# 7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING? UPDATE: 7970 ~8% better clock per clock



## tsm106

You realize kingpin already broke the world record with the 680?


----------



## Hellish

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> http://AMDFX.blogspot.com


----------



## Electroneng

Great research on this data but it may be a little to early to compare on release day! I feel they will be neck and neck in overclocking!

BTW, Why do you have my wife as your AVATAR!!!!!!


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> You realize kingpin already broke the world record with the 680?


I want to see clock per clock benchmarks, theyre not even out there.. im surprised.


----------



## Lord Xeb

The GTX 680 is still a very impressive card. But from my stand point, they 7970 and 680 are almost neck and neck in many bench marks with the 680 having a lead of MAYBE 5-8% (still not bad though).

All I care about is this:

How well does the GTX 680 fold?


----------



## Jcyle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hellish*


LOL!


----------



## tsm106

Why you put this thread in AMD forum and not General??
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hellish*


lol, I didn't even bother reading that far.


----------



## polyzp

I should have you are right! Maybe a mod that sees this can move it.


----------



## djriful

I would wait a bit on the drivers then bench again in the future. Right now the GTX 680 price is very attractive vs the AMD one. But both are still expensive.


----------



## jtom320

The top 680 GTX graphics score is about 30 points above the top 7970 graphics score as of right now. It's interesting how close these are clock for clock.


----------



## polyzp

yes but the highest gtx 680 oc is higher than the highest 7970 oc


----------



## polyzp

It will be a big fiasco when the 7990 is released in 1-2 weeks, with up to +100% performance of the gtx 680. I actually thought the gtx 680s performance would be higher than what it is. Nvidia's turbo boost is just better to 1058 mhz+. And apparently it continues to work even when you oc your GPU to high mhz, so most ocing benchmarks dont put this into consideration. If you can somehow disable turbo boost and run the gtx 680 at the exact same clocks as a stock 7970, the difference in performance between them will vanish (averaged).


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> yes but the highest gtx 680 oc is higher than the highest 7970 oc


Yeah I like both cards quite a bit. For the same price I think it's a toss up. As they are priced currently though the 680 is most definitely the better buy.


----------



## amstech

Nvidia's drivers/features/software are far superior and more feature rich.
They run smoother and have next to no issues.

Very much excited to see the GTX 680's 2560 X 1600 performance.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

I wouldn't trust a word that comes out this guy or his biased blog.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amstech*
> 
> Nvidia's drivers/features/software are far superior and more feature rich.
> They run smoother and have next to no issues.
> Very much excited to see the GTX 680's 2560 X 1600 performance.


According to Tech Power Up the 7970 is 2% slower at 1600p.

With AMD's better support for SSAA alone I don't think I'd agree with you on Nvidia having better driver features. Stability though for sure has always favored Nvidia. (Although ATI stability issues are often overstated)


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Yeah I like both cards quite a bit. For the same price I think it's a toss up. As they are priced currently though the 680 is most definitely the better buy.


I agree with this! Nvidia pretty much had to price it accordingly. Only when there is an obvious winner can you charge that extra amount. Look at 6970 vs gtx 580 for example. This card is more like the gtx 570, they will release a GTX 685 within 2 months, and the GTX 695 (Dual GTX 680) a few months after that. But AMD is 3 months ahead of the game right now. The long wait isnt justified by the performance of the gtx 680, but by the price!


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I wouldn't trust a word that comes out this guy or his biased blog.


I am simply linking to other review sites, and making observation...


----------



## polyzp

For comparison sake, the GTX 580 absolutley destroyed the 6970 clock per clock.


----------



## ]\/[EGADET]-[

Let's compare driver quality, that's what really matters. I'm not a fan of Team reds drivers. Going back to green next time around.


----------



## Devilguns

If AMD wants to be the real winner here it'll drop the 6970 price $50 lower than the GTX 680.


----------



## polyzp

I bet they will match them, not go lower. The 7970 is in my eyes an equivalent card. Depending on the specific game, or benchmark. In some cases the 7970 wipes the gtx 680, seen here


----------



## m3t4lh34d

Look at how pathetic the 680s score in Quad SLI vs the 7970s...

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2641/7/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-quad-sli-review-english-version-battlefield-3


----------



## Smo

I'm no fan boy for either camp and came from a GTX 590 to 2x 7970s. The only reason being that I wanted more horsepower and there was no other choice at the time.

I had every intention of switching to the GTX 680 upon release and even jumped the gun and advertised my cards.

However after seeing the genuine benchmarks I can honestly say that it appears these cards are as close to identical in terms of power as I think you can get.

They're both exceptional. However I don't think you can ignore the fact that the 680 is clocked at 1050+ while the 7970 is at 925 so when the 680 is 'just edging the 7970' that is why!

At the end of the day it really comes down to the performance of each card when they're completely maxed out if you care that much about a victor.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smo*
> 
> I'm no fan boy for either camp and came from a GTX 590 to 2x 7970s. The only reason being that I wanted more horsepower and there was no other choice at the time.
> I had every intention of switching to the GTX 680 upon release and even jumped the gun and advertised my cards.
> However after seeing the genuine benchmarks I can honestly say that it appears these cards are as close to identical in terms of power as I think you can get.
> They're both exceptional. However I don't think you can ignore the fact that the 680 is clocked at 1050+ while the 7970 is at 925 so when the 680 is 'just edging the 7970' that is why!
> At the end of the day it really comes down to the performance of each card when they're completely maxed out if you care that much about a victor.


Exactly


----------



## polyzp

But people need to see those *two* Overclockers club reviews, and see for themselves how when these cards are pushed 1200-1300 mhz range, the 7970 which generally benefits more from ocing, begins to pull ahead of, or tie the GTX 680.


----------



## Silver_WRX02

The performance are very close, now I see why Nvidia named this card GTX 680 and not something Ti.


----------



## Schmuckley

I have to say..It appears to me Nvidia has a better card naow!
:







: Maybe now those AMD prices will drop







YaY! Competition!


----------



## C6ZR1

Yes the 680 is better, but in all seriousness, can you really tell the difference between avg. fps of the two cards?
Also, IMHO I think the AMD cards look A LOT nicer with the red accent finish on the side compared to the green color and the XFX 79xx double D series are just plain sexy.

Either way, I think anyone who has any of the new cards are going to be pleased.

These GPU wars are awesome.


----------



## Ryanhabs

Having these cards so close in a performance aspect is great for us (the consumers) as it will all come down to price point wars. for once we will actually get a slight break to have top tier cards. I like that a lot, and so does my bank account.


----------



## Polymerabbit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m3t4lh34d*
> 
> Look at how pathetic the 680s score in Quad SLI vs the 7970s...
> http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2641/7/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-quad-sli-review-english-version-battlefield-3


nVidia always had horrible SLI scaling for 3x/4x SLI in games. You'd only ever want/need a setup like that if you were folding anyway.


----------



## vedaire

well if it does force a price drop looks like i'll be heading for tri-fire already have cf


----------



## HAVO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polymerabbit*
> 
> nVidia always had horrible SLI scaling for 3x/4x SLI in games. You'd only ever want/need a setup like that if you were folding anyway.


oh really?!?!' here is your answer:

http://www.overclock.net/t/988583/vegas-sli-scaling-thread


----------



## munaim1

Well 7970 has had a few driver updates since release, albeit not very good ones according to some users. This 680 card was just released, I'm sure with updates it will 'perform' better. Overall I think Nvidia have done a pretty good job.


----------



## Murlocke

Even if the 680 was slightly slower I would get it. I'm not a fanboy, I just have headache after headache with AMD drivers. NVIDIA drivers are a godsend and they have not given me a serious problem since Vista. I've had over over a dozen cards of each brand and I always go back to NVIDIA because of this. I hear AMD is working on hiring a better driver team, but until that happens NVIDIA will be my home. Most AMD users will agree, the 7XXX drivers are a mess even 3 months after release. I've not seen a single complaint about GTX 680 drivers yet, but it could be a little early and we'll have to wait and see.

You are also comparing NVIDIA's "brand new" drivers compared to AMD's "3 months since release" 7970 drivers. Compare again in 3-6 months for a more accurate comparison. NVIDIA has always had some pretty large increases across the board during the first 6 months of drivers.


----------



## polyzp

This review pretty much shows my point, however its down right now.

here

Being discussed here!


----------



## Buska103

Judging solely from TechPowerUp, I would give the title to the 7970. Sure, the 680 makes up for it at stock, but to me, it feels like the 7970 is more capable. I guess the way I feel about it is that AMD didn't clock their cards high enough, and Nvidia clocked them too much








From what I understand, the 680 still has a power limiter, has a new ineffective system of overclocking, and has locked manual voltage, along with a ton of other unnecessary features most people don't need.

But from the $500 vs $550.. tough choice. I suspect AMD will drop prices very soon because they now have a competitor in the same manufacturing tech... but if was, and it stayed $500 vs $550, the 680 is fantastic.

PS: Murlocke: I've owned a total of 5 AMD cards ranging from the 4xxx series to the 6xxx series. I never had a problem with _any_ of them driver-related







CCC is garbage though, I don't install that


----------



## polyzp

It seems like once the 7970 is past 1250 mhz or in that range , it begins to be much stronger when compared to a 680 at the same clocks.


----------



## polyzp




----------



## jman246

So is a heavily overclocked (1200mhz) 7970 better than a 680 clocked the same? I currently have a 7970 but if the 680 is better i'll sell it in a heartbeat. BTW i'm running on full HD at 60hz and when i play games it's on all max settings


----------



## pioneerisloud

Cleaned, moved, and subbed.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jman246*
> 
> So is a heavily overclocked (1200mhz) 7970 better than a 680 clocked the same? I currently have a 7970 but if the 680 is better i'll sell it in a heartbeat. BTW i'm running on full HD at 60hz and when i play games it's on all max settings


I have a feeling the difference is within error when you average it over many games. If you run both at lets say 1250/1800 Mhz, the 7970 will be the performance KING. Look at the two overclockersclub links, and see for yourself. A Lower clocked 7970 (1235) gets up in the face of the gtx 680 at 1305 Mhz. If the 7970 could be further clocked to 1305 aswell, you would notice that it either surpases the 680 overall, or its a dead tie. The difference in performance with overclocking is much more benfitial with the 7970 than with the gtx 680. If you are running at stock and only stock the 680 is the clear choice, but lets say you want to run a water loop and get the highest clock possible, the 7970 edges ahead. L2N is a different story, and so far it looks like Nvidia is ahead (barley).


----------



## Badness

I sincerely hope all this stuff about OC'd 7970s being better is true. Because, the GTX 680's stock showing may force the card with more potential to a lower price bracket....


----------



## Tippy

The actual gaming benchmarks are painting a picture that the 680 is the clear king.

And even if the two cards were incredibly close in performance clock-for-clock, I wouldn't go by insane LN2 benches (because I'll never go that far) and I simply want to compare what custom PCB's MSI and Asus come up with for GTX680.

I am already leaning towards green team due to my own experience with drivers so something really amazing has to happen to boot me over to AMD. Other than the fact that 7970 out of the box is only slightly faster than my 580.


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tippy*
> 
> The actual gaming benchmarks are painting a picture that the 680 is the clear king.
> And even if the two cards were incredibly close in performance clock-for-clock, I wouldn't go by insane LN2 benches (because I'll never go that far) and I simply want to compare what custom PCB's MSI and Asus come up with for GTX680.
> I am already leaning towards green team due to my own experience with drivers so something really amazing has to happen to boot me over to AMD. Other than the fact that 7970 out of the box is only slightly faster than my 580.


You mean the 7950 is slightly faster than the 580 out of the box, right?


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Xeb*
> 
> The GTX 680 is still a very impressive card. But from my stand point, they 7970 and 680 are almost neck and neck in many bench marks with the 680 having a lead of MAYBE 5-8% (still not bad though).
> 
> All I care about is this:
> 
> How well does the GTX 680 fold?


Pretty much this exactly...lol. I'd say the 680 definitely has a nice edge over the 7970 in many scenarios but all I care about, how well does it fold?!

Might snag one of these in April.


----------



## polyzp

In all the reviews, we are actually seeing 1110 Mhz (Turbo) GTX 680s against 925 Mhz 7970s, yet these cards both overclock to about the same Ghz value. (Lets see 1300/1800 vs 1300/1800, and you would notice Nvidia lags behind). Nvidia has the stock crown, while AMD has the overclock crown because its overclocking performance and clock gap is highest. There is no obvious winner in my opinion, yes the GTX 680 is newer, but is it enough? And is it too late?


----------



## Accuracy158

The more we hail the GTX 680 as king the further AMD will have to drop their prices


----------



## computerparts

I could care less about nvidia cards. I won't even consider them unless they make a control panel with an AA override that actually works without having to fiddle with the ridiculous AA flag settings in inspector. Not to mention better quality AA. Don't forget 8x AA for AMD is like 16x AA for nvidia. Review sites really need to start acknowledging this. That said, it is nice for us consumers to see level headed competition. Let the price wars begin.


