to the 7970
> Completely and utterly bnadwidth and fill rate limited.
> Keplar is a card aimed at 1080/1200p and nothing more.


The same thing happened as resolution went up high with Fermi vs. Cypress. Was that because Fermi was utterly bandwidth and fillrate limited? BTW, how are you concluding it's a 'fill rate' limitation, exactly?

I believe that AMD's drivers are calibrated to favor higher resolutions more than nV's are, and that accounts for a large % of the reason that AMD tends to 'catch up and sometimes surpass' at higher res. nV has played around with doing this before as well, they had a few driver generations where perf dropped (on the same cards) at lower resolutions so that 2560x1600 would shine. So I know that kind of thing can be done.

Also, allow me to remind you ... according to [H]

"The biggest question in regards to performance and gameplay experience about GeForce GTX 680 SLI was if the 2GB of VRAM per GPU and lesser memory bandwidth compared to Radeon HD 7970 would be a hindrance. Our testing has clearly answered that question. In fact, in every game we tested, GTX 680 SLI offered a better gameplay experience compared to Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX. We specifically tested at NV Surround and Eyefinity at the maximum resolution of our configuration at 5760x1200 to see if there would be any bottlenecks. We found that the new GeForce GTX 680 SLI has the performance where it counts."'

And I certainly don't see any evidence of 'tanking' by the 680 anywhere in those benchmarks









BTW, please don't quote huge screenshots like that when they're only 3 posts earlier. I fixed it for ya, btw








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> i freaking loled at the gains at those clocks, just a shame really XD


What what was it you 'freaking LOLed at", exactly? Clue us all in?


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Why don't you do some benchmarking of your own instead of posting the same tired review results ad nauseam. Post some scores of your amazing 680 in the benchmarking section if you think its so much better than the 7970's.


I never said the GTX 680 was so much better than an HD 7970 so please try not be such a drama queen. In fact I have clearly stated that both cards trade blows depending upon the game and resolution and have also clearly stated that for resolutions above 1920X1200 that I would recommend the HD 7970.

Last but not least I have owned both cards simultaneously as I have always done in the past when both sides released their top GPU's so I could decide which one suited me the best.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> Just shows how bad the GTX 680 is in my opinion, they are uber high end enthusiast level cards aimed at 2560x1600 or higher and yet as the resolution grows its lead drops and in some games it even loses.
> It also tanks more as well when anti-aliasing is enabled compared to the 7970
> Completely and utterly bnadwidth and fill rate limited.
> Keplar is a card aimed at 1080/1200p and nothing more.


Thanks for recaping everything that I have already stated on more than one occasion around here.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> @ RobsM6S
> im talking about crysis 2 and metro
> 
> and you still bombard the thing with a bunch of useless graphics non related to those 2 games..


And those charts were not directed at anything that you said in regards to Crysis 2 and Metro, Genius.







BTW both the GTX 680 and HD 7970 are extremely close in Crysis 2 and depending upon which review you read they seem to trade blows in this title by a couple of frames per second in either direction. As for Metro that game is clearly suited more towards ATI and I have never had a problem admitting that, some of you seem to be forgetting I did own a HD 7970 and have been purchasing ATI cards since the days of the 8500pro.

Quote:


> Since when power consumption is a issue when you have people running psu's of 1200watts?


Since when did I ever say that it was? perhaps you should try posting when your sober, just a thought.

Its harlarious how this raghu78 character can post the same repeated charts and dribble all day long and the likes of yourself along with some other die hard ATI folks never have issue with it.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> All these benches are wrong and or fake lmao


Why because they didnt show the OMG awsomzzz sauz *** pwnt GHZ edition HD 7970 in a massive lead on each bench? Calling them fake because it didnt go your way, how pathetic you are dude.

Feel free to write hardocp and let them know that you believe their review is a fake.


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> plus no body cares what the 1920 1080 Res or lower is.


Are you completely out of your mind? 1920X1080 is the most commonly used resolution right now among PC gamers. Triple screens and 30" lcds are in the minority, to say that no one cares for 1920X1080 or under is just pure ignorance on your part.


----------



## onthemour

My question is why would anyone buy one of these cards for 1920x1080. If your gonna spend over $450 buy 2 more monitors and join the modern gaming crowd.Single screen sucks so much when you go 3. Its like playing 1/3 of a game lol


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> My question is why would anyone buy one of these cards for 1920x1080.


Um because there is more than a hand full of games which will still drop below 60fps when maxed out even with these beastly cards?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> If your gonna spend over $450 buy 2 more monitors and join the modern gaming crowd.Single screen sucks so much when you go 3. Its like playing 1/3 of a game lol


Because to some people it looks like crap to have your screens divided by a bezel? and I dont care how thin it is, it still looks like crap. I would rather invest in a 30" lcd myself and will probably get one later this year.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Kepler being aimed at 1080p isn't really a criticism. The vast vast majority of gamers are using 1080p and will be for the forseeable future.
> It's not like it's performance drops off a cliff after that either. Performance across the board is within margin of error basically. These arguments are getting stupid.


Yes the vast majority of gamers use 1080p. But the vast majority of the graphics card market sales happen below USD 250. What is your point in bringing that into the discussion. After charging USD 500 for a high end card they should perform very well at the highest single monitor and multi monitor resolutions. *This is the first generation when a Nvidia flagship chip is smaller than a ATI chip*. they just compromised on a whole lot of things for that perf/watt. Compute and bandwidth are a couple. Metro 2033 , Crysis Warhead are not games where ATI leads normally. Look at GTX 580 vs HD 6970. GTX 580 had a clear lead of 15 - 20% in Metro 2033 against HD 6970. GTX 680 does not beat HD 7970 because these games are bandwidth hungry. GTX 680 gets hit hard by the bandwidth constraints. GTX 680 has the least gains over GTX 580 in the games where bandwidth constraints handicap it. Those are in the 20% range. The rest are in the 40% range. HD 7970 consistently beats the HD 6970 by 40% or even more. Let me put it this way. Nvidia gives you good perf/watt card but with handicaps. AMD gives you an all out performance/compute chip with lower perf/watt. pick your poison.
GTX 580 is the true high end card from Nvidia and GTX 780 will be the bad ass flagship chip gamers expect from Nvidia. GTX 680 is an aberration and a cover up because they could not get a GK100 based product out. If you had a GK100 based product out AMD would have been selling the HD 7970 for USD 350 and HD 7950 for USD 280 while Nvidia ruled the roost at USD 500 - 550 as was the case last generation with the GTX 580. So who has lost because of Nvidia not coming out with their big die flagship / performance monster. The market.


----------



## RobsM6S

Okay well im not one to argue semantics with folks so im gonna say this and then im out, bottom line the majority of PC gamers are somewhere between 1680X1050 and 1920X1200 which is where the 600 series shine. The HD 7970 is the better card for triple screens and 30"lcd's but obviously would still suit anyone at 1920X1200 or below.

The cards are close enough that for me it comes down to driver support and features.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Um because there is more than a hand full of games which will still drop below 60fps when maxed out even with these beastly cards?
> Because to some people it looks like crap to have your screens divided by a bezel? and I dont care how thin it is, it still looks like crap. I would rather invest in a 30" lcd myself and will probably get one later this year.


single screen is so lame now. Reminds me of consoles I am using 3 27" and now one looks at the bezel only what is in the middle of the center screen. The 2 sides create an amazing landscape in Skyrim not to mention Crysis 2 . These games are GORGEOUS in eyefinity


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

So after 22 pages we've established what we already knew. Both cards are essentially tied....