----------



## K62-RIG

Don't agree with playing games on consoles but this video regarding the GTX 680 is very very funny. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVF8xeQq4lU&feature=related


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *computerparts*
> 
> Not to mention better quality AA. Don't forget 8x AA for AMD is like 16x AA for nvidia.


First time i've never heard of this... I seemed to experience the exact opposite when I went back to NVIDIA. I never have to go above 4x MSAA even at 1080p, there's really next to no difference unless you sit there staring at edges instead of playing the game.


----------



## auroraborealis

Close tests, and of course, no surprise to see a lot more Nvidia fans out there than AMD considering it does have a larger market share. Overall, with how close the two companies run these days, I think it comes down to personal preference.


----------



## Swift Castiel

I think either choice is fine. They're so close it doesn't really matter which you choose, since either will be a good investment for different, but equally important reasons.


----------



## gh05t

Which one would be better for gaming with 3 1080 monitors? Also does the 680 have screen tearing like amd with the mixed inputs? I was thinking of getting the 7970 lightning Im so sure anymore. Thanks for any input.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gh05t*
> 
> Which one would be better for gaming with 3 1080 monitors? Also does the 680 have screen tearing like amd with the mixed inputs? I was thinking of getting the 7970 lightning Im so sure anymore. Thanks for any input.
> Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk


Save the extra cash & buy the king..._the 680_









Read this to give you a clear idea of what it would be like gaming with (3) 1080p monitors... http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review


----------



## jellis142

Given that the GTX 680 can now do Surround off one card, AMD no longer holds that advantage.

But I really think the "King" isn't an appropriate term, because no one card is better then the other 100% of the time.

We should give each card "_Co-Manager_" status. Because they both kick the teeth out of games.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drBlahMan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *gh05t*
> 
> Which one would be better for gaming with 3 1080 monitors? Also does the 680 have screen tearing like amd with the mixed inputs? I was thinking of getting the 7970 lightning Im so sure anymore. Thanks for any input.
> Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Save the extra cash & buy the king..._the 680_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read this to give you a clear idea of what it would be like gaming with (3) 1080p monitors... http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review
Click to expand...

You can't really call the 680 "The King", since the 7970 performs right on par with it....and the 7970 has been out for 2 months already.


----------



## chmodlabs

It's quite obvious that nVidia wins here. More powerful core, operates more efficiently on less power, numerous anti-aliasing innovations and improvements, added 3+1 nVidia Surround (with nVidia surround 3D support). It takes away the one edge AMD used to claim they had, eyefinity, which as far as I'm concerned could only utilize 3D with their sketchy 3D software and a 3D enabled tv with it's own proprietary glasses.
nVidia wins again with it's "mid-range" chip. AMD, well they dissapoint again (NOT surprising)
- chmodlabs


----------



## OverSightX

They are both Awesome cards. The green team does hold it down on the price though. Here's to hopin AMD drops their prices. 400-450 would definitely get me to get another.

It's kind of funny listening to all the rants. In the end green will be on the green side and reds will be with the reds.


----------



## donnybrasco

...When did we start comparing the clock speed of AMD's and Nvidia's respective GPU? Such foolishness. sigh... whats next colors?


----------



## snipekill2445

I just saw something, you used different clocks, and processors. For this test to be fair you should use the EXACT same components and same clocks, while only changing the Graphics cards.

It just isn't fair putting a 3960x against a 3930k, really.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> I just saw something, you used different clocks, and processors. For this test to be fair you should use the EXACT same components and same clocks, while only changing the Graphics cards.
> 
> It just isn't fair putting a 3960x against a 3930k, really.


You do realize that the faster CPU and the faster clock speed GPU.....still lost to the lower clocks, right? How is that not fair, when the lesser equipment (supposedly) scored higher?


----------



## Razzal

It seems to be forgotten that AMD has had some time to nail down solid drivers, give nvidia a couple months and take a look then.


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellis142*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You can't really call the 680 "The King", since the 7970 performs right on par with it....and the 7970 has been out for 2 months already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I really think the "King" isn't an appropriate term, because no one card is better then the other 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Respect your opinions *but* I'll agree with both opinions when the 7970 is the same price as the 680 (_comparing reference GPUs only_)







I always compare the wholeness of the product to determine the best, not just gaming performance alone


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You can't really call the 680 "The King", since the 7970 performs right on par with it....and the 7970 has been out for 2 months already.


You need to take into account that efficiency/price of the card too. If you base it all on performance, while overclocked, they are pretty equal. If you take take everything into consideration.. the 680 wins even if it's getting the same FPS as the 7970. It really depends if you care about that stuff. With that said, upgrading from a 7970 to a 680 is definitely not worth it unless the person just wants to mess around with new hardware. I see absolutely no reason to buy a 7970 over a 680 right now if someone is wanting to upgrade from a slower GPU. The GTX 680 is the better buy at this time, and it should be given it came out 2 months later.

As you said, the 7970 has been out longer, AMD has had more time to mature the drivers. We don't know how much the GTX 680 will increase over the next 2-3 months. I would really like to see some "release" 7970 driver vs 680 comparisons, I would consider that much more fair if we want to figure which card has the best performance. Otherwise, we need to wait for more mature drivers (from both companies).


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> You need to take into account that efficiency/price of the card too. If you base it all on performance, while overclocked, they are pretty equal. If you take take everything into consideration.. the 680 wins even if it's getting the same FPS as the 7970. It really depends if you care about that stuff. With that said, upgrading from a 7970 to a 680 is definitely not worth it unless the person just wants to mess around with new hardware. I see absolutely no reason to buy a 7970 over a 680 right now if someone is wanting to upgrade from a slower GPU. The GTX 680 is the better buy at this time, and it should be given it came out 2 months later.
> As you said, the 7970 has been out longer, AMD has had more time to mature the drivers. We don't know how much the GTX 680 will increase over the next 2-3 months. I would really like to see some "release" 7970 driver vs 680 comparisons, I would consider that much more fair if we want to figure which card has the best performance. Otherwise, we need to wait for more mature drivers (from both companies).


There are rewards for being the first out of the gate you know, why should we handicap them for that?


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> You need to take into account that efficiency/price of the card too. If you base it all on performance, while overclocked, they are pretty equal. If you take take everything into consideration.


Absolutely







This is exactly what I'm talking about...the wholeness of the product


----------



## PsikyoJebus

I see the cards as neck and neck and the performance differences somewhat negligible. The GTX 680 wins, however, because it's 50 dollars cheaper. It's currently the better value card on the market and it has better power consumption to boot. I don't buy high end cards, but if I did, I'd take a 680 for sure. I admit that i'm a bit uninformed, though, because I like to see benches on this forum first, especially since people do benching with AMD CPUs and all the review sites use Intel chips. I don't know if a 680 will be bottlenecked by my overclocked X6, but I can't exclude the possiblity. 7970s, on the other hand, seem to do just fine on AMD CPUs.


----------



## jellis142

If I have the money, I'll take whichever card is faster per watt, and per dollar. I can deal with drivers, heat and "_Nvidia Optimized_" titles. What I can't deal with is paying too much for too little of a boost.

Like if you had the choice between a 6950 that was already unlocked and a reference 6970, why on earth would you go with the latter? Especially since even unlocked cards usually were sold much cheaper, even used.

If the GTX 680 is $500 and the HD 7970 is $500, I'll go with whichever is in stock, which ones have cheaper water blocks, and which one will provide the best experience in the games I play. I'm not that picky


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellis142*
> 
> If the GTX 680 is $500 and the HD 7970 is $500...


If this was the case, I would probably buy the 7970 because of more vram. Being a single gpu user, I do not have to worry about the SLI/Crossfire flaws. Both GPUs are efficient & both will provide excellent gaming performance.
If the 7970 was $20 cheaper than the 680, I'll buy it without hesitation


----------



## edo101

Yeah I said it before, but these guys wouldn't listen and the review sites haven't been fair to the HD 7970. When OC'd both cards are equal.

But AMD screwed themselves over...they underclocked the 7970.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*


You cant just show one pic and make it seem like the 7970 is destroying the 680, that is only one game, of which no one plays/cares about.


----------



## polyzp

Nvidia couldnt get away with charging over 549 USD for this card.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> There are rewards for being the first out of the gate you know, why should we handicap them for that?


For the same reason that people seem to think you need to match clocks when comparing the cards. If people want to declock the 680 or overclock the 7970 to consider it fair just because the 680 has a faster stock clock, then why shouldn't we also compare them both with Day 1 drivers.

Seems fair to me. Bottle line these cares are within ~5% of each other after overclocked. Most people will go with the cheaper card, which is currently the 680.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Nvidia couldnt get away with charging over 549 USD for this card.


I still would of bought this card at $550, infact that's about what I was suspecting to pay. I'm sure the cards still would of sold out, just a little slower.


----------



## DMHernandez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I want to see clock per clock benchmarks, theyre not even out there.. im surprised.


Clock for clock will only matter if their max OC are the same, if a card can go higher with stock voltage/cooling, why would you restrain it in order to match the other one? Max OC vs Max OC on reference cards should be the real comparison.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> It will be a big fiasco when the 7990 is released in 1-2 weeks, with up to +100% performance of the gtx 680. I actually thought the gtx 680s performance would be higher than what it is. Nvidia's turbo boost is just better to 1058 mhz+. And apparently it continues to work even when you oc your GPU to high mhz, so most ocing benchmarks dont put this into consideration. If you can somehow disable turbo boost and run the gtx 680 at the exact same clocks as a stock 7970, the difference in performance between them will vanish (averaged).


100% wha?
That's not how turbo and OC works on the new gtx 680, you will do it by offset and that will increase turbo performance - true, but the frequency displayed in the benchmarks with the 680 OC'd are the tubo boost ones, 1300mhz isn't the base clock, it's the target clock (turbo boost included unless you set the power target to a lower level forcing the board to throttle down it's clock.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Nvidia couldnt get away with charging over 549 USD for this card.


Actually they could, if AMD keeps the 549 price (which they wont) then nvidia could charge $575 for the 680 and still get away with it because it is besting the 7970 right now.


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JedixJarf*
> 
> You cant just show one pic and make it seem like the 7970 is destroying the 680, that is only one game, of which no one plays/cares about.


I'd like to see a clock vs. clock in bf3! The 7970 did gain ground on the 680 in that chart, and it is still clocked behind it.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> It will be a big fiasco when the 7990 is released in 1-2 weeks, with up to +100% performance of the gtx 680. I actually thought the gtx 680s performance would be higher than what it is. Nvidia's turbo boost is just better to 1058 mhz+. And apparently it continues to work even when you oc your GPU to high mhz, so most ocing benchmarks dont put this into consideration. If you can somehow disable turbo boost and run the gtx 680 at the exact same clocks as a stock 7970, the difference in performance between them will vanish (averaged).


I missed this but I can't pass this up. You say you aren't a fanboy and biased and yet you make that absurd comparison. You come across as extremely biased to me, even if you claim you aren't. You don't compare a GTX 680 to a 7990. You would compare a GTX 690 to it. You can't compare a single GPU card to a dual GPU card of the same generation and expect the single GPU to have a chance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> I'd like to see a clock vs. clock in bf3! The 7970 did gain ground on the 680 in that chart, and it is still clocked behind it.


Then I'd like to see Day 1 drivers on the 7970 when comparing to the 680's Day 1 drivers. You can't criple stock features of a card just because you don't like the results.


----------



## Otterclock

7870 for the budget-ish win. At least when the price tames a bit. I'm a second tier kinda guy. Maybe high third.


----------



## polyzp

Thats true, but it still holds to say it has a certain higher performance. And thats what i am doing. given the GTX 680 falls behind the 7970 in some benchmarks, two in crossfire will out perform the gtx 680 by over 100% in some scenarios.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> I'd like to see a clock vs. clock in bf3! The 7970 did gain ground on the 680 in that chart, and it is still clocked behind it.


Well, my 7970 goes to 1330, do we know what benchmark they ran on bf3?


----------



## jellis142

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Thats true, but it still holds to say it has a certain higher performance. And thats what i am doing. given the GTX 680 falls behind the 7970 in some benchmarks, two in crossfire will out perform the gtx 680 by over 100% in some scenarios.


On that note, what is the scaling like on this generation in Crossfire and SLI (2 cards, not three or four)? Too tired to look for articles







Because as of the 6XXX vs the 5XX, I believe AMD had slightly better scaling, but it could have changed.


----------



## polyzp

My point is that both cards OC to an equivilent range at max, within error. So this is the true test, I want to see 1300/1800 vs 1300/1800 and then there really wont be a clear winner. Stock, Nvidia has the edge with higher clocks, which i they needed to edge by the 7970.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> My point is that both cards OC to an equivilent range at max, within error. So this is the true test, I want to see 1300/1800 vs 1300/1800 and then there really wont be a clear winner. Stock, Nvidia has the edge with higher clocks, which i they needed to edge by the 7970.


But how many 7970's hit 1300 Mhz? One of mine does 1250 benching the other does 1330.


----------



## polyzp

With enough cooling and a bit risky behavior with overvolting, most people can hit 1300 mhz with a 7970


----------



## DMHernandez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> With enough cooling and a bit risky behavior with overvolting, most people can hit 1300 mhz with a 7970


Either you compare reference cards vs reference cards or you wait till the modified ones hit the shelves.


----------



## MountainDewMadOScar

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2641/7/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-quad-sli-review-english-version-battlefield-3


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> With enough cooling and a bit risky behavior with overvolting, most people can hit 1300 mhz with a 7970


I overvolt them both to 1300mv and one hits 1330 and the other 1250, not everyone hits 1300 on the 7970s.


----------



## polyzp

I do believe that sli scaling for the gtx 680 is a driver issue, and not due to the actual lack of performance of the card.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Thats true, but it still holds to say it has a certain higher performance. And thats what i am doing. given the GTX 680 falls behind the 7970 in some benchmarks, two in crossfire will out perform the gtx 680 by over 100% in some scenarios.


See this is why I think you are being biased. You keep comparing in one direction to give AMD an advantage. The same can be said about GTX 680s, if you take 2 of them and compare them to a single 7970 it will also be around 100% better. Of course the 7990 will dominate a GTX 680, but I can bet that 2x GTX 680 would perform equal or better than the 7990 since dual gpu cards tend to run slower than 2 of their "real" single GPU cards. Right now AMD and NVIDIA are on a very solid playing field and everything is going to be based on price. In my opinion, the 7970 needs to be slightly cheaper than the GTX 680 due to it being less efficient before it becomes attractive again.


----------



## Vlasov_581

dang the card is not even out yet........let the drivers mature.....sheesh


----------



## AddictedGamer93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlasov_581*
> 
> dang the card is not even out yet........let the drivers mature.....sheesh


The drivers for the 7970, for all intents and purposes, are still beta. Moot point really.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AddictedGamer93*
> 
> The drivers for the 7970, for all intents and purposes, are still beta. Moot point really.


The card has been out for nearly 3 months, the fact AMD drivers are "practically" beta, even though they aren't labelled as such, means nothing. AMD has lacked in the driver department for awhile, and there are many people on AMD that will say the same. They still have a 3 month lead on NVIDIA drivers, so with 3 months of driver development and NVIDIA drivers are already equal or better than the 7970, then that says something, no? It's definitely not a moot point. If anything it shows that AMD needs to pull their game together and get a better driver department. Drivers were the main reason I sold my last 3 AMD cards.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vlasov_581*
> 
> dang the card is not even out yet........let the drivers mature.....sheesh


Well the card is out, but yes im sure with work the drivers will increase performance.


----------



## amin7ty

i hope the 7970 price will drop ,cheaper than 680.i might buy it.but green is still too good


----------



## AddictedGamer93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> The card has been out for nearly 3 months, the fact AMD drivers are "practically" beta, even though they aren't labelled as such, means nothing. AMD has lacked in the driver department for awhile, and there are many people on AMD that will say the same. They still have a 3 month lead on NVIDIA drivers, so with 3 months of driver development and NVIDIA drivers are already equal or better than the 7970, then that says something, no? It's definitely not a moot point. If anything it shows that AMD needs to pull their game together and get a better driver department. Drivers were the main reason I sold my last 3 AMD cards.


Oh dont get me wrong, I agree 100% that AMD needs to get it's act together, but, I would think that Nvidia has a much larger team working on drivers than AMD, I would always expect better drivers from the larger team.


----------



## Clovertail100

When it comes to the actual backbone of the card, I think the 7970 has an edge; the 7970 is what I would buy if I wanted "the bar-none, most powerful GPU." Call me crazy, but something about the 680 seems gimmicky to me. When it's really put under stress, I see the two on par at stock. With the kind of overclock I'd be going for on either of them, I believe the 7970 would be the victor when it counts.

That's not to say that I don't believe the 680 is the card to have, right now. The price, performance, and power usage and thermals are impeccable. I don't know how they did it, but I'm truly impressed. That said, I think both cards are meant to be "6970/570 class cards." I won't buy either of them, at that price.

GK110 may well be my first nV card in the last many years though, if AMD doesn't delve into the extreme high-end waters next round.


----------



## snipekill2445

I agree with ^^ This ^^

However according to motherboards.org on Youtube, Elric got information that the GTX680 is only going to cost $500.00, making it $50.00 cheaper. But it does run alot hotter.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AddictedGamer93*
> 
> Oh dont get me wrong, I agree 100% that AMD needs to get it's act together, but, I would think that Nvidia has a much larger team working on drivers than AMD, I would always expect better drivers from the larger team.


Guess I never thought of that, it's a good point... I don't know what team would be bigger, but it would be interesting to know.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> I agree with ^^ This ^^
> However according to motherboards.org on Youtube, Elric got information that the GTX680 is only going to cost $500.00, making it $50.00 cheaper. But it does run alot hotter.












Card already launched at $499.99, some people already got them and many are getting 1-4 of them tomorrow. Mines arriving tomorrow...


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> See this is why I think you are being biased. You keep comparing in one direction to give AMD an advantage. The same can be said about GTX 680s, if you take 2 of them and compare them to a single 7970 it will also be around 100% better. Of course the 7990 will dominate a GTX 680, but I can bet that 2x GTX 680 would perform equal or better than the 7990 since dual gpu cards tend to run slower than 2 of their "real" single GPU cards. Right now AMD and NVIDIA are on a very solid playing field and everything is going to be based on price. In my opinion, the 7970 needs to be slightly cheaper than the GTX 680 due to it being less efficient before it becomes attractive again.


I am just comparing them because they will be the two flagships from AMD and Nvidia in the next few weeks.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mookster*
> 
> When it comes to the actual backbone of the card, I think the 7970 has an edge; the 7970 is what I would buy if I wanted "the bar-none, most powerful GPU." Call me crazy, but something about the 680 seems gimmicky to me. When it's really put under stress, I see the two on par at stock. With the kind of overclock I'd be going for on either of them, I believe the 7970 would be the victor when it counts.
> That's not to say that I don't believe the 680 is the card to have, right now. The price, performance, and power usage and thermals are impeccable. I don't know how they did it, but I'm truly impressed. That said, I think both cards are meant to be "6970/570 class cards." I won't buy either of them, at that price.
> GK110 may well be my first nV card in the last many years though, if AMD doesn't delve into the extreme high-end waters next round.


Well said. Nvidia's TRUE single card king has yet to come out. I have a feeling the gtx 680 was just released to counter the 7970 for the time being. The only equivilent to the GTX 685 would be if sapphire released their 1334 Mhz 7970, which probably clocks even higher proper cooling, but even then i bet Nvidia will have the edge for single card superiority with GK110. But , that said, AMD is ahead 3 months, so their duel graphics solution is about to released any day now. I have a gut feeling this will be renowned KING (in every single benchmark), but will cost close to 900 USD.


----------



## jellis142

I don't know if this matters, but Nvidia can focus more on their discrete cards, as well as mobile platforms. AMD has to juggle Bulldozer/Piledriver, Trinity (including all APU's), Radeons, and now the possibility of outfitting the next generation of consoles. All of that, with less money available for research and development.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just assuming this is the case.

But with all of that taken into consideration... I think AMD is pulling off the perfect definition of the "_underdog_"; they're giving us some amazing products.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jellis142*
> 
> I don't know if this matters, but Nvidia can focus more on their discrete cards, as well as mobile platforms. AMD has to juggle Bulldozer/Piledriver, Trinity (including all APU's), Radeons, and now the possibility of outfitting the next generation of consoles. All of that, with less money available for research and development.
> Again, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just assuming this is the case.
> But with all of that taken into consideration... I think AMD is pulling off the perfect definition of the "_underdog_"; they're giving us some amazing products.


I believe they are totally seperate departments/teams but I may be wrong.


----------



## polyzp

Yes +56% performance increase n for GPU with trinity vs llano is insane for one generation. But I am very excited about nvidia's 640m graohics in ultrabooks aswell.


----------



## Clovertail100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Well said. Nvidia's TRUE single card king has yet to come out. I have a feeling the gtx 680 was just released to counter the 7970 for the time being. The only equivilent to the GTX 685 would be if sapphire released their 1334 Mhz 7970, which probably clocks even higher proper cooling, but even then i bet Nvidia will have the edge for single card superiority with GK110. But , that said, AMD is ahead 3 months, so their duel graphics solution is about to released any day now. I have a gut feeling this will be renowned KING (in every single benchmark), but will cost close to 900 USD.


It's hard to say. I believe GK110 will be the 780, bringing a refresh of the 680 as the 770; this seems to be the most sensible move. Keep in mind, there was a leaked roadmap indicating Tahiti is out for 8xxx's highest performer, and a new architecture is in. This may be AMD's "GK110", if they do decide to start competing in that market for once. It looks like they are this year, but I don't think they are. I'm pretty sure AMD intended to be able to sell the 7970 at $400 and still make a profit.

Either way, 7xx and 8xxx are when I'll be dropping my coin. 2560x1440 triple monitor setup, here I come.

Edit: As a side note, if nV can release a 690 before 8xxx, it'll probably be given the performance crown in the eyes of most. The 7990 will be stock-clocked at 850MHz, and I'm sure the 690 will have no issues achieving great power consumption, thermals, and high clocks, considering what we're seeing of the 680.


----------



## polyzp

the 8970 will blow everything out of the water if the trend in performance increase continues, as it has with AMD from the 4890 - 5870 - 6970 - 7970. Nvidia has started good but has had hiccups, from GTX 285 to GTX 480 to GTX 580 to GTX 680. The last three are somewhat comparable in performance (within ~60%), whle the 7970 is more than 300% the performance of a 4890.


----------



## delow

Nivdia has some cool features if it were my choice today i'd buy the 680


----------



## AddictedGamer93

Idk what I want personally. Id love to rock Nvidia for a generation or two, but AMD cards have always been a pleasant experience. Its hard leaving the team you started out on.


----------



## Nemesis158

good to see my investment wasn't a total loss


----------



## edo101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AddictedGamer93*
> 
> Idk what I want personally. Id love to rock Nvidia for a generation or two, but AMD cards have always been a pleasant experience. Its hard leaving the team you started out on.


don't. you have no reason to. other thing is, I don't want to see AMD run out of business. lord knows what Nvidia and Intel would do, so keep supporting AMD lol.
/paranoia


----------



## AddictedGamer93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edo101*
> 
> don't. you have no reason to. other thing is, I don't want to see AMD run out of business. lord knows what Nvidia and Intel would do, so keep supporting AMD lol.
> /paranoia


Im sorry, but I cant stand being keeping the same hardware for too long, lol. I got the upgrade bug bad.


----------



## polyzp

The 7970 will most likley price adjust to match the gtx 680, which is a 10% drop and fairly significant.


----------



## polyzp

Nice turn out on the Poll so far guys!

Intresting too!

So far,

Which Card is KING?

AMD 7970 : 37%
Nvidia GTX 680: 62%

90 votes


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AddictedGamer93*
> 
> Idk what I want personally. Id love to rock Nvidia for a generation or two, but AMD cards have always been a pleasant experience. Its hard leaving the team you started out on.


Perhaps you don't know how much more enjoyable it is with NVIDIA? Now i'm not a fanboy.. but I will state my experiences. AMD tends to have much worse drivers. NVIDIA's FPS when equal to AMD's FPS still feels like NVIDIA's FPS is much smoother. Similiar to microstuttering, but even with single GPU cards. I have compared cards in the past side-by-side, and locked them at the same FPS and there was no denying the NVIDIA card looked smoother. I believe this also is related to drivers and this isn't the case in all games, just around half of them in my testing. There was a video review of the GTX 680 recently posted (if I had the link still i'd post it) and the guy compared it to about 5 other AMD/NVIDIA cards. He stated the same thing, even though the 7970 was pulling 30 FPS in X game, the 680's 32 FPS and felt much smoother.

I know the above is a touchy topic, and I'll probably get a little bit of flaming for stating it.. but it's just my personal experience with the last half dozen AMD builds i've done. I really don't see myself going to the red team until I see improvements to their drivers. My real life friend had the exact same experiences as me. I know others around here have stated the same, but it's still a very touchy subject. I suggest giving them a go for a generation, and if you aren't 100% happier then go back to the red team.

EDIT: Grammar fixes, 3AM


----------



## polyzp

At the end of the day it comes down to personal experience, and personal choice. No long is it the day where there is a clear winner overall (Example - i7 3960x vs AMD FX 8150) with GPUs, so it comes down to what you want, as they both have their individual strengths and weaknesses. Dont get me wrong though, there are still certain scenarios where the FX 8150 is a better buy than the 3960x, despite the gross price difference. If you read my comments, i give alot of kudos to both AMD and to Nvidia, although i do prefer AMD.