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> Also, allow me to remind you ... according to [H]
> 
> "The biggest question in regards to performance and gameplay experience about GeForce GTX 680 SLI was if the 2GB of VRAM per GPU and lesser memory bandwidth compared to Radeon HD 7970 would be a hindrance. Our testing has clearly answered that question. In fact, in every game we tested, GTX 680 SLI offered a better gameplay experience compared to Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX. We specifically tested at NV Surround and Eyefinity at the maximum resolution of our configuration at 5760x1200 to see if there would be any bottlenecks. We found that the new GeForce GTX 680 SLI has the performance where it counts."'
> And I certainly don't see any evidence of 'tanking' by the 680 anywhere in those benchmarks


http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/5

BF3 5760 X 1200 Ultra 4X MSAA

HD 7970 CF (925 Mhz) - avg 45.7 min 34
GTX 680 SLI - avg 40.1 min 14

Those fps drops below 30 for the GTX 680 SLI just pretty much rule out GTX 680 2GB at max quality. HD 7970 CF can easily hit 50+ fps if you OC it to 1125 Mhz at stock volts. And the HD 7970 CF performance has improved with the latest drivers. So I don't think you should have problems getting that fps to 55 - 60 now. And the min fps will also improve with OC. On the GTX 680 no such luck as they are out of VRAM so those drops will occur. And it remains to be seen if those fps drops are resolved on 4GB until somebody tests them. *And the worst part Nvidia charges you USD 600 for GTX 680 4 GB cards while you can grab a HD 7970 (1 Ghz) for USD 460.*

hardocp has not performed any of these tests for the HD 7970 Ghz reviews with the latest drivers. So I wouldn't bother with tests that are 3 months old and not reflective of the current situation. *Only users running HD 7970 CF for eyefinity with latest drivers can tell about the performance or recent reviews of HD 7970 Ghz edition in CF if any.*


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/5
> BF3 5760 X 1080 Ultra 4X MSAA
> HD 7970 CF (925 Mhz) - avg 45.7 min 34
> GTX 680 SLI - avg 40.1 min 14
> Those fps drops below 30 for the GTX 680 SLI just pretty much rule out GTX 680 2GB at max quality. HD 7970 CF can easily hit 50+ fps if you OC it to 1125 Mhz at stock volts. And the HD 7970 CF performance has improved with the latest drivers. So I don't think you should have problems getting that fps to 55 - 60 now. And the min fps will also improve with OC. On the GTX 680 no such luck as they are out of VRAM so those drops will occur.
> *hardocp has not performed any of these tests for the HD 7970 Ghz reviews with the latest drivers. So I wouldn't bother with tests that are 3 months old and not reflective of the current situation. Only users running HD 7970 CF for eyefinity with latest drivers can tell about the performance or recent reviews if any*.


Well to be fair that's because up until 12.7 CF and Eyefinity was totally broken due to abysmal driver support....


----------



## xerb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> So after 22 pages we've established what we already knew. Both cards are essentially tied....


2 pages.

set preferences to 100 posts per page.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well to be fair that's because up until 12.7 CF and Eyefinity was totally broken due to abysmal driver support....


RC11 was quite good according to users like xoleras. whats your feedback on CF in RC11 drivers since you have been running HD 7970 CF.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

12.4 WHQL was the first drivers that I used for CF and it was OK. 12.6 WHQL has been perfect so far...


----------



## superericla

Both cards are great cards and they trade blows based on the game. I don't understand why everyone argues about the performance so much.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> So after 22 pages we've established what we already knew. Both cards are essentially tied....


nope. the 7970 is much better than the 680 for resolutions higher than 1920*1080 which is what these cards are really needed for. Older cards are doing just fine for 1920*1080 res


----------



## Hokies83

Well a Gtx 590 beats a gtx 680... One of my Power color vortex II at 1200mhz is beating my 590.. i game at 2560x1440....
And with CF scaling better... then Sli.... the 7970s are someone gaming at 2550x1440 dream cards..

This is why after 15 years of Nvidia only ownership.. i have went with amd and CF..
I always try to go with what is better.. hence my choice for the 7970s and not gtx 680s.. both were in the budget... and i picked the better cards for gaming at my res.

If a year down the road Nvidia was the big dog at my gaming res i would buy Nvidia..


----------



## Farih

For me there are only 2 winners.

The GTX670 for best price/performance on a single card.

7850's in CF for best price/performance multi-cards

No single card come's close to 7850 CF price/performance

The 7970 and GTX680 are to close to have a clear winner, atm with 12.7 drivers AMD seems to be the fastest but that can maybe change again after an Nvidia driver update.

I do believe at high resolutions and multi monitors the 7970 is the card to get.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> For me there are only 2 winners.
> The GTX670 for best price/performance on a single card.
> 7850's in CF for best price/performance multi-cards
> No single card come's close to 7850 CF price/performance
> The 7970 and GTX680 are to close to have a clear winner, atm with 12.7 drivers AMD seems to be the fastest but that can maybe change again after an Nvidia driver update.
> I do believe at high resolutions and multi monitors the 7970 is the card to get.


I think the HD 7950 OC is the best price perf single card. There are good cards at USD 350 or below. You can grab one for as low as USD 320 (after rebates). It has very good OC headroom and is close to HD 7970 clock for clock. I personally don't see the value in paying USD 150 more for a HD 7970 (1 Ghz) or GTX 680 when you can get similar perf from a HD 7950 at 1.15 Ghz with voltage tweaking (which is quite easy to achieve on the HD 7950 OC cards).
These prices are definitely because retailers are clearing HD 7950 cards before the launch of the HD 7950 Ghz edition cards in late July. So whover wants the best price perf high end card grab one of these.

http://www.techpowerup.com/168620/AMD-Readies-Radeon-HD-7950-GHz-Edition.html


----------



## Farih

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> I think the HD 7950 OC is the best price perf single card. There are good cards at USD 350 or below. You can grab one for as low as USD 320 (after rebates). It has very good OC headroom and is close to HD 7970 clock for clock. I personally don't see the value in paying USD 150 more for a HD 7970 (1 Ghz) or GTX 680 when you can get similar perf from a HD 7950 at 1.15 Ghz with voltage tweaking (which is quite easy to achieve on the HD 7950 OC cards).


You might be right for US, but i can buy a GTX670 very VERY close to the cheapest price of a 7950.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Farih*
> 
> You might be right for US, but i can buy a GTX670 very VERY close to the cheapest price of a 7950.


Overclocked both cards are very competitive. GTX 670 has perf/watt while HD 7950 has perf at high resolutions/multi monitor, bandwidth and compute. Both are good cards and excellent in price perf. The user should pick based on his needs and the deals on the market.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Thanks for recaping everything that I have already stated on more than one occasion around here.


You welcome


----------



## szabdnes

Asus Gtx 670 DirectCU ii or Gigabyte Hd 7970 OC?

(it's on the same price btw in my country...)