----------



## AddictedGamer93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> Perhaps you don't know how much more enjoyable it is with NVIDIA? Now i'm not a fanboy.. but I will state my experiences. AMD tends to have much worse drivers. NVIDIA's FPS when equal to AMD's FPS still feels like NVIDIA's FPS is much smoother. Similiar to microstuttering, but even with single GPU cards. I have compared cards in the past side-by-side, and locked them at the same FPS and there was no denying the NVIDIA card looked smoother. I believe this also is related to drivers *and this isn't the case in all games*. There was a video review of the GTX 680 recently posted (if I had the link still i'd post it) and the guy compared it to about 5 other AMD/NVIDIA cards. He stated the same thing, even though the 7970 was pulling 30 FPS in X game, the 680's 32 FPS and felt much smoother.
> I know the above is a touchy topic, and I'll probably get a little bit of flaming for stating it.. but it's just my personal experience with the last half dozen AMD builds i've done. I really don't see myself going to the red team until I see improvements to their drivers. My real life had the exact same experiences as me. I know others around here have stated the same, but it's still a very touchy subject. I suggest giving them a go for a generation, and if you aren't 100% happier then go back to the red team.


I dont see any stuttering at all unless my fps gets nuked by something, other then that everything I play is as smooth as glass. If it's there, I guess Im just used to it lol.


----------



## chefman21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The 7970 will most likley price adjust to match the gtx 680, which is a 10% drop and fairly significant.


If AMD can reach and maintain a 15% (possibly more) price advantage over Nvidia, then they will have my vote. They need to come down at least 7% quick smart i.e. by mid next week.


----------



## jellis142

I chose the GTX 680. 2Gb is a nice sweet spot, and it gets great performance per watt. The card isn't too big, the price is right and the Surround with one extended monitor is an excellent feature; low-end Kepler cards will be able to run cheap multi-monitor setups too.


----------



## Cyrilmak

Man, no one is ever happy when a company actually succeeds at something. Since the G80, through Fermi - ESPECIALLY Fermi people complained non stop on how power hungry and HOT Fermi ran to the point where reviews were horrible even though they performed faster than anything AMD had out at the time. Now Nvidia sat down with Kepler and built it from the ground up to be VERY efficient and low power, this time even beating out AMD in that regard and STILL made it the fastest single GPU card out to date. People still find crap to cry about though. Makes me laugh honestly.


----------



## Rainstar

Just Sold my gtx 580 3gb, lost $50 used for 4 months not a bad trade.

Waiting on cards with more vram to utilize 2560x1600.
Gk112/114 or whichever.

In my experiences i had CF 6970 2gb and it had more massive fps drops compared to 3gb gtx 580 sli on my dell u3011. Sold those cards and traded to nvidia.

Hell might sell i7 2700k if ivy bridge comes soon.

Similar performances similar prices, similar heat i assume nvidia a little cheaper might just go with that if 4gb vram cards come.

Should I be skipping a few generations? 1 gtx 580 3gb already rocks mostly everything. Id like better performance on metro 2033 but 20-30 fps is just not that valuable for $400


----------



## Artikbot

I don't think there's a king. They're both pretty equal, and we know that AMD's drivers at launch are far from optimal.

Right now, the GTX680 is a better card. In a couple of months... We'll see.

Edit: As there's people that like doing so, if you compare the cards to their predecessors, AMD did better this round. The 7970 is unrealistically powerful compared to the 6970, while the 680 is as fast over the GTX580 as the 480 was above the 280.

But I don't consider what I said above to be relevant in this discussion.

The GTX680 is simply faster and more power savvy. Period.


----------



## marduk666

no doubt 680GTX


----------



## edo101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AddictedGamer93*
> 
> Im sorry, but I cant stand being keeping the same hardware for too long, lol. I got the upgrade bug bad.


haha if you've got the money and like doing that, sure then. I'd just go with an HD 7970 since AMD is struggling a bit and since really there is no reason to switch sides as both cards are about equal and like you say you've been with the Red Tide for a while.

I'm not upgrading till the next gen consoles come out. my HD 4850 is gonna have to do for now. oh and money issues


----------



## marduk666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edo101*
> 
> don't wanna sound pessimistic but that only shows the ratio of AMD fanboys to Nvidia fanbhttp://www.overclock.net/t/1232948/7970-vs-gtx-680-who-is-the-real-king/120_30#oys here.
> Is there an option for neither. I'd vote for that cause both cards factually are the same performance wise.


what it makes a great card is not only the performance the 680 consume less power on load is shorter for the reference design and for performance it is more powerfull and able to play 3D games i dont play 3D games but hey it shows the horsepower it as and the price it lower too even if amd will soon drop their price for sure.from what i saw on bench and video from Linus it makes me say why would i buy a 7970? im not really a fanboy the fact is that 680GTX is better


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrilmak*
> 
> Nvidia built it from the ground up to be VERY efficient and low power, this time even beating out AMD in that regard and STILL made it the fastest single GPU card out to date..


Lol, that's why the 680 run's hotter than the sun. lol


----------



## kumquat

Clock for clock they are too close to call, the 3GB of Vram on the 7970 gets my vote as king.


----------



## MicahMicahMicah

Selling a i7 960/12gb/gtx285 box with (2)64gb sandforce raid0 to pick up a GTX 680. Currently using 580 Ultra Classified SLI. AMD needs to lower their prices soon, then nVidia can follow suit. Lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Evil Penguin

For games?
I wouldn't call either of them the king just yet.


----------



## edo101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marduk666*
> 
> what it makes a great card is not only the performance the 680 consume less power on load is shorter for the reference design and for performance it is more powerfull and able to play 3D games i dont play 3D games but hey it shows the horsepower it as and the price it lower too even if amd will soon drop their price for sure.from what i saw on bench and video from Linus it makes me say why would i buy a 7970? im not really a fanboy the fact is that 680GTX is better


this review?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRChkEvBXQA

sure most difference i saw was like 10% if i recall correctly? I didn't have time to watch the whole thing but it seems like i said neither beats out the other, WIN SOME LOSE SOME.
check out TECH REPORT, OC3D

and he didn't do a CLOCK FOR CLOCK review


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyrilmak*
> 
> Now Nvidia sat down with Kepler and built it from the ground up to be VERY efficient and low power, this time even beating out AMD in that regard and STILL made it the fastest single GPU card out to date. People still find crap to cry about though. Makes me laugh honestly.


If they made a card that ate more power and ran hotter even using a substantially smaller die, I'd facepalm so hard that you guys in the States would hear me.

The real deal is doing so WHILE still outperforming by a small margin the HD7970. That's why the GTX680 is good.


----------



## polyzp

Running cooler and quiter has more to do with the heatsink and fan design. Put on a 3rd party cooler on the 7970 and it too could run much cooler and quiter than the gtx 680. I think neither is king, and the gtx 680 was not enough to be king over the 7970. (price to performance not put into consideration, i mean pure performance king)


----------



## tuanming

Funny how NO ONE mention anything about the GTX 680 die size. Nvidia Kepler die size are much smaller than AMD and they've managed to beat AMD on all aspects or fronts from winning the majority of the game reviews or fps, running much cooler, brings new features, and most importantly its very EFFICIENT considering the size of the die! Now that right there is the "True King". The GTX 680 accomplished all of this with just the initial driver, quite impressive to say the least. Once the driver are mature, the 7970 will be left in the dust or smoke









I think the people here should read or look at the fps scores on various review sites before making a comment because I have already seen 4 or 5 reviews so far and I KNOW who's the real winner here









Here's another fact, not everyone that buy the top of the line GPUs overclocked their cards, so stock performance wise, the GTX 680 is the CLEAR winner. Something to think about


----------



## wongwarren




----------



## Fantasy

guys both card are exactly equal. they both preform on the same level.

*7970 = 680
*


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fantasy*
> 
> guys both card are exactly equal. they both preform on the same level.
> *7970 = 680
> *


From what I saw, the 680 is on average 12~14% faster than the 7970.


----------



## sue4

Hello there! It has been a while since my last post, 'coz of my "busy". Well, straight to my opinion.. 7970 is the real king (of single GPU), for now. The 680 is only "the prince" of nvidia, eventhough it is faster & more efficient. The REAL king of single GPU would come from nvidia in 2nd half of this year, and it could be much faster than the current king (7970 from AMD). My point is, if "real king" equals to "flagship product", 7970 is it. But, if it equals to "top performance", then 680 is.


----------



## Fantasy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wongwarren*
> 
> From what I saw, the 680 is on average 12~14% faster than the 7970.


in benchmarks only. both cards makes almost the same FPS in games. beside the 680 is clocked higher than the 7970, if you clock the 7970 to 1056MHz like the 680 they will be equal.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fantasy*
> 
> in benchmarks only. both cards makes almost the same FPS in games. beside the 680 is clocked higher than the 7970, if you clock the 7970 to 1056MHz like the 680 they will be equal.


Note Nvidias turbo actually pushes clocks to 1110 Mhz in some cases, 20% higher than the 7970 @ 925 Mhz. This is more than enough to justify it being a better card at first glance, but looking deeper, clock per clock is a much different scenario.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tuanming*
> 
> Funny how NO ONE mention anything about the GTX 680 die size.


Two posts above yours.

The fact that the 7970 cards we currently have in the market use the very first 28nm yields used in high power GPUs also plays a role on the HD7970 clocks.

If they were launched at 1.1GHz core (as fast as nVIDIA's turbo'd cards), we would see the performance rising pretty much a lot, and that gap would be much smaller, if not unexistant.


----------



## Evil Penguin

AMD could probably introduce a 7970 GHz+ Edition or implement something similar to nVIDIA's turbo clock.
Time will tell.


----------



## nuklearwax

Last time I checked this forum was Overclock.net and the overwhelming majority of the members here OC everything. Heck I'd OC my toilet paper if I could. With that being said I don't really care what either of these cards do at stock speeds I'm going by what these cards do at max clocks. Going by those numbers the GTX680 wins some and the HD7970 wins some, so really it's a push. However since the GTX680 is $50 cheaper at the moment it wins but AMD could, and should, cut the price on the HD7970 to at least $500 to better compete. So bewteen these two cards whichever one you can get cheaper is the winner.


----------



## Fantasy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> *Note Nvidias turbo actually pushes clocks to 1110 Mhz in some cases*, 20% higher than the 7970 @ 925 Mhz. This is more than enough to justify it being a better card at first glance, but looking deeper, clock per clock is a much different scenario.


actually your wrong. the 680 has a base clock of 1006MHz and boosts to 1058Mhz. anyways I'm not a fan of the gpu turbo thing, I think it a bit stupid. if I want my GPU to run at 1006, then I don't want it to change. if I OC it to 1100MHz I want it to stay at 1100MHz at all times. thats just me. I don't like any kind of software to play with my hardware when ever it feels like it. I want to be in control.

anyways Kudos for Nvidia for the nice feature, I'm sure some people like


----------



## snipekill2445

^^ This. And anyway, going from 1006mhz to 1058mhz isn't exactly a huge increase. Go from 1006mhz to 1200mhz and I'll be a happy camper.


----------



## gh05t

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drBlahMan*
> 
> Save the extra cash & buy the king..._the 680_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read this to give you a clear idea of what it would be like gaming with (3) 1080p monitors... http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review


Thanks for that. Which brand would be the best one to get?


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gh05t*
> 
> Thanks for that. Which brand would be the best one to get?


For nVIDIA reference designs, *I* personally would recommend EVGA & Zotac








For nVIDIA custom pcb / cooler designs, *I* will only recommend ASUS , Gigabyte, & MSI









_These manufacturers are my personal preference, that's why I only recommend them_







Other opinions will be spoken


----------



## 4514kaiser

The GTX 680 simply win's at 'common' resolutions not by much but it most certainly does however once its SLI or properly OCed then it becomes interesting! ...... BTW i really don't see why people are comparing prices there is no way in hell that ATI will leave the 7970 at $550 for much longer unless there are major shortages of GTX 680 or AMD wants to build up a bit of 7970 stock before a price war...

That said I own CF 7970 and don't regret my purchase at all there no way that I would want to wait for GTX 680 WB after the 7970 WB wait lol......


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4514kaiser*
> 
> That said I own CF 7970...


That's not what your sig says







.....JK with you


----------



## jtom320

Overclocking performance is interesting. It definitely looks like the 7970 has the edge. With that said the 680 is still currently the better buy at 500 even if the Radeon slightly edges it. Now if AMD goes to the same price or cheaper it's a whole different ballgame. They really do need to drop there prices to because I'm definitely going CF or TF depending on prices.


----------



## 4514kaiser

edit


----------



## 4514kaiser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drBlahMan*
> 
> That's not what your sig says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....JK with you


What an effort to many items to add







maybe once I post a bit of a build log.... New rig is sitting in another room still after a 7 day leak test, waiting for me to install windows can be *&@^ lol maybe tomorrow


----------



## dotcom

I ended up going with Team Red. As long as I get good frames on the few games that I actually play I'm happy.