I search for a lot of test but can't decide.
I heard﻿ Gtx 670 had some crash or stabilyti problems and that's why you had to downclock some reason btw a new driver came out and maybe that is fixed it. Can someone confirm it? and aslo find that TXAA stuff that's awsome.

Also heard that hd 7970 released a new driver and own gtx 680..

Pls someone answer me.


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *szabdnes*
> 
> Asus Gtx 670 DirectCU ii or Gigabyte Hd 7970 OC?
> (it's on the same price btw in my country...)
> I search for a lot of test but can't decide.
> I heard﻿ Gtx 670 had some crash or stabilyti problems and that's why you had to downclock some reason btw a new driver came out and maybe that is fixed it. Can someone confirm it? and aslo find that TXAA stuff that's awsome.
> Also heard that hd 7970 released a new driver and own gtx 680..
> Pls someone answer me.


The only card out there that "owns" a 680 is a 690, and out of those two options, I'd go with the 7970 if they are roughly the same price


----------



## szabdnes

Yes in my country they are in the same price... maybe gigabyte hd 7970 oc is a little bit cheaper.

this is the hd 7970 btw http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4102#sp

and one more question my Corsair Gs 600W can handle that Hd 7970 if i overclock it?

and can it fit into my motherboard?
-->http://www.manualowl.com/m/Asus/P8H61-M-LX2/Manual/263003

Thankyou!


----------



## y2kcamaross

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *szabdnes*
> 
> Yes in my country they are in the same price... maybe gigabyte hd 7970 oc is a little bit cheaper.
> this is the hd 7970 btw http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=4102#sp
> and one more question my Corsair Gs 600W can handle that Hd 7970 if i overclock it?
> and can it fit into my motherboard?
> -->http://www.manualowl.com/m/Asus/P8H61-M-LX2/Manual/263003
> Thankyou!


The corsair Gs600w will be fine and yes, it will fit into your motherboard in the slot closest to the CPU


----------



## szabdnes

thankyou man for quick reply! Keep help the people!!!! You are awesome!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *szabdnes*
> 
> Asus Gtx 670 DirectCU ii or Gigabyte Hd 7970 OC?
> (it's on the same price btw in my country...)
> I search for a lot of test but can't decide.
> I heard﻿ Gtx 670 had some crash or stabilyti problems and that's why you had to downclock some reason btw a new driver came out and maybe that is fixed it. Can someone confirm it? and aslo find that TXAA stuff that's awsome.
> *Also heard that hd 7970 released a new driver and own gtx 680..*
> Pls someone answer me.


Um, not quite. They are practically even...


----------



## szabdnes

I see. well good to know but Gtx 680 in my country is too expensive. So I chose now hd 7970 hopefully i will not be disapointed.


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *szabdnes*
> 
> I see. well good to know but Gtx 680 in my country is too expensive. So I chose now hd 7970 hopefully i will not be disapointed.


You are getting a HD 7970 at the price of a GTX 670. I don't think you can ask for more. You won't be disappointed. And yes the Gigabyte HD 7970 has a very good cooler. Should allow you some good voltage OC speeds. crank that bad ass chip


----------



## szabdnes

I will !!


----------



## onthemour

The 7970 currently owns the 680 why?

It is way more powerful than the 680 when both are heavily oced with 12.7

This is not debatable. If anyone can prove the 680 beats the 7970 at 5760*1080 please speak up!

Most people buy these cards to try and max out their high end systems and what I mean by high end is high resolutions. These cards are stupid wastes of money for normal our lower resolutions. A 580 is just fine for that.

This thread and topic will never end until nvidia owners have a card more powerful than a amd card

Once again AMD OWNES NVIDIA. THE 7970 is clearly the more powerful card. When modern high end cards are evaluated they can only be compared at really high resolutions. The end...until nvidia releases better drivers lol


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> http://hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/5
> BF3 5760 X 1200 Ultra 4X MSAA
> HD 7970 CF (925 Mhz) - avg 45.7 min 34
> GTX 680 SLI - avg 40.1 min 14
> Those fps drops below 30 for the GTX 680 SLI just pretty much rule out GTX 680 2GB at max quality. HD 7970 CF can easily hit 50+ fps if you OC it to 1125 Mhz at stock volts. And the HD 7970 CF performance has improved with the latest drivers. So I don't think you should have problems getting that fps to 55 - 60 now. And the min fps will also improve with OC. On the GTX 680 no such luck as they are out of VRAM so those drops will occur. And it remains to be seen if those fps drops are resolved on 4GB until somebody tests them. *And the worst part Nvidia charges you USD 600 for GTX 680 4 GB cards while you can grab a HD 7970 (1 Ghz) for USD 460.*
> hardocp has not performed any of these tests for the HD 7970 Ghz reviews with the latest drivers. So I wouldn't bother with tests that are 3 months old and not reflective of the current situation. *Only users running HD 7970 CF for eyefinity with latest drivers can tell about the performance or recent reviews of HD 7970 Ghz edition in CF if any.*


Yeah, I know. I've read that review like 4 times, and I've quoted it on threads you've seen numerous times. Yes, in SINGLE player BF3, with TWO cards, 7970 manages some MSAA (at barely playable frames) and the 680 SLI does not, due to memory constraints. However, in multi-player (what 99% of BF3 players care about), the situation REVERSES, and the 680 SLI manages higher playable settings. It's right there on the very page you linked me to ...
Quote:


> Multiplayer Summary - GTX 680 SLI offered the best multiplayer experience, despite it having less VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth. We were able to run with motion blur enabled and HBAO turned on at 5760x1200 with FXAA and averaged 60-70 FPS. This amount of performance is perfect for multiplayer, and with the highest in-game settings enabled the game looked great at multiplayer. AMD Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX struggled for performance, even though it had more RAM and memory bandwidth. To get the game to feel smooth enough with enough performance we had to lower ambient occlusion and motion blur. *GeForce GTX 680 SLI was the clear winner in multiplayer*.


Please note that I was responding to ridiculous claims like that of the user below me ...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> nope. the 7970 is much better than the 680 for resolutions higher than 1920*1080 which is what these cards are really needed for. Older cards are doing just fine for 1920*1080 res


No, you are entirely incorrect. It is NOT 'much better' than a 680 for all resolutions higher than 1080p. In Crossfire the 7970 is slightly better in terms of max playable settings in at least one game that we know of (i.e. BF3 single player) and perhaps a handful other games ... but at MUCH larger resolutions than 1080p.

To suggest that 680 is universally inferior the moment you go over 1080p is a complete joke, dude. You need to stop making utterly ridiculous and inflammatory posts in this thread.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> The 7970 currently owns the 680 why?
> It is way more powerful than the 680 when both are heavily oced with 12.7
> This is not debatable. If anyone can prove the 680 beats the 7970 at 5760*1080 please speak up!
> Most people buy these cards to try and max out their high end systems and what I mean by high end is high resolutions. These cards are stupid wastes of money for normal our lower resolutions. A 580 is just fine for that.
> This thread and topic will never end until nvidia owners have a card more powerful than a amd card
> Once again AMD OWNES NVIDIA. THE 7970 is clearly the more powerful card. When modern high end cards are evaluated they can only be compared at really high resolutions. The end...until nvidia releases better drivers lol


See what I said above about your ridiculous and inflammatory claims.

And let's see YOUR proof that a 7970 destroys a 680, both OC'd, at 5760x1080, with whatever drivers. Since you're the one making the friggin claim







I'm not saying a 7970 is not a better card, in Crossfire, at that resolution, but the difference is not what you're making it out to be ... at least, not until YOU prove it to us.

And I rather seriously doubt either card runs that resolution all that well unless you get two of them, so if you're going to stipulate a resolution like that, you ought to stipulate 'in Crossfire' as well.

Lastly, there are LOTS of games that tangibly benefit (i.e. keep you at steady 60fps whereas a lesser card will not) from a 7950 or above level card at 1080p. Your claim that these cards are basically stupid for 1080p is seriously (ummmmm since I'm a mod I'll have to be polite) ... misinformed.


----------



## Hokies83

Well the bench marks with 7970s in Xfire clocked at 925mhz long before 12.7 are showing on Avg 10-15 fps at 2560x1600 res cept in arkham city...
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/585?vs=588

The general census on AnAndtech forums is in agreement on those facts.

As that is where i went to get my suggestions on which to buy and why i went with 7970s and not gtx 680s.

Im not fan boy anything here i was a 15 year Nvidia owner only..

I just went with what was best for my 2560x1440 gaming needs.


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hokies83*
> 
> Well the bench marks with 7970s in Xfire clocked at 925mhz long before 12.7 are showing on Avg 10-15 fps at 2560x1600 res cept in arkham city...


Is there an actual point to this seemingly random jibber-jabber? Just askin









One thing we're definitely not short of on this thread is bold proclamations backed by nothing resembling 'proof'.

Edit: Thanks for your edit









To me, in your link it looks like ... yup, in Metro and Crysis/WH, the 7970 XFire is clearly superior, and in Shogun at 2560x1600 you can pull off 4xAA, which you really can't on the 680SLI. Aside from that, I see lots of benches where the 680 SLI setup pulls down the victories. You might even say, *apart from those three games, the 680 SLI WINS every other gaming bench they did, even at 5760x1200.*

In fact, I will say that, because it's true









Hence my point above that for someone to say that the 680 can only compete at 1080p or below ... is ludicrous. And I'm sorry but the ZOMG 12.7 drivers and overclocking are not going to make the 680's no longer even competitive as some folks seem to be suggesting.


----------



## Hokies83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> Is there an actual point to this seemingly random jibber-jabber? Just askin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing we're definitely not short of on this thread is bold proclamations backed by nothing resembling 'proof'.


I will pass the info i was gave on AnAndtech that made me pick 7970s over gtx 680s..

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/asus-geforce-gtx-680-msi-radeon-hd7970_6.html#sect4
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,907095/Test-der-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-Edition/Grafikkarte/Test/?page=2
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-690/17/


Also the little program that pays you helped sway me aswell as the ati cards are wayyyy faster at it.. and making 140$ a month from your gpus while your asleep is pure win imo.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> So after 22 pages we've established what we already knew. Both cards are essentially tied....


No in crysis and metro no lol

Roll eyes too


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Face it guys, there just isn't any clear winner this round. Either side can make a justifiable case for their cards so really everybody wins! The biggest win has to be for AMD though because this time last year they had absolutely no answer for the GTX 580. Now their top card is just as powerful as Nvidia's...


----------



## Arni90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zGunBLADEz*
> 
> No in crysis and metro no lol
> Roll eyes too


Then we have BF3 and Arkham City...

General performance? 670 because of less noise.
Noise no problem? Look at individual benches.
Going liquid? 7970

Performance, they're equal.
7970 will probably overclock slightly better with liquid cooling, and that's about it.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arni90*
> 
> Then we have BF3 and Arkham City...
> General performance? 670 because of less noise.
> Noise no problem? Look at individual benches.
> *Going liquid? 7970*
> Performance, they're equal.
> 7970 will probably overclock slightly better with liquid cooling, and that's about it.


That's why I have 7970's right now...


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arni90*
> 
> Then we have BF3 and Arkham City...
> General performance? 670 because of less noise.
> Noise no problem? Look at individual benches.
> Going liquid? 7970
> Performance, they're equal.
> 7970 will probably overclock slightly better with liquid cooling, and that's about it.


Im looking at 2 releases which are Last Light and Crysis 3 before upgrading again to a new gpu..

Even way before putting my 7970 on the redmod didnt have issues with noises on the stock cooling on the sapphire oc edition...
I dont know but i cant even notice the difference between a reference cooler over my polk audio monitor 30's with my onkyo receiver...

XD


----------



## y2kcamaross

Why are these people saying either card is [email protected]? That makes absolutely no sense, now 3 of them might be [email protected], but 1 isn't overkill in the slightest. And people buying these cards aren't just buying them for massive resolutions, I'd bet 85% of these cards in single gpu configurations are being [email protected] or below


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> Why are these people saying either card is [email protected]? That makes absolutely no sense, now 3 of them might be [email protected], but 1 isn't overkill in the slightest. And people buying these cards aren't just buying them for massive resolutions, I'd bet 85% of these cards in single gpu configurations are being [email protected] or below


Actually there seems to be only one person here making this rather bizarre claim.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> Yeah, I know. I've read that review like 4 times, and I've quoted it on threads you've seen numerous times. Yes, in SINGLE player BF3, with TWO cards, 7970 manages some MSAA (at barely playable frames) and the 680 SLI does not, due to memory constraints. However, in multi-player (what 99% of BF3 players care about), the situation REVERSES, and the 680 SLI manages higher playable settings. It's right there on the very page you linked me to ...
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Multiplayer Summary - GTX 680 SLI offered the best multiplayer experience, despite it having less VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth. We were able to run with motion blur enabled and HBAO turned on at 5760x1200 with FXAA and averaged 60-70 FPS. This amount of performance is perfect for multiplayer, and with the highest in-game settings enabled the game looked great at multiplayer. AMD Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX struggled for performance, even though it had more RAM and memory bandwidth. To get the game to feel smooth enough with enough performance we had to lower ambient occlusion and motion blur. *GeForce GTX 680 SLI was the clear winner in multiplayer*.
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that I was responding to ridiculous claims like that of the user below me ...
> No, you are entirely incorrect. It is NOT 'much better' than a 680 for all resolutions higher than 1080p. In Crossfire the 7970 is slightly better in terms of max playable settings in at least one game that we know of (i.e. BF3 single player) and perhaps a handful other games ... but at MUCH larger resolutions than 1080p.
> To suggest that 680 is universally inferior the moment you go over 1080p is a complete joke, dude. You need to stop making utterly ridiculous and inflammatory posts in this thread.
> See what I said above about your ridiculous and inflammatory claims.
> And let's see YOUR proof that a 7970 destroys a 680, both OC'd, at 5760x1080, with whatever drivers. Since you're the one making the friggin claim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying a 7970 is not a better card, in Crossfire, at that resolution, but the difference is not what you're making it out to be ... at least, not until YOU prove it to us.
> And I rather seriously doubt either card runs that resolution all that well unless you get two of them, so if you're going to stipulate a resolution like that, you ought to stipulate 'in Crossfire' as well.
> 
> Lastly, there are LOTS of games that tangibly benefit (i.e. keep you at steady 60fps whereas a lesser card will not) from a 7950 or above level card at 1080p. Your claim that these cards are basically stupid for 1080p is seriously (ummmmm since I'm a mod I'll have to be polite) ... misinformed.
Click to expand...