.....that and the 680 wasn't out at the time lol. I'm not much of an overclocker, but I think it's time to test the waters.

In terms of the real "king" I can't really say that there is a clear winner here, at least for games anyways. However, my hat is off to AMD for stepping it up BIG TIME with the 7970.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I am.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> the 8970 will blow everything out of the water if the trend in performance increase continues, as it has with AMD from the 4890 - 5870 - 6970 - 7970. Nvidia has started good but has had hiccups, from GTX 285 to GTX 480 to GTX 580 to GTX 680. The last three are somewhat comparable in performance (within ~60%), whle the 7970 is more than 300% the performance of a 4890.


What trend? There was hardly any performance increase going from the 5870 to 6970.


----------



## Faded

i love what i'm seeing out of both AMD and Nvidia, with this generations cards


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JedixJarf*
> 
> What trend? There was hardly any performance increase going from the 5870 to 6970.


If hardly you mean 12%. Its also made 2GB mainstream and the fact you could buy a $300 HD 6950 and Unlock it.

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/perfrel_2560.gif


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If hardly you mean 12%. Its also made 2GB mainstream and the fact you could buy a $300 HD 6950 and Unlock it.
> http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_680/images/perfrel_2560.gif


I think his point was the difference betwen the 5870 and 6970 is way less then the 50+% difference between the 6970 and 7970.


----------



## Catscratch

Last time i checked, 7970 beats 680 in Crysis and Metro and gets beaten on everything else by a nice margin.


----------



## naizarak

overclocked they're very similar. personally i'd take the 7970 for it's extra vram - assuming prices dropped of course


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Last time i checked, 7970 beats 680 in Crysis and Metro and gets beaten on everything else by a nice margin.


You need to look at the OC results. Much more even playing field with a slight nod the 7970's way.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Overclocking performance is interesting. It definitely looks like the 7970 has the edge. With that said the 680 is still currently the better buy at 500 even if the Radeon slightly edges it. Now if AMD goes to the same price or cheaper it's a whole different ballgame. They really do need to drop there prices to because I'm definitely going CF or TF depending on prices.


At the same price the 680 is still the better buy giving it's much better efficiency in my opinion.

I think the 7970 needs to be about $20-$25 cheaper than the GTX 680 before it becomes a competition to the 680. There are *so* close after overclocking that performance really doesn't matter. We also got to remember the majority of people buying these will not even overclock them (lol), so the GTX 680 wins for the majority of gamers. It's a shame many people don't take the time to learn how to boost their FPS just by moving a couple sliders. I think the 680 would still sell faster than a 7970 priced $25 lower, mainly due to this. 99% of people will not take the time to compare overclocked results, they will see it's faster by around 10% at stock and "only" $25 more and buy it.

Sad world, but most people don't fully research their purchases.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> You need to look at the OC results. Much more even playing field with a slight nod the 7970's way.


Wait 3 months for drivers to mature a little bit better and I can see the 680 having the slight nod. All these tests are using Day 1 drivers. By then the 7970 "should" be priced lower than it is now, so we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## fastpcman12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> At the same price the 680 is still the better buy giving it's much better efficiency in my opinion.
> I think the 7970 needs to be about $20-$25 cheaper than the GTX 680 before it becomes a competition to the 680. There are *so* close after overclocking that performance really doesn't matter. We also got to remember the majority of people buying these will not even overclock them (lol), so the GTX 680 wins for the majority of gamers. It's a shame many people don't take the time to learn how to boost their FPS just by moving a couple sliders. I think the 680 would still sell faster than a 7970 priced $25 lower, mainly due to this. 99% of people will not take the time to compare overclocked results, they will see it's faster by around 10% at stock and "only" $25 more and buy it.
> Sad world, but most people don't fully research their purchases.
> Wait 3 months for drivers to mature a little bit better and I can see the 680 having the slight nod. All these tests are using Day 1 drivers. By then the 7970 "should" be priced lower than it is now, so we'll have to wait and see.


i second this. i have to spend another $100 to get an active display port which i have not yet done. That will mean i paid $700 for my gigabyte 7970!

for $500, gtx 680 is a great value! comes with two dvi connectors already!


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> At the same price the 680 is still the better buy giving it's much better efficiency in my opinion.
> I think the 7970 needs to be about $20-$25 cheaper than the GTX 680 before it becomes a competition to the 680. There are *so* close after overclocking that performance really doesn't matter. We also got to remember the majority of people buying these will not even overclock them (lol), so the GTX 680 wins for the majority of gamers. It's a shame many people don't take the time to learn how to boost their FPS just by moving a couple sliders. The think the 680 would still sell faster than a 7970 priced $25 lower, mainly due to this. 99% of people will not take the time to compare overclocked results, they will see it's faster by around 10% at stock and "only" $25 more and buy it.
> Sad world, but most people don't fully research their purchases.


I disagree. The 680 and 7970 power draw difference is about as miniscule as their performance difference. In fact there are a couple cases where the 680 draws more power oddly enough. In terms of most gamers who buy these cards sure the 680 might be better if they're not OCing but I'm not all that concerned about them. For the same price it's basically a flip of the coin to me as an informed consumer. Obviously though with the 680 being cheaper it's the card to buy right now. I don't see the situation staying this way for long though. I don't know why AMD would all of a sudden give up their price advantage.

I know some people will complain that early adopters (like myself) get screwed in this scenario but I don't see how that would be surprising to anyone. Early adopters always get screwed, tons of people paid 600 bucks for a PS3. It's just the way of things if you want to have the very best at release. I think anyone who thought the 7970 wasn't going to drop in price even way back on January 9th wasn't thinking clearly.


----------



## AlbertMwugabi

The Overclocked 3Dmark 11 score that Elmor made with the 7970, you just cant compare that result with a GTX680 3D11 score.

Why?

1. Different CPU's at different speeds.
2. The 7970 Lightning has 17 phase PWM, the reference GT680 has 4+2 but they use a modified PWM, but you don't know how many phases there are.

But still the 7970 has more GPU score.


----------



## DzillaXx

I say the 7970 is the FASTER card, but thats with a good OC. Overclocked the 7970 can't be beat. The gtx680 turbos to 1100mhz in some reviews, so 6-18% increased performance from 200mhz extra isnt all that grand. The GTX680 surely wins in power usage, what comes in handy. But someone like me, who is going to put their cards on water and Overclock them to the max, only cares about what the cards can do with a full OC. If one got a 7970 to 1300mhz, then be happy knowing the gtx680 can't touch it at that speed. The 7970 scales more with a OC then the gtx680 does, and CF also scales better.

If the Cards were the same price I would say go the AMD route, as its really a better card. With the price of the gtx680 lower, then getting a 7970 now would be a crazy move. All AMD has to do is release a GHZ Edition 7970 for the same price of the gtx680 and they would be back on top stock wise. For now the GTX680 can't be beat for the price.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *naizarak*
> 
> overclocked they're very similar. personally i'd take the 7970 for it's extra vram - assuming prices dropped of course


I would too, if I had an Eyefinity setup.

2GB? No thanks.

Single screen gaming, GTX680.

I'd have a hard time choosing if I was on 1440/1600p.


----------



## jtom320

Here are a bunch of benchmarks with Overclocks. It should be noted the 7970 OC is pretty small. About 200 mhz less then on mine but even with this small OC the gap is considerabally smaller.



The framerates on both of these cards are ridiculous though for pretty much every game

Recap of results. AMD takes 6 benchmarks, Nvidia takes 10, and they are within one frame of each other in 3 if I'm looking at this correctly. Pretty even if you ask me especially considering the modest OC on the Radeon. For the record there are now 7970's shipping with higher base clocks then the OC used in this test. I'm sure people will be able to get higher clocks on 680s as well.

Here are VR-Zones overclocking results. The overclocks are much higher here.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> I would too, if I had an Eyefinity setup.
> 2GB? No thanks.
> Single screen gaming, GTX680.
> I'd have a hard time choosing if I was on 1440/1600p.


HardOCP shows the GTX 680 doing better than the 7970 in every game at 5670x1080, the only exception was Deus Ex. Triple monitor setups do not seem to be affected by the 2GB of VRAM, even with 4x AA.

These tests were ran on stock so who knows what overclocked would be like. 2GB of VRAM is enough unless your running 3x 2560x1600. This whole VRAM thing is getting out of hand. 2GB VRAM was plenty a year ago for triple monitors, and games have not been seeing the graphical leaps these last few years we are use too.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> HardOCP shows the GTX 680 doing better than the 7970 in every game at 5670x1080, the only exception was Deus Ex. Triple monitor setups do not seem to be affected by the 2GB of VRAM, even with 4x AA.
> These tests were ran on stock so who knows what overclocked would be like. 2GB of VRAM is enough unless your running 3x 2560x1600. This whole VRAM thing is getting out of hand. 2GB VRAM was plenty a year ago for triple monitors, and games have not been seeing the graphical leaps these last few years we are use too.


If you look at some of the OC results you can see in games like Anono and Metro and Bulletstorm the 7970 loses in the low res/iq tests but once the settings are cranked up begins to win. This to me is the strength of the 7970. Honestly I will take OC results over stock results anyday. This is afterall OCN.

In fact my point is made perfectly at Hardware.fr. This is actually a pretty good analysis on their part I have to give them credit.

Quote.

In level of overclocking, the GK104 has less room than the Radeon HD 7900 GPU, GPU Boost already drawing largely in it. By cons, overclocking the memory can be generous and offer a very high yield on a GeForce GTX 680 which is somewhat lacking in memory bandwidth, providing a nice performance gain especially in situations where it is a little bit withdrawal. To beat the GeForce GTX 680 and boosted, it will then go through a massive overclocking of the Radeon HD 7970, with changes in blood increased GPU and all nuisances.
*Noted however that if the GeForce GTX 680 takes the crown of the single GPU graphics card the most powerful of the time, his lead is on average quite small, and its performance is highly variable from one situation to another. She suffers particularly when 8x antialiasing, very heavy in memory bandwidth, is activated.* Add to that the lack of visibility from the behavior of the GPU Boost on the cards you find on the market, Nvidia categorically refusing to enter the details of its specificities. It must be said that technology, in contrast to what the CPU is not deterministic, which means that two samples of the same card will perform differently.


----------



## killnine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> However according to motherboards.org on Youtube, Elric got information that the GTX680 is only going to cost $500.00, making it $50.00 cheaper. But it does run alot hotter.


If you look on Anandtech and Hardforums, you can see how badly the 680 is disrupting the 7970 pricing already. I can see at least 3 threads where 7970s are going for less than $450 USD, shipped.

That's insane and I'd fully expect the retail market to follow suit in the next weeks.


----------



## wireeater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killnine*
> 
> If you look on Anandtech and Hardforums, you can see how badly the 680 is disrupting the 7970 pricing already. I can see at least 3 threads where 7970s are going for less than $450 USD, shipped.
> That's insane and I'd fully expect the retail market to follow suit in the next weeks.


3 threads is hardly the market or anything for AMD to bat an eye at LOL.

These are just impatient people who always need to best and newest of everything. The 7970 will remain a competitor in performance and price. They will never drop lower then the GTX 680 by much. AMD has always been the cheaper one but they aren't going to be giving them away just because the GTX 680 is out now.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wireeater*
> 
> 3 threads is hardly the market or anything for AMD to bat an eye at LOL.
> These are just impatient people who always need to best and newest of everything. The 7970 will remain a competitor in performance and price. They will never drop lower then the GTX 680 by much. AMD has always been the cheaper one but they aren't going to be giving them away just because the GTX 680 is out now.


Definitely don't expect it to be 100 dollars cheaper like the 6970 was. Generally these things are priced where they perform and AMD has closed the gap significantly between their high end card and Nvidias this generation.


----------



## 4514kaiser

$450 for a 7970, dame in Au it cost me $700 each and the AUD is worth 1.05USD


----------



## killnine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wireeater*
> 
> 3 threads is hardly the market or anything for AMD to bat an eye at LOL.
> These are just impatient people who always need to best and newest of everything. The 7970 will remain a competitor in performance and price. They will never drop lower then the GTX 680 by much. AMD has always been the cheaper one but they aren't going to be giving them away just because the GTX 680 is out now.


Yeah, I totally agree. AMD isn't sweating the used card market, but it shows people are essentially having to throw out $100 to sell their cards. My guess is the 7970 will hit $499 retail in a few weeks, and the going rate for the 7970 on the used market will settle around the $440-450 range.

On the other hand, I don't think the 680 is going to be the same story (because there are just fewer in the market right now, mostly).


----------



## 4514kaiser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Definitely don't expect it to be 100 dollars cheaper like the 6970 was. Generally these things are priced where they perform and AMD has closed the gap significantly between their high end card and Nvidias this generation.