I own both cards and my friends brought their cards over we KNOW that the 7970 is better on 3 screens.

You see you can't debate it with us. We already proved it many times. People with both cards don't care about what you read and post of the internet. We have out own living proof.


----------



## onthemour

The difference is I don't care which is faster because I own both. Whichever one performs better goes in my main gaming rig. Right now the 7970 with 12.7 beta beats 3 different 680s. To me that fact is strong enough to claim amd as the winner right now.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *y2kcamaross*
> 
> Why are these people saying either card is [email protected]? That makes absolutely no sense, now 3 of them might be [email protected], but 1 isn't overkill in the slightest. And people buying these cards aren't just buying them for massive resolutions, I'd bet 85% of these cards in single gpu configurations are being [email protected] or below


Absolutely correct.

I like to game at a minimum of 60fps. I find 30fps to be qute choppy. To keep a solid 60fps even at 1080p with all eye candy on, you need one of these top end cards. My 670 FTW does a much better job at this than my 580 did.


----------



## onthemour

This is the way of this thread....

Owners of both 7970s and 680s say the 7970 is better at high resolutions. Then nvidia only owners get angry and I thinking they need to make people believe the 680 is better so they post long threads with pictures and links and benches and all this stuff they don't know about because they don't own both cards and cannot make and proven facts. They post all this boring garbage. Blah blah blah blah blah blah bloppity blippity blop.

Then the owners of both say no the 7970 is better because I have proof I tested both many times

Rinse and repeat lol

This will never and till nvidia releases better drivers


----------



## jamaican voodoo

well i'm gonna say is this back and forth childish fanboy thing got's to stop...the whole HD7900, GTX600 series are beastly card's imho it really doesn't matter which card you buy they all play games 1200p and below with decent to great frame rates depending on the games you play...both cards got their pro's and con's accept it people. now i'm happy for amd only cause they finally have a monster product that competes with nvidia







now just because the 12.7 driver's release boost the performance of the 7970 (some what) doesn't mean the 680 drop off the map get it right fanboys. we finally have stiff competition here that we consumers benefit from and you guy's are arguing and trying to seek winner, do you know what's gonna happen when we have winner A PRICE SURGE that i dont want and many other's who cant afford one graphics card much less two. *To be honest i wouldn't mind if every year from now onward competition between the two graphics developers stays this stiff i know my wallet and bank account would rejoice with all the savings on high end graphics cards*. just my 2cent


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> This is the way of this thread....
> Owners of both 7970s and 680s say the 7970 is better at high resolutions. Then nvidia only owners get angry and I thinking they need to make people believe the 680 is better so they post long threads with pictures and links and benches and all this stuff they don't know about because they don't own both cards and cannot make and proven facts. They post all this boring garbage. Blah blah blah blah blah blah bloppity blippity blop.
> Then the owners of both say no the 7970 is better because I have proof I tested both many times
> Rinse and repeat lol
> This will never and till nvidia releases better drivers


I own both and I say the GTX 680's are better. I actually think I'm basically the only one with proof that I own and use both GPU setups and have stated over and over again that they are basically the same performance at even high resolutions, but the GTX 680 is a better GPU simply because of the heat, noise and power draw. The 7970 merely closed the gap at the same performance and cost $50 for a ghz edition card that is nothing more than a pre overclocked card where all other 7970's are basically hitting right now and basically, the 7970's headroom overclock has dropped if you do the math. They're still hitting say 1200-1300 and come in clocked at 1000. They lost nearly 75mhz of headroom lol

Rinse and repeat that crap


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> I own both and I say the GTX 680's are better. I actually think I'm basically the only one with proof that I own and use both GPU setups and have stated over and over again that they are basically the same performance at even high resolutions, but the GTX 680 is a better GPU simply because of the heat, noise and power draw. The 7970 merely closed the gap at the same performance and cost $50 for a ghz edition card that is nothing more than a pre overclocked card where all other 7970's are basically hitting right now and basically, the 7970's headroom overclock has dropped if you do the math. They're still hitting say 1200-1300 and come in clocked at 1000. They lost nearly 75mhz of headroom lol
> Rinse and repeat that crap


OMG please don't tell me you play at a resolution lower than 5760x1080


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> OMG please don't tell me you play at a resolution lower than 5760x1080


For now. Till I get my Catleap







. I'ma ctually playing at 1368x768 or something on my TV.......New duty station for Air Force, haven't gotten my new monitor(s) yet. I was going with EyeFinity but all the games I was playing weren't running well with Crossfire let alone running at a high resolution in eyefinity. Waited it out and then got GTX 680's and am now just waiting a week or so and buying either tripple monitors, a 27'' 120hz or a 27'' Yamakasi 2560x1440 monitor.

Choices choices.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> This is the way of this thread....
> Owners of both 7970s and 680s say the 7970 is better at high resolutions. Then nvidia only owners get angry and I thinking they need to make people believe the 680 is better so they post long threads with pictures and links and benches and all this stuff they don't know about because they don't own both cards and cannot make and proven facts. They post all this boring garbage. Blah blah blah blah blah blah bloppity blippity blop.
> Then the owners of both say no the 7970 is better because I have proof I tested both many times
> Rinse and repeat lol
> This will never and till nvidia releases better drivers


The links to benches are from established sites that actually have credibility.

You on the other hand have zero credibility. Anybody could come on here and tell us that they did a bunch of tests with their cards and their friends cards. That's not proof in any sense of the word.

Show us pics of the test system with both cards installed and your username written on paper in front of it in each pic. Even with that, it's still possible to slant any tests done toward any card that you want to win.

Plus the fact that there are some others on here that claim to own both and dispute your claim that the 7970 is superior. Not to mention it's the same small group of 7970 owners that keep posting desperately wanting the world to believe they made the right choice by buying their card.


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> The links to benches are from established sites that actually have credibility.
> You on the other hand have zero credibility. Anybody could come on here and tell us that they did a bunch of tests with their cards and their friends cards. That's not proof in any sense of the word.
> Show us pics of the test system with both cards installed and your username written on paper in front of it in each pic. Even with that, it's still possible to slant any tests done toward any card that you want to win.
> Plus the fact that there are some others on here that claim to own both and dispute your claim that the 7970 is superior. Not to mention it's the same small group of 7970 owners that keep posting desperately wanting the world to believe they made the right choice by buying their card.


Don't need to. all other owners would vouch the same just ask


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mcg75*
> 
> The links to benches are from established sites that actually have credibility.
> You on the other hand have zero credibility. Anybody could come on here and tell us that they did a bunch of tests with their cards and their friends cards. That's not proof in any sense of the word.
> Show us pics of the test system with both cards installed and your username written on paper in front of it in each pic. Even with that, it's still possible to slant any tests done toward any card that you want to win.
> Plus the fact that there are some others on here that claim to own both and dispute your claim that the 7970 is superior. Not to mention it's the same small group of 7970 owners that keep posting desperately wanting the world to believe they made the right choice by buying their card.