Agreed I wouldn't be surprised if over the next month there are GTX 680 shortages anyway (like with the 7970) I wouldn't be surprised if the 7970 had was $500 in the next month


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4514kaiser*
> 
> Agreed I wouldn't be surprised if over the next month there are GTX 680 shortages anyway (like with the 7970) I wouldn't be surprised if the 7970 had was $500 in the next month


Look at NewEgg for example. They have every 7970 in stock now. At the same time every 680 is sold out. Nvidia has done it again even though they were late to the party. The 7970 will not sell unless they drop the prices. Hopefully this will lower the price of the 7990 as well. On a side note kudos to Nvidia for beating Amd in BF3 benchmarks. BF3 is the latest and greatest game at the moment and imo the better performing card on BF3 will ultimately sell more gpu's.


----------



## killnine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> On a side note kudos to Nvidia for beating Amd in BF3 benchmarks. BF3 is the latest and greatest game at the moment and imo the better performing card on BF3 will ultimately sell more gpu's.


That's what makes me want to wait for the 670 or 660, honestly. I pretty much just play Skyrim, SC2, TF2,and BF3. Of those, BF3 is by far the most challenging from a hardware perspective but Nvidia is so skewed in that game that something like the 670 or 660 would probably equal a 7950 or 7970 if overclocked.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Look at NewEgg for example. They have every 7970 in stock now. At the same time every 680 is sold out. Nvidia has done it again even though they were late to the party. The 7970 will not sell unless they drop the prices. Hopefully this will lower the price of the 7990 as well. On a side note kudos to Nvidia for beating Amd in BF3 benchmarks. BF3 is the latest and greatest game at the moment and imo the better performing card on BF3 will ultimately sell more gpu's.


Three 7970 models were sold out yesterday. However I'm with you in that obviously this will slow 7970 sales considerabally. I really hope the 7990 comes in under 800 bucks otherwise I will just be CFing. (And I really want to Tri-Fire!)


----------



## Faded

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Look at NewEgg for example. They have every 7970 in stock now. At the same time every 680 is sold out. Nvidia has done it again even though they were late to the party. The 7970 will not sell unless they drop the prices. Hopefully this will lower the price of the 7990 as well. On a side note kudos to Nvidia for beating Amd in BF3 benchmarks. BF3 is the latest and greatest game at the moment and imo the better performing card on BF3 will ultimately sell more gpu's.


the 680's literally just launched, so it makes sense for them to be sold out...

thats exactly how the 7970 has been since its launch.


----------



## m3t4lh34d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> Even if the 680 was slightly slower I would get it. I'm not a fanboy, I just have headache after headache with AMD drivers. NVIDIA drivers are a godsend and they have not given me a serious problem since Vista. I've had over over a dozen cards of each brand and I always go back to NVIDIA because of this. I hear AMD is working on hiring a better driver team, but until that happens NVIDIA will be my home. Most AMD users will agree, the 7XXX drivers are a mess even 3 months after release. I've not seen a single complaint about GTX 680 drivers yet, but it could be a little early and we'll have to wait and see.
> You are also comparing NVIDIA's "brand new" drivers compared to AMD's "3 months since release" 7970 drivers. Compare again in 3-6 months for a more accurate comparison. NVIDIA has always had some pretty large increases across the board during the first 6 months of drivers.


I think it's quite funny how Nvidia can get a break for having bad SLI drivers at launch, but the same people ripped into AMD for not having their **** together for Crossfire at launch.


----------



## m3t4lh34d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chmodlabs*
> 
> It's quite obvious that nVidia wins here. More powerful core, operates more efficiently on less power, numerous anti-aliasing innovations and improvements, added 3+1 nVidia Surround (with nVidia surround 3D support). It takes away the one edge AMD used to claim they had, eyefinity, which as far as I'm concerned could only utilize 3D with their sketchy 3D software and a 3D enabled tv with it's own proprietary glasses.
> nVidia wins again with it's "mid-range" chip. AMD, well they dissapoint again (NOT surprising)
> - chmodlabs


That 'mid range' nonsense is exactly that.... 'nonsense'. That claim was made by Nvidia to hype up their card and to keep Nvidia enthusiasts guessing and intrigued. To be honest, its the stupidest thing I've ever heard in the video card scene. AMD could easily call the 7970 their mid-range card, and claim that their TRUE high-end card will be the Sea Islands Core (8970). It doesn't matter if the 680 is Nvidia's low end, high end, or mid range card because what it comes down to is that RIGHT now, that is the BEST Nvidia can come up with, and we live in a world where competition is a right NOW thing. It's about what each company can produce right then and there. AMD already beat Nvidia by several months to the punch, and Nvidia's answer to their card was paltry at best. Sure it may beat the 7970 in some benches stock for stock, but would you expect anything less from a company who was given extra MONTHS to refine and tweak their product against the competition's? This whole "this is only our mid range chip" rumor is just a gimmick to make people believe that Nvidia is just SO much better than AMD that they only released a half-ass chip and it beat them, but in reality it's the BEST they could push out right now, even being several months late to the table.

Nvidia's 'mid range' 680 can be compared easily to AMD's 'mid range' 7970 when the 8970 is released and AMD calls that the high end, which is when Nvidia will be trying to answer back with the 685.

This bad mouthing from Nvidia to AMD has no merit and is only a marketing ploy to keep people on the edge of their seat waiting for the next Nvidia card and ignoring all AMD releases. Nvidia kept many people waiting for the 680, causing them to avoid the 7970 altogether. Now that the 680 is released, it was clear that it was just a method of postponing the buying of 7970s so that they wouldn't lose market share to AMD.


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> Sad world, but most people don't fully research their purchases.


Now this is a very true statement


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faded*
> 
> the 680's literally just launched, so it makes sense for them to be sold out...
> thats exactly how the 7970 has been since its launch.


What your missing is how suddenly the 7970's are all "in stock" after being always "out of stock" before the 680 release. Retail sales for the 7970 have dramatically slowed down. Same as when the 7970 was launched the 580's stop selling because of their continued high price. Nvidia knew that launching the 680 at 500 dollars would put the GPU market back into their hands again. Amd either responds with dropping prices or watches 7970 sells come to a stand still. I'm so glad I didn't pull the trigger on a pair of 7970's and that the 7990 is still a few weeks out. This 680 pricing is going to have a ripple effect on Amd's prices and will be great for the consumer looking at top tier cards.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> What your missing is how suddenly the 7970's are all "in stock" after being always "out of stock" before the 680 release. Retail sales for the 7970 have dramatically slowed down. Same as when the 7970 was launched the 580's stop selling because of their continued high price. Nvidia knew that launching the 680 at 500 dollars would put the GPU market back into their hands again. Amd either responds with dropping prices or watches 7970 sells come to a stand still. I'm so glad I didn't pull the trigger on a pair of 7970's and that the 7990 is still a few weeks out. This 680 pricing is going to have a ripple effect on Amd's prices and will be great for the consumer looking at top tier cards.


Ofc they slowed down because the enthusiasts have had 3 months to buy em, for the past month or so there has been consistent stock of them, same thing happened with the 3930k, people didnt stop buying them because they all switched to BD.


----------



## Arizonian

Ok I've just caught up with this thread after catching up on some missed sleep for the anticipation of the 680 release. Here goes...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> It will be a big fiasco when the 7990 is released in 1-2 weeks, with up to +100% performance of the gtx 680. I actually thought the gtx 680s performance would be higher than what it is. Nvidia's turbo boost is just better to 1058 mhz+. And apparently it continues to work even when you oc your GPU to high mhz, so most ocing benchmarks dont put this into consideration. If you can somehow disable turbo boost and run the gtx 680 at the exact same clocks as a stock 7970, the difference in performance between them will vanish (averaged).


Why would you gimp the 680 from dynamic over clock so the 7970 can compete? Over clock them reference vs reference as high as you can to determine which is better. Features ( good or bad ) should be taken into consideration to determine which is better.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> There are rewards for being the first out of the gate you know, why should we handicap them for that?


Being first is great, kudos for AMD for this. Won them some nice revenue over in Nvidia without unrivaled competition. Dosen't crown them king or make their product better. Yes I agree with you because AMD fans have also claimed the same thing every time an AMD card released. However in time this may actually chamge when mature drivers in the end show who might be the winner.

Maybe we should take this poll again in another three months after Nvidia has had time to polish their drivers.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *edo101*
> 
> Yeah I said it before, but these guys wouldn't listen and the review sites haven't been fair to the HD 7970. When OC'd both cards are equal.
> But AMD screwed themselves over...they underclocked the 7970.


Legit reviews did an article with an overclocked 680 and it was very comparable and actually slightly edging over the 7970. In fact it did better than a 6990 when over clocked!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> the 8970 will blow everything out of the water if the trend in performance increase continues, as it has with AMD from the 4890 - 5870 - 6970 - 7970. Nvidia has started good but has had hiccups, from GTX 285 to GTX 480 to GTX 580 to GTX 680. The last three are somewhat comparable in performance (within ~60%), whle the 7970 is more than 300% the performance of a 4890.


I'd really like to have your crystal ball because I do not know how you can make such a claim that the 8970 will be better than the 780. The 7970 is already tapped out where as the 680 is on the smaller die and has room to grow even further.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Running cooler and quiter has more to do with the heatsink and fan design. Put on a 3rd party cooler on the 7970 and it too could run much cooler and quiter than the gtx 680. I think neither is king, and the gtx 680 was not enough to be king over the 7970. (price to performance not put into consideration, i mean pure performance king)


With both these cards so close together in performance this is more of a popularity contest then who is actual King now that Nvidia has multiple monitors with one card AMD has lost its true niche.

As for the cooling we are comparing reference cards verse reference cards and if you want to compare aftermarket coolers you have to do the same for both. Nvidia still will run cooler if we base it off these current specs. Example Lightning vs Lightning.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Note Nvidias turbo actually pushes clocks to 1110 Mhz in some cases, 20% higher than the 7970 @ 925 Mhz. This is more than enough to justify it being a better card at first glance, but looking deeper, clock per clock is a much different scenario.


The 680 runs at 1006 MHz and with dynamic overclocking maxes 1058 MHz. Again here the real test will be to just overclock both on air as high as they will go to determine which is a better performer.

Again the fact that the 680 has dynamic overclocking just makes it that much better if it works when both are clocked as high as they can go and you get more performance out of the 680.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> I would too, if I had an Eyefinity setup.
> 2GB? No thanks.
> Single screen gaming, GTX680.
> I'd have a hard time choosing if I was on 1440/1600p.


At first when I heard that Nvidia will have 2 GB versus AMD 3 GB I also thought that they would not be able to compare to AMD on the multiple monitor front, however we've seen that even in the highest resolutions the benchmarks prove it did not hinder perfomance and they are either comparable with AMD only having the very slightest edge now.

Even HardOCP who has always leaned toward AMD's direction didn't have anything bad to say about the 680. In fact from their reviews the 680 clearly is a winner in more than one ways than one.

To sum it all up after responding to all these posts that both video cards are so close in performance both offering now comparable options it's hard to say which is 'king' like we've done in the past.

Personally I like the 3-D vision that Nvidia offers which is hands-down better than AMD's option in more ways than one. To me that's an extra feature that I prefer in my video card and what I based my decision on in the past year.

It's amazing how this line from both AMD and Nvidia are performing at the levels of the 590 and a 6990 in many of the benchmarks we've seen truly a success for both companies.

Having said all this when you can compare them so closely together the last determining factor would be price. Unbelievably for the first time Nvidia actually is now the price performance option. AMD fans have always boasted this fact and have based their decision on price over performance. I'm not sure what changed for them to still pick AMD at this point unless AMD comes down on their price other than a preference of choice and opinion.


----------



## Ironman517

Ive looked on the web at different "benchmarks" and it looks like they trade blows, there is no real "king"
680 is cheaper though


----------



## mkclan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> What your missing is how suddenly the 7970's are all "in stock" after being always "out of stock" before the 680 release. Retail sales for the 7970 have dramatically slowed down. Same as when the 7970 was launched the 580's stop selling because of their continued high price. Nvidia knew that launching the 680 at 500 dollars would put the GPU market back into their hands again. Amd either responds with dropping prices or watches 7970 sells come to a stand still. I'm so glad I didn't pull the trigger on a pair of 7970's and that the 7990 is still a few weeks out. This 680 pricing is going to have a ripple effect on Amd's prices and will be great for the consumer looking at top tier cards.


It is only logical, since it is the latest product in market. Real situation could look on in the long term. assume that a similar situation is observed each time when the sale is a new GPU.
Sorry my english.


----------



## ryboto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Look at NewEgg for example. They have every 7970 in stock now. At the same time every 680 is sold out. Nvidia has done it again even though they were late to the party. The 7970 will not sell unless they drop the prices. Hopefully this will lower the price of the 7990 as well. On a side note kudos to Nvidia for beating Amd in BF3 benchmarks. BF3 is the latest and greatest game at the moment and imo the better performing card on BF3 will ultimately sell more gpu's.


You're going based on what's in stock at one vendor, and that's it. How do we know what the initial stock level of the 680's were? the 7970's? Sure, the price difference will cause a disruption, but you're missing a lot of necessary info to draw exact conclusions..


----------



## jtom320

Max OC so far they look about even going off of VR-zone's 7970 at 1250 and GTX 680 at 1335. Both cards can probabally go higher on air though with good chips. My 7970 will hit 1300 for example. I'm sure someone out there will get one to 1375 or so before the 680 starts to max out it's air cooled OC potential.

Also lol @ people who think they have any idea how either card is actually selling. As far as I know AMD/Nvidia never release sales figures for individual cards and what's in stock or out of stock on Newegg doesn't mean anything. Now I'm sure the 680 is currently out selling the 7970 (well duh) but I highly doubt AMD stopped moving cards and I also highly doubt AMD is going to keep their card at 550 for very long. I hope not anyways because I want another one or two.

And at Arizonian one of the reasons I like AMD is actually a driver reason. It's way easier to get high quality AA working on AMD cards. Downloading Inspector and looking for driver bits was always a pain for me on my 480s. I always ended up on some foreign site trying to piece thru German posts to get SGSSAA working properly. Dx10/11 titles all now work with forced SSAA which for an IQ junkie like me is a huge thing. Price/Performance has always been whatever to me give me a card that's going to play games well and I will buy it as long as it's reasonable. Also while Nvidia is using a small die let's not act like AMD is all of a sudden using a big one. The 7970 core is still pretty small all things considering. If AMD wanted to do a GTX580 type core with Tahiti I'm sure they could they have a ton of room but since the 48** series AMD has said large dies are no longer part of their strategy.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Max OC so far they look about even going off of VR-zone's 7970 at 1250 and GTX 680 at 1335. Both cards can probabally go higher on air though with good chips. My 7970 will hit 1300 for example. I'm sure someone out there will get one to 1375 or so before the 680 starts to max out it's air cooled OC potential.
> Also lol @ people who think they have any idea how either card is actually selling. As far as I know AMD/Nvidia never release sales figures for individual cards and what's in stock or out of stock on Newegg doesn't mean anything. Now I'm sure the 680 is currently out selling the 7970 (well duh) but I highly doubt AMD stopped moving cards and I also highly doubt AMD is going to keep their card at 550 for very long. I hope not anyways because I want another one or two.
> And at Arizonian one of the reasons I like AMD is actually a driver reason. It's way easier to get high quality AA working on AMD cards. Downloading Inspector and looking for driver bits was always a pain for me on my 480s. I always ended up on some foreign site trying to piece thru German posts to get SGSSAA working properly. Dx10/11 titles all now work with forced SSAA which for an IQ junkie like me is a huge thing. Price/Performance has always been whatever to me give me a card that's going to play games well and I will buy it as long as it's reasonable.


You forgotten the bad chips. I can only do 1175Mhz unless i crank up the fans speeds.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You forgotten the bad chips. I can only do 1175Mhz unless i crank up the fans speeds.


Ouch thats bad luck man, sell it and buy another


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You forgotten the bad chips. I can only do 1175Mhz unless i crank up the fans speeds.


My PC is in a closet so fan noise is irrelevant to me quite honestly. 1175 is still a very decent OC on your card.


----------



## Faded

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> What your missing is how suddenly the 7970's are all "in stock" after being always "out of stock" before the 680 release. Retail sales for the 7970 have dramatically slowed down. Same as when the 7970 was launched the 580's stop selling because of their continued high price. Nvidia knew that launching the 680 at 500 dollars would put the GPU market back into their hands again. Amd either responds with dropping prices or watches 7970 sells come to a stand still. I'm so glad I didn't pull the trigger on a pair of 7970's and that the 7990 is still a few weeks out. This 680 pricing is going to have a ripple effect on Amd's prices and will be great for the consumer looking at top tier cards.


its the new thing, of course it will be out of stock and considerably more popular than something that has been out for months. it is the typical ebb and flow of new technology releases... I think its going to be a few weeks before things really settle down... hopefully this will spurn some aggressive pricing on amd's part


----------



## polyzp

This is a perfect example of a benchmark where the AMD 7970 will pull ahead at a high overclock with max graphics and AA settings, 1250/1800 vs 1250/1800 will show the 7970 pull ahead.



7970 LCS @ 1235 / 1730

GTX 680 @ 1305 / 1563



[/URL

The difference is less than one percent, and the Nvidia has a huge clock advantage, memory is helpful but not nearly as much at this resolution. ]


----------



## Badness

Yeah, it seems that 1250 vs 1250, the 7970 would be better. But, we're still unsure about max OC on both cards, so we'll just have to wait and see a little while longer.


----------



## polyzp

The delta on these cards is about equal so max OC is within error. This is what makes these cards so close in my opinion. I dont see why all the review sites jumped to renowned it king, just because it runs at stock up 1110 mhz dynamic turbo. In my opinion this would already be countered by AMD's overclockability, ~40.5% (1300/925) , vs Nvidia's ~22.9% (1300/1058) . For comparison my 6990 which "turbos" to 880 mhz ocs only ~12.5% with full stability (990/880) to Put a decent air cooler on both, and youl see how close they really are at their max potential. As an enthusiast, stock cooler, stock clocks, is not my thing.


----------



## m3t4lh34d

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2641/10/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-quad-sli-review-english-version-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

The 680 has HORRIBLE scaling in Battlefield 3, AvP, and loses in Metro 2033 at high resolutions, as well as Vantage. This is all BEFORE overclocking is brought into the equation, which has the 7970 pulling ahead at any clocks beyond 1250mhz.


----------



## polyzp

Yeah, its looking like SLI is behind right now because of drivers, but as of now crossfire 7970 is crushing GTX 680 sli, even though Nvidia had all this time to perfect everything.


----------



## votum

Why quote the record breaking overclock? How many of you are running custom VRM and LN2 24/7?

IMO max overclock is dumb, max 24/7 overclock is what we should be looking at.


----------



## polyzp

Yeah i meant MAX 24/7 oc by max OC, l2n isnt really relevant but its fun.


----------



## Imrac

They are both very close in terms of performance. This will be great for the buyer, we could potentially see price to performance wars like the HD5XXX series saw. IMO the real winners here are the buyers =)


----------



## gregoryH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> At first when I heard that Nvidia will have 2 GB versus AMD 3 GB I also thought that they would not be able to compare to AMD on the multiple monitor front, however we've seen that even in the highest resolutions the benchmarks prove it did not hinder perfomance and they are either comparable with AMD only having the very slightest edge now.
> Even HardOCP who has always leaned toward AMD's direction didn't have anything bad to say about the 680. In fact from their reviews the 680 clearly is a winner in more than one ways than one.


We can say 680 is 10% faster than 7970 on average in 1080p/1200p, but the adventage in 1600p is only 5%. Therefore, I don't belive 680 can run smoother than 7970 in multi monitors setup. I wonder if NV enables some driver optimizations to get higher fps, that affect image quality.


----------



## polyzp

this small 5-10% difference in performance when compared to the 7970 (925 mhz) is only justified by the 680's 15-20% (1058-1110) stock turbo clock advantage


----------



## Booty Warrior

I don't know how people can say these are equal. Similar perhaps, but the 680 is averaging 5-15% in most benches.

By previous gen standards, that's basically an entire performance grade between these cards. IE that's like the gap between the 580 and 570, or 570 and 560 Ti.

OC vs OC would have to compare the averages across both cards to find any kind of meaningful conclusion, and so far it still seems the 680 still edges it there.

The only real advantage would be the extra VRAM on the 7970, but 2GB doesn't seem to be much of a bottleneck even in surround.


----------



## Kappy03

I think it really comes down to biases and intended use with these two.


----------



## furyn9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *K62-RIG*
> 
> Don't agree with playing games on consoles but this video regarding the GTX 680 is very very funny. Enjoy!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVF8xeQq4lU&feature=related


That's awesome !!! lol


----------



## Projector

Lmao! That hilter 680 parody was amazing +rep for making me lol so much.


----------



## ELCID777

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> this small 5-10% difference in performance when compared to the 7970 (925 mhz) is only justified by the 680's 15-20% (1058-1110) stock turbo clock advantage


This ^ ^ ^.

The 7970 closes the gap once it's brought up to similar clocks, and surpasses when clocked to 1250 or so.


----------



## polyzp

Not only does a single 7970 catch up to a GTX 680 at 1250 mhz, crossfire scaling is generally better than SLI at the moment, how is Nvidia the clear winner?


----------



## polyzp

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg10/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-batman-arkham-city.html

heres an oc vs oc benchmark review here


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> Even if the 680 was slightly slower I would get it. I'm not a fanboy, I just have headache after headache with AMD drivers. NVIDIA drivers are a godsend and they have not given me a serious problem since Vista. I've had over over a dozen cards of each brand and I always go back to NVIDIA because of this. I hear AMD is working on hiring a better driver team, but until that happens NVIDIA will be my home. Most AMD users will agree, the 7XXX drivers are a mess even 3 months after release. I've not seen a single complaint about GTX 680 drivers yet, but it could be a little early and we'll have to wait and see.
> You are also comparing NVIDIA's "brand new" drivers compared to AMD's "3 months since release" 7970 drivers. Compare again in 3-6 months for a more accurate comparison. NVIDIA has always had some pretty large increases across the board during the first 6 months of drivers.


Well said, and this mirrors my experiences as well with both brands.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg10/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-batman-arkham-city.html
> heres an oc vs oc benchmark review here


Uneven settings on the game you linked (physX ENABLED for GTX 680, hahahahahahahhahahahahahahaa at how bad a test that is comparing to a radeon card), skews things HUGELY. Cherry-picking ftw? Plus they gave the 7970 a big overclock and the gtx 680 an abnormally low one... even more skewing.


----------



## Ratjack

everyone is arguing over which is best.... I think this guy said it best, watch from 8:48-9:09


----------



## AddictedGamer93

KeplAAr


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ratjack*
> 
> everyone is arguing over which is best.... I think this guy said it best, watch from 8:48-9:09
> [*VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUcx2OUQ9OGdL4FTexi0h35Q&feature=player_detailpage&v=YCuejLSnvjU#t=527s[/VIDEO]


Truth be told, I don't care: the GTX 680 is the clear winner, but that doesn't make the Radeon 7970 magically a bad card either for existing owners. GTX 680 is smaller, runs cooler, much quieter oc'd and stock, performs better at most tests (especially stock which is where you're guaranteed, oc's vary card-to-card!), *is *50 dollars cheaper**, has adaptive vsync which is a huge feature per Hardware Canucks' review and others that tested it, PhysX which a good number of major titles support, better power consumption, and arguably better drivers (those who have actually lived with both know exactly what the reality is). Any new buyers obviously should choose the GTX 680 in today's market if looking at a $500+ video card.


----------



## votum

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Booty Warrior*
> 
> I don't know how people can say these are equal. Similar perhaps, but the 680 is averaging 5-15% in most benches.
> By previous gen standards, that's basically an entire performance grade between these cards. IE that's like the gap between the 580 and 570, or 570 and 560 Ti.
> OC vs OC would have to compare the averages across both cards to find any kind of meaningful conclusion, and so far it still seems the 680 still edges it there.
> The only real advantage would be the extra VRAM on the 7970, but 2GB doesn't seem to be much of a bottleneck even in surround.


It's because clock for clock they are not even close to 5% away form eachother


----------



## votum

Also that hitler rant is amazing


----------



## Roxborough

Loving the Hitler Parodies hahaha! Pretty much sums up my view of graphics cards.

If EVGA started doing dual/triple fan versions of their cards... And improved their Step-Up programme... I'd be licking the inside of a GTX 680 right now.

---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?p331ql


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ratjack*
> 
> everyone is arguing over which is best.... I think this guy said it best, watch from 8:48-9:09


I also recal Elric saying that the 680 runs very very hot, even hotter than a stock gtx 580! Classic nvidia, "We make fast cards, but they run hotter than a jet engine"


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> I also recal Elric saying that the 680 runs very very hot, even hotter than a stock gtx 580! Classic nvidia, "We make fast cards, but they run hotter than a jet engine"


That's because nVidia tuned their video card fan profiles to a very silent profile. If they tuned it like AMD, they would end up with a much cooler running card.


----------



## jtom320

Some more overclocked information. It's really starting to look to me like these two cards are in a dead heat.

Also I saw this on Beyond3d and thought it interesting.

Card Price FPS $/Perf (lower = better)
7970 $549 34 16.15
680 $499 32 15.59
580 $499 28 17.82
7870 $349 27 12.93
560Ti448 $269 23 11.70

7870 price not nearly as bad as I thought it was. 560ti definitely the card of 2011 in my eyes for your average gamer.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg10/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-batman-arkham-city.html
> heres an oc vs oc benchmark review here


Disabled PhysX eye candy for the AMD card. Hell yeah that was going to beat it in this instance.
Quote:


> For anyone glancing at the results on this page it would seem like a clear win for AMD however the tables don't tell the full story. Arkham City takes full advantage of NVIDIA PhysX to enhance image quality, including advanced cloth, paper and particle effects. These really do add to the realism and immersiveness of the game and the extra work required does drop performance. That said we can disable the technology if we wish and that brings the GTX 680 up towards the reference 7970 scores in this game.