Then nvidia only owners get angry and I thinking they need to make people believe the 680 is better so they post long threads with pictures and links and benches and all this stuff they don't know about because they don't own both cards and cannot make and proven facts. They post all this boring garbage. Blah blah blah blah blah blah bloppity blippity blop. <

YOU lol


----------



## raghu78

The question of whether the HD 7970 Ghz is faster at 1600p and higher has been answered by quite a few reviews.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/54954-amd-radeon-hd-7970-3gb-ghz-edition-review-21.html

"While we may have seen this all before from other pre-overclocked HD 7970 cards, under no circumstance should you overlook the GHz Edition. Performance per watt has certainly taken a step in the right direction, AMD's Boost works when it has to and pricing is actually quite fair considering its framerate advantage at higher detail settings. *In our opinion and with all other things being equal, the HD 7970 GHz Edition is the card to have for ultra high resolution gaming*."

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-3GB-GHz-Edition-Review-Taking-GTX-680/Overclocking-and-Con

"I found it pretty interesting how the performance differences played out. *NVIDIA's GTX 680 seemed to win at the lower resolutions of 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 most of the time, but fell behind at 2560x1600 and 5760x1080 regularly. While the added frame buffer on the AMD cards might have helped that, I really think it is just a difference in how the architectures are designed*. And even though most gamers are on 1080p or lower resolutions, I would assume that gamers looking to spend ~$500 for a graphics card are planning for bigger screens (or more of them). "

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6025/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-catching-up-to-gtx-680/19

"As an addendum to that however, while the 7970GE and GTX 680 are tied at 2560x1600 and other single-monitor resolutions the same cannot be said for multi-monitor configurations. The 7970GE and GTX 680 still trade blows on a game-by-game basis with Eyefinity/NVIDIA Surround, but there's a clear 6% advantage on average for the 7970GE. Furthermore the 7970GE has 3GB of VRAM versus 2GB for the GTX 680, which makes the 7970GE all the better suited for multi-monitor gaming in the future. AMD may be tied for single-monitor gaming, *but they have a clear winner on their hands for multi-monitor gaming*."

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-19/conclusion.html&usg=ALkJrhgehO-ZPzJVhk0x-xaIVDkKwVOldg

"This version of the Radeon HD 7970 should be available in early July for a price between € 470 and 500, *a price / performance ratio similar to that of the original model and higher than the GeForce GTX 680*, which is a good thing ."

http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/11

"The Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition has indeed recaptured the single-GPU performance title for AMD; it's even faster than Zotac's GTX 680 AMP! Edition. And at $499.99, *the 7970 GHz Edition is unambiguously a better value than the stock-clocked GeForce GTX 680*"

*The conclusion clearly depends on the games you test and the settings you test at*. When performance is really required the HD 7970 delivers in more cases. The HD 7970 Ghz wins clearly more of the demanding games (games that don't hit 60 fps ) at 1600p. Alan Wake, Witcher 2, Anno 2070, Crysis Warhead, Metro 2033, Dirt Showdown. BF3 and Crysis 2 are close enough to draw. Shogun 2 is clearly faster on Nvidia. Batman (FXAA) goes to GTX 680 while Batman (MSAA) is too close and neither card wins clearly. And the margins when HD 7970 Ghz wins are not small and they make a difference in playability. Even popular games like Dirt 3 and Elder Scrolls Skyrim are faster at max settings at 1600p on HD 7970 Ghz.

There is a reasonable argument to be made for 1080p/1200p for GTX 680 / GTX 670. But any higher resolution the HD 7900 cards are better.


----------



## onthemour

Now just wait for the rinse and repeat lol

Some nvidia lover will say no thats not true


----------



## onthemour

This thread is just kicking a dead horse now


----------



## Hokies83

We should move this post from the general section to the Amd section.. Atleast the mods would have to step in and slay the trolls..

I really do not want to read the bickering or the trolling.. I want useful info..


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

You have to remember that Nvidia guys are used to being #1 and the 7970 is screwing them all up! No longer can they smugly point to the 680 as undeniably superior to the 7970 unlike Fermi vs Cayman. Now the cards are essentially tied and they don't really know what to do about it other than talk smack about the 7970. I should know because I used to be one of those GTX 580 guys here on OCN. Thing is, the 680's were a huge let down for me with the auto-OC boost feature and locked down voltages. Weirdly I had to resort to AMD cards to get the same OCing experience I so enjoyed with Fermi...


----------



## Hokies83

well i was a Nvidia only owner for atleast 15 years... I went for 7970ss because they are better for gaming at my res... I have no brand love... the only thing i look at is Performance...

And if im running 2 7970s a 1200mhz..1600 memory that is gonna beat the 680s in 70% of everything.. That is why i switch to Amd for this rd... And the fact i can use my Amd cards to make money and have them pay for them selves in 4 months.... it was 100% pure win for me..

Now i am only hoping i have no issues in Xfire when i get my 2nd 7970... As Nvidia drivers are always better then Amds.. questionable drivers..


----------



## BobTheChainsaw

Wait, so with my 7950 @ 1100 mhz, am I getting 670 levels of performance?


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BobTheChainsaw*
> 
> Wait, so with my 7950 @ 1100 mhz, am I getting 670 levels of performance?


clock for clock HD 7950 is faster than GTX 670 if you comparing a wide range of games. You are mostly in the GTX 670 ( 1150 - 1200) perf range.


----------



## Balsagna

I think it's ass backwards. I think all the 7970 owners (including me) are all like... EAT IT NVIDIA! We have a factory overclocked GPU that's not...factory overclocked that's as fast as your card!!! And faster at super high res where 90% of gamers don't have!!! And we use more heat, cost you more money on your electric bill and make you WANT to wear headphones... WHAT NOW BIZNITCH! OH yeah, and we have unlocked voltage where we can reach 1300mhz JUST LIKE YOU... WITH LOCKED VOLTAGE --- BURN BABY BURN

















I still like my 680's over my 7970's for the majority of the games I play. They're performing better than 7970's at the same clock


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> I still like my 680's over my 7970's for the majority of the games I play. They're performing better than 7970's at the same clock


you were honest enough to say the games you play. And what would those games be. I am thinking BF3 is one of them, especially since you are at 1080p and the GTX 680 leads there. what are the other games ?


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> clock for clock HD 7950 is faster than GTX 670 if you comparing a wide range of games.
> :


No, it isnt.

Quote:


> You are mostly in the GTX 670 ( 1150 - 1200) perf range.


Wrong again, a stock clocked GTX 670 is faster than a HD 7970 in a number of games and even manages to edge out the GHZ edition 7970 in a couple of games.

Drivers:
NVIDIA 304.48 Beta
AMD 12.7 Beta
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/55064-asus-gtx-680-directcu-ii-top-review-2.html
The reference GTX 680 wins nearly all benchmarks head 2 head vs the 7970/7970 GHz. While the GTX 680 DCii sweeps nearly all benchmarks in this review.( Yeah I know it's pre-overclocked)
BF3 with[/B] 4xMSAA


Batman with 4xMSAA


Crysis 2


Deus Ex


Dirt 3


Metro 2033


Shogun 2:Total War


Skyrim


Wargame: EU Escalation


The Witcher 2

[/quote]


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Wrong again, a stock clocked GTX 670 is faster than a HD 7970 in a number of games and even manages to edge out the GHZ edition 7970 in a couple of games.


Yeah predictable. I guess we just have to wait for the HD 7950 Ghz edition reviews to know the truth .


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> you were honest enough to say the games you play. And what would those games be. I am thinking BF3 is one of them, especially since you are at 1080p and the GTX 680 leads there. what are the other games ?


Skyrim, ME3, AVP (multiplayer mostly), Batman (Obvious Nvidia there) and League of Legends (which is at 600FPS lol) That's what I mainly play, but I test them out on Heaven where the 680's scored higher than the 7970's did for me and same for 3DMark11

I don't need this graphical power, it's more of a hobby and I enjoy benching/testing with the new toys then I do gaming.

I'm also big into making games look beautiful... like Skyrim


----------



## jtom320

I find it extremely hard to believe your 680s are faster then your 7970s in Heaven. 7970 has owned that bench since day one.

Some games like Skyrim have switched lead a lot but that''s been as consistent as Batman has for Nvidia.


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I find it extremely hard to believe your 680s are faster then your 7970s in Heaven. 7970 has owned that bench since day one.
> Some games like Skyrim have switched lead a lot but that''s been as consistent as Batman has for Nvidia.


My 680's are clocking higher than what I got my 7970's up to. Well... one of the 7970's sucks and it's only at 1200mhz. Both my 680's are sitting at 1250 and one of which hits 1300. Best 7970 is only hitting 1250 thanks to heat


----------



## Balsagna

Hmm, since I don't have much else to do. I'll run a bench of around the same clocks for both cards and post their results to show that sli GTX 680's are faster... make you happy?


----------



## Hokies83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> Hmm, since I don't have much else to do. I'll run a bench of around the same clocks for both cards and post their results to show that sli GTX 680's are faster... make you happy?


Your 1080i benches mean nothing for me.. My monitor is 2560x1440. Cant stand to game @ 1080i...

It is like your case with a rattling fan..


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> Skyrim, ME3, AVP (multiplayer mostly), Batman (Obvious Nvidia there) and League of Legends (which is at 600FPS lol) That's what I mainly play, but I test them out on Heaven where the 680's scored higher than the 7970's did for me and same for 3DMark11
> I don't need this graphical power, it's more of a hobby and I enjoy benching/testing with the new toys then I do gaming.
> I'm also big into making games look beautiful... like Skyrim


Could you run Batman 8X MSAA in CF and SLI at your 1080p resolution and try to post a fraps graph. With the latest drivers from both camps. *12.7 beta and 304.79 beta*. ME3 is a game where even a single last gen card like HD 6950 will blow the game out of the water at 100+ fps.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-3-performance-benchmark,3143-5.html

I have played Mass effect 3 with vysnc on with my HD 6950 . It just did not go below 60 fps. *so its a moot comparison.*

Skyrim though is not always faster on GTX 680.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html
http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/7

*Even then the game must be doing some crazy fps. so its just academic. no major difference in playability.*

The other one you could post a screenshot is Unigine heaven extreme 8xAA, 16XAF on both your setups. Would just like to know how much the diff is . the diff is not much between Sapphire HD 7970 1 Ghz and GTX 680.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/12/

Having said that try Dirt Showdown if you can. Its not going to hit 100+ fps maxed out on both your setups at 1080p. And you will see a difference in playability which is not academic.


----------



## Shimme

Can't we just agree that the cards are very close in terms of performance, which is _*what matters the most?*_

Of course one of the cards will perform better on one game than the other, cherry picking a game that is known to perform significantly better on a specific game is obvious, obnoxious and intellectually dishonest.

Long and skinny is *stop using Dirt and BF3 benchmarks*.


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hokies83*
> 
> Your 1080i benches mean nothing for me.. My monitor is 2560x1440. Cant stand to game @ 1080i...
> It is like your case with a rattling fan..


Okay then... well for those who care -- This was a run with 2x 7970's @ 1200mhz



1080P with settings at highest which yielded a 95.4FPS average A 30~ low and a high of 233~

Fan speed was set to 60%

And this is a run at +120 with boosting and fan speed set to 60%. The boosted clocks were under the 1200mhz though and that's assuming a full boost from temps (which usually doesn't happen) and I knew the 7970's would outperform the GTX 680's here... by roughly 2-3 FPS.

What I like is the minimums of the 680's vs the 7970's though.



Will do a higher clock this time and actually utilize the boosting advantage the GTX 680's offer even though it's not a "true" overclock

EDIT: I'll run the 7970's later on tonight. The screenshot I posted was from a while ago but I had it readily on me with what you wanted.

EDIT:: Cut off part of that screenshot.... but to let you know it's maxed settings lol


----------



## Balsagna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raghu78*
> 
> Could you run Batman 8X MSAA in CF and SLI at your 1080p resolution and try to post a fraps graph. With the latest drivers from both camps. *12.7 beta and 304.79 beta*. ME3 is a game where even a single last gen card like HD 6950 will blow the game out of the water at 100+ fps.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-3-performance-benchmark,3143-5.html
> I have played Mass effect 3 with vysnc on with my HD 6950 . It just did not go below 60 fps. *so its a moot comparison.*
> Skyrim though is not always faster on GTX 680.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-review-benchmark,3232-10.html
> http://techreport.com/articles.x/23150/7
> *Even then the game must be doing some crazy fps. so its just academic. no major difference in playability.*
> The other one you could post a screenshot is Unigine heaven extreme 8xAA, 16XAF on both your setups. Would just like to know how much the diff is . the diff is not much between Sapphire HD 7970 1 Ghz and GTX 680.
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1962/12/
> Having said that try Dirt Showdown if you can. Its not going to hit 100+ fps maxed out on both your setups at 1080p. And you will see a difference in playability which is not academic.


Will have to redownload batman, I haven't played it in a while, it most likely won't be tonight. I just posted the Heaven ones, the 7970's drivers are outdated, but I don't recall an increase in FPS for Heaven from that version I ran, I also had the 7970's clocked higher than the 680's. I'll finish the 680's overclock and repost them and will do the 7970's repost with latest drivers tomorrow. I'm off to bed here soon.

I don't have Dirt 3, sadly. I hate racing games and you're correct about ME3 and Skyrim. Though, I'm getting roughly 35-40 FPS average in Skyrim in Sli with all the mods/changes I added and running FXAA on it lol


----------



## raghu78

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> Will do a higher clock this time and actually utilize the boosting advantage the GTX 680's offer even though it's not a "true" overclock.
> EDIT: I'll run the 7970's later on tonight. The screenshot I posted was from a while ago but I had it readily on me with what you wanted.
> EDIT:: Cut off part of that screenshot.... but to let you know it's maxed settings lol


Max out both setups. doesn't matter if the HD 7970s are 1200 and the GTX 680s are at 1250 or above. Just have the latest drivers and max out settings in heaven. also unigine heaven 3.0 is the latest version which you can easily get.


----------



## KaRLiToS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Balsagna*
> 
> Okay then... well for those who care -- This was a run with 2x 7970's @ 1200mhz
> 
> Will do a higher clock this time and actually utilize the boosting advantage the GTX 680's offer even though it's not a "true" overclock
> 
> EDIT: I'll run the 7970's later on tonight. *The screenshot I posted was from a while ago (1/31/2012 SO NOT 12.7 DRIVERS)* but I had it readily on me with what you wanted.
> EDIT:: Cut off part of that screenshot.... but to let you know it's maxed settings lol


Hey , so you decided to benchmark with SLI GTX 680 with newest drivers and you posted an old 7970 Crossfire benchmarks with old drivers from 1/31/2012.

What is the topic here? "Radeon 7970 will outperform GTX 680 with *Catalyst 12.7*" ??

So in your results, the 7970s already beats the GTX 680s with *OLD DRIVERS*. First you are clearly off topic because we are looking at 12.7 Drivers performance and your posting old CCC drivers beating newest driver GTX 680.

I guess then that the 7970 will exterminate the GTX 680 with the 12.7 drivers.

Thanks for the irrevelants benchmarks.


----------



## Hokies83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaRLiToS*
> 
> Hey , so you decided to benchmark with SLI GTX 680 with newest drivers and you posted an old 7970 Crossfire benchmarks with old drivers from 1/31/2012.
> What is the topic here? "Radeon 7970 will outperform GTX 680 with *Catalyst 12.7*" ??
> So in your results, the 7970s already beats the GTX 680s with *OLD DRIVERS*. First you are clearly off topic because we are looking at 12.7 Drivers performance and your posting old CCC drivers beating newest driver GTX 680.
> I guess then that the 7970 will exterminate the GTX 680 with the 12.7 drivers.
> Thanks for the irrevelants benchmarks.


























Rep button used..


----------



## jamaican voodoo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaRLiToS*
> 
> Hey , so you decided to benchmark with SLI GTX 680 with newest drivers and you posted an old 7970 Crossfire benchmarks with old drivers from 1/31/2012.
> What is the topic here? "Radeon 7970 will outperform GTX 680 with *Catalyst 12.7*" ??
> So in your results, the 7970s already beats the GTX 680s with *OLD DRIVERS*. First you are clearly off topic because we are looking at 12.7 Drivers performance and your posting old CCC drivers beating newest driver GTX 680.
> I guess then that the 7970 will exterminate the GTX 680 with the 12.7 drivers.
> Thanks for the irrevelants benchmarks.


man we need more people like you bro







... his gtx 680's are one of kind


----------



## onthemour

My nvidia 680 is sitting beside my comp its a great card but since 12.7 came it has no love from me anymore. My 7970 is back and better

5760x1080 amd is winning and good damn bf3 LOOKS AWESOME IN EYEFINITY

sorry but until nvidia make better drivers I am loving amd


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> My nvidia 680 is sitting beside my comp its a great card but since 12.7 came it has no love from me anymore. My 7970 is back and better
> 5760x1080 amd is winning and good damn bf3 LOOKS AWESOME IN EYEFINITY
> sorry but until nvidia make better drivers I am loving amd


Wait, didnt you just say the other day that your FRIENDS brought their 680's over "as if friends with 680's are common" so you could bench it against your 7970? Now your saying you have one? what was the purpose of your FRIENDS coming over then?

LIAR.


----------



## KaRLiToS

I will be trying 12.7 as soon as I put this in my PC. ( I need someone to help me turn my rig on its side)


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> Don't need to. all other owners would vouch the same just ask


Uhh, no they certainly do not all agree unless you cherry pick only what you want to read as it seems your doing.

Again, you have absolute zero credibility in this thread until you post a pic showing both cards together and your username written on paper in front of them.

And that will never happen because you don't actually own both cards.

Go ahead, show me I'm wrong. Dare you!


----------



## sugarhell

The min fps at heaven is bugged. Everytime when you start the heaven it stutter for a sec and thats your min fps. Sometimes 30+ sometimes 4...


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> The min fps at heaven is bugged. Everytime when you start the heaven it stutter for a sec and thats your min fps. Sometimes 30+ sometimes 4...


This is why you must run heaven at least 1 time before you bench it. It will hitch at the same spot everytime the first run but the second run will be hitch free.


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> This is why you must run heaven at least 1 time before you bench it. It will hitch at the same spot everytime the first run but the second run will be hitch free.


Nope i always let it run 2-3 times before i benchmark. Go check the top 30 heaven scores TSM talks about it

http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-3-0-scores/620#post_17483175


----------



## onthemour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RobsM6S*
> 
> Wait, didnt you just say the other day that your FRIENDS brought their 680's over "as if friends with 680's are common" so you could bench it against your 7970? Now your saying you have one? what was the purpose of your FRIENDS coming over then?
> LIAR.


*****

How embarrassing for you

I have a 680 at launch and have been using since 12.7

Id you bothered to read the thread you would no this

I had 2 friends bring over their cards

Yes they are common. Me and my friends can easily afford them


----------



## onthemour

This thread needs to be closed.

Way to many crying nvidia owners. But then again if I chose to like only one company and they where no longer on top I would cry also. Hence the reason I like both AND OWN BOTH. I ALWAYS WIN!

and right now amd had the best card in the world!!! If a high end card holds the best performance for a high resolution (which is what these cards are for) then they are the winners!

People like me don't care who wins when we own bothBut we have no problem shouting who the winner Is

AMD FTW


----------



## sugarhell

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> This thread needs to be closed.
> Way to many crying nvidia owners. But then again if I chose to like only one company and they where no longer on top I would cry also. Hence the reason I like both AND OWN BOTH. I ALWAYS WIN!
> and right now amd had the best card in the world!!! If a high end card holds the best performance for a high resolution (which is what these cards are for) then they are the winners!
> People like me don't care who wins when we own bothBut we have no problem shouting who the winner Is
> AMD FTW


i prefer ati. But the 1-3 fps higher is not making ati the clear winner. Nvidia provide us some excellent card (gtx670) too. Both companies is so close in this generation. Dont be so one-side and see the benefits from both companies. If nvidia didint made gtx670 the price cut from ati wouldnt happen at all. Also nvidia went from the monstrous die to small efficienty die and keep challenging for the performance crown. I dislike the nvidia from the 6000 series era but i would never say that nvidia sucks or whatever. Just a personal feeling to choose ati over nvidia. If i had to upgrade at the previous generation i would choose gtx580 because ati didint have an answer to gtx580.


----------



## mcg75

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *onthemour*
> 
> This thread needs to be closed.
> Way to many crying nvidia owners. But then again if I chose to like only one company and they where no longer on top I would cry also. Hence the reason I like both AND OWN BOTH. I ALWAYS WIN!
> and right now amd had the best card in the world!!! If a high end card holds the best performance for a high resolution (which is what these cards are for) then they are the winners!
> People like me don't care who wins when we own bothBut we have no problem shouting who the winner Is
> AMD FTW


Again, you've offered no real proof at all that you own both cards even after being called out repeatedly.

If you really didn't care, you wouldn't keep on posting here.

Absolute zero credibility is what you have.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I might just trade in my GTX 580 Lightning on my backup rig for a 680 Lightning just so I can have both to compare. Of course I've already spent way to much on my new water cooled build...


----------



## RobsM6S

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugarhell*
> 
> Nope i always let it run 2-3 times before i benchmark. Go check the top 30 heaven scores TSM talks about it
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-3-0-scores/620#post_17483175


Whatever dude, there is a hitching problem the first time or two through and after that its gone. This is a well documented issue.


----------



## Penryn

Locking this up. If we cant be mature about this, it doesn't need to be discussed.


----------