Have you been reading all the benchmarks? Your picking only benches were AMD wins, we're not fools here dude.....









So let's look at Multiple monitors with insane resolution and where the 680 has 1GB less than the 7970. Also an area that Nvidia is new to and AMD has been the sole GPU to accomplish this for years. Let's also take the benches from HardOCP an AMD favorite website. Should kill the 680 right?

Most popular FPS game out there right now.



Here is the same Batman Arkam City game and both run without PhysX to be fair to AMD where it N/A.



Here is an AMD sponsered game even. This I couldn't believe because it wasn't as comparable like the other two.



This game AMD has a slight edge and has across all the benches I've seen from other review sites.



Your trying to prove this entire thread your point is failed. Most of us here have stated it OVER and OVER that both are great cards and this time it's not as easy as who's 'king of the hill'.

So we fall back on the other features and pricing to really determine the winner.

Nvidia - Multiple moinitors comparably so AMD can't claim this arena this round anylonger, Adaptive V-sync (better addressed micro-stutter than ever before) something AMD has never addressed, lower power consumption something AMD used to win every series round too, unrivaled 3D Vision an area where Nvidia excelled even further from last year where AMD wasn't even close to doing it right, and one of the most important points = less expensive price / performance arena where AMD used to also claim year after year and no longer the case. Should they drop price then I'd say it's a dead even match with no winner.

Obviously our opinions on which is better may vary and to be honest there's no loser this round because we've got some amazing performance at stock or over clocked than previous gen cards easily. You poll will be just a popularity contest. Trying to persuade us to think differnetly may work for your less tech savvy friends but not the majority of OCN members.


----------



## jtom320

Everyone has already seen the stock numbers and no one is really concerned dude. The OC numbeers are coming out now and it seems to be a dead tie. Also another thing I picked up off Beyond3d. Love this site people there really know what they are talking about. Power consumption increases faster on 680 when OC'd. Not by a lot but it's worth knowing.

As well at the overclocked settings, power consumption increases faster per mhz overclocked on the GTX 680 (~5.295 mhz/watt) than it does on the 7970 (~5.357 mhz/watt).

Some more reaction by actual game devs to 680/7970 and whether either would be viable in next-gen consoles. Also talking about how Compute actually is relevant to some things in gaming which I honestly did not know.

I note this because it seems one of the areas NV was able to cut power and die space while pumping up performance/mm^2 was they drastically reduced their full rate DP performance to 1/24th speed SP. This (and other?) changes has affected a number of compute benchmarks where the GK104, which runs all over the competition, falls pretty far behind in some situations. Compute is being used in games right now (e.g. some AO approaches) and a lot of the stuff the Cell does in the PS3 that allows the PS3 to pull off effects not viable on RSX is compute-like and significant post process. Likewise AMD showed the Leo demo which is a forward renderer but used compute to cull lighting to drastically improve performance with many lights which allowed the more indepth shader complexity of a forward renderer but increase the number of lights to be more competitive with a deferred approach. With the issues of developers properly getting MSAA to work with deferred engines (especially when they miss stuff, like forgetting to AA their tone maps) and increased performance cost on a deferred engine it does seem that compute, in some situations, is an important part of new graphics hardware.

Overall especially after reading the tech report reviews that AMD is in fact "winning" (on a tech POV only though...). They have great density, great compute performances, they moved to dynamic scheduling, etc. Their last GPUs seems to have less hiccups tham Nv counter parts (see the 99th percentile for techreport). Overall to me it look like AMd is succesfully growing its architecture. They may move to more complex scheduling and their take on Nvida GPC soon.


----------



## Rayleyne

I'm going to have to agree, I went from two 2G 460s at 860mhz core each (Faster then a 580) Too a single 7970 and it absolutely blows them all away, And with my 7970 at 1280/1750, I am seeing enourmous results in demanding games at both 1080P and 5760x1080 (6040x1080 in my case).

7970 is king imo, and i am yet to have any driver related issues at all.

soon as the 7990 comes out i'll be grabbing one or two of them and then rolling around trying to figure out how im going to water cool it.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Everyone has already seen the stock numbers and no one is really concerned dude. The OC numbeers are coming out now and it seems to be a dead tie. Also another thing I picked up off Beyond3d. Love this site people there really know what they are talking about. Power consumption increases faster on 680 when OC'd. Not by a lot but it's worth knowing.
> As well at the overclocked settings, power consumption increases faster per mhz overclocked on the GTX 680 (~5.295 mhz/watt) than it does on the 7970 (~5.357 mhz/watt).


Fair enough. Here is an over clock benchmark from another review site. Overclock3D all the benches on this site showed both cards OC'd but for the life of me even in the test specifications I couldn't find what clocks they had the 680 OC and the 7970 OC. So no way of knowing if it was fair.

Legit Reviews. This one is not the best OC comparison again not knowing the actual OC on both cards. At least I couldn't find it.



Some OCN members just got our 680 cards yesterday. I'm still waiting on mine. Like the 7970 release inventory is trickling as demand is hard to keep up with consumers demand right now. Mine will be here Monday if not tomorrow landing one first day by luck.

We're just starting to get our feet wet and the learning curve will take a little bit while we fully get into our cards and the new tech tinkering. The numbers will start to be posted soon enough and clocks we're reaching.

I've been closely watching the 7970 thread since it released, even gave some thought to switching myself for AMD HD3D but nothing had changed since last year so I stayed put. I watched and that's where I learned over clocking these new cards is a different beast all together. Great clocks but you have to know what to finesse to get it done right and that's also not taking into considerations the VRAM lottery.

Hopefully we can have another 'Battle Royale' like the 6990 vs 590 and we can all keep it civil again for the most part. It was interesting and an eye opener for some who thought ill of the other teams cards before the benching started and we learned both were pretty good cards all in all.


----------



## jtom320

I think a face off thread would be awesome man. Looking forward to it whenever it starts up. It's gotta be nice getting those 680s in the mail! Love new hardware!

User benches will be interesting to because honestly it's kind of concerning hwo different review sites get vastly different numbers in the same game. I realize a lot of these sites are using fraps to bench though and not a build in tool so I'm not saying they are biased. All I'm saying is some apples to apples comparisons from real people will be fun.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I think a face off thread would be awesome man. Looking forward to it whenever it starts up. It's gotta be nice getting those 680s in the mail! Love new hardware!
> User benches will be interesting to because honestly it's kind of concerning hwo different review sites get vastly different numbers in the same game. I realize a lot of these sites are using fraps to bench though and not a build in tool so I'm not saying they are biased. All I'm saying is some apples to apples comparisons from real people will be fun.


Not to get off topic but is it just me or does the smell of shrink wrap do something for you guys too.....?


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> Not to get off topic but is it just me or does the smell of shrink wrap do something for you guys too.....?


It gets me going. I'll tell you what though I love the cheesy graphics on GPU boxes. I've loved them since my Dad first showed me a video card (ATI All in Wonder 4mb). The funniest thing about them is they are just as awful now as they were back then.

My Asus box for my 7970 has some crazy looking horse dude on it. I don't know if anyone remembers but BFG had some pretty awesome terribad CG renders on their boxes to.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> It gets me going. I'll tell you what though I love the cheesy graphics on GPU boxes. I've loved them since my Dad first showed me a video card (ATI All in Wonder 4mb). The funniest thing about them is they are just as awful now as they were back then.
> My Asus box for my 7970 has some crazy looking horse dude on it. I don't know if anyone remembers but BFG had some pretty awesome terribad CG renders on their boxes to.


Personally I really dug the 3DFX images.







After they went belly up I've been with ATI until last year.

[

Ok I digress back to the debates. It was a nice breather from the current topic though.


----------



## svntwoo

Just saw this review..
*http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-in-quad-sli-configuration-benchmarked/19274*

The system scored an impressive 21,107 in the 3DMark11 benchmark test, comfortably beating the quad-Crossfire AMD Radeon HD 7970, which scored 20,853, and also aced the 3DMark11 Extreme test with 10,850, once again beating the quad-Crossfire AMD Radeon HD 7970, which only managed a score of 9,989.


----------



## jtom320

See that is the type of system I need to start playing my games correctly. BTW both scores seem low for quadfire to me at first glance. Aren't CF/SLI systems doing over 15k right now? I do almost 10k with my single card setup in performance mode.


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fantasy*
> 
> actually your wrong. the 680 has a base clock of 1006MHz and boosts to 1058Mhz. anyways I'm not a fan of the gpu turbo thing, I think it a bit stupid. if I want my GPU to run at 1006, then I don't want it to change. if I OC it to 1100MHz I want it to stay at 1100MHz at all times. thats just me. I don't like any kind of software to play with my hardware when ever it feels like it. I want to be in control.
> anyways Kudos for Nvidia for the nice feature, I'm sure some people like


Turbo is 9 steps of 13mhz, meaning the top step is 1110Mhz, not 1058.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *votum*
> 
> Why quote the record breaking overclock? How many of you are running custom VRM and LN2 24/7?
> IMO max overclock is dumb, max 24/7 overclock is what we should be looking at.


It's not a custom VRM, there was no modding involved.
I wish all the reviewers disabled turbo for their reviews, as it makes it really hard to get a good reading on where exactly the 680 falls. Some cards only hit 1019Mhz, some hit the average of 1058Mhz, some hit 1110Mhz, and that makes where the card actually lands blurry and hard to find.


----------



## bmgjet

Id like to see some more review in 2-3 months time.

Iv been trying to track one down in my country and every where Iv checked has not had any of them or they only had 1 in stock which was pre-sold for over $1000 ages ago.
So far my count of them is only 5 came in to NZ. So Nivida must be having really bad yields or only using the top binned chips, so with the turbo thing being able to bump it higher and overclock higher making reviewers think they are far better.

It wouldn't be the first time strategy has been used, The last time it was used was with the 6850s how the reviewers and early ones came out with more shadders and better quality cores that could over clock much higher then the ones that followed 2-3 months latter.

Also in 2-3 months time there should be some better drivers out which always give a good boost over release date drivers.

Stock for stock the 680 is the winner but clock for clock the 7970 is. Also the 7970 has that its readily available going for it and that its just gotten a $80 price cut here.
Looking at the prices here the 7970 can be gotten for $679nzd where the 680 is $843nzd with a 2 month wait on it unless your willing to pay $999nzd for a batch that is due in 3 weeks.

So IMO no king can be crowned for a few more months until the 680 is readily available and a more true representation of its self.


----------



## snipekill2445

Where did you manage to find a 7970 for $679, the cheapest I found was on Price spy for $849.00


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rayleyne*
> 
> I'm going to have to agree, I went from two 2G 460s at 860mhz core each (Faster then a 580) Too a single 7970 and it absolutely blows them all away, And with my 7970 at 1280/1750, I am seeing enourmous results in demanding games at both 1080P and 5760x1080 (6040x1080 in my case).
> 7970 is king imo, and i am yet to have any driver related issues at all.
> soon as the 7990 comes out i'll be grabbing one or two of them and then rolling around trying to figure out how im going to water cool it.


Pretty much the same. I went from 2x 580 lightning xtremes to 2x 7970's and dont regret my decision one bit.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Rayleyne*
> 
> I'm going to have to agree, I went from two 2G 460s at 860mhz core each (Faster then a 580) Too a single 7970 and it absolutely blows them all away, And with my 7970 at 1280/1750, I am seeing enourmous results in demanding games at both 1080P and 5760x1080 (6040x1080 in my case).
> 7970 is king imo, and i am yet to have any driver related issues at all.
> soon as the 7990 comes out i'll be grabbing one or two of them and then rolling around trying to figure out how im going to water cool it.
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much the same. I went from 2x 580 lightning xtremes to 2x 7970's and dont regret my decision one bit.
Click to expand...

I went from a reference 580 at 933 core to my 7970 (again reference). I don't regret it either.







I also went from 1080p to 1600p, and I STILL notice the difference.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> I went from a reference 580 at 933 core to my 7970 (again reference). I don't regret it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also went from 1080p to 1600p, and I STILL notice the difference.


Agreed. Going from 1080p to 1600p, I could definitely tell the difference between the two. I bought a Dell Ultrasharp U3011 about a month ago and had buyers remorse for about a week until i got use to it lol. Now it's the best monitor i've ever owned.

Sorry to go off topic, but how do i get my rig to show up in my sig? I filled out the rig builder thing when i first singed up.


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> I went from a reference 580 at 933 core to my 7970 (again reference). I don't regret it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also went from 1080p to 1600p, and I STILL notice the difference.


How much did you get your 7970 for? Was it cheaper than the GTX 580 when you got that, if so AMD has really done themselves proud.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> I went from a reference 580 at 933 core to my 7970 (again reference). I don't regret it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also went from 1080p to 1600p, and I STILL notice the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Going from 1080p to 1600p, I could definitely tell the difference between the two. I bought a Dell Ultrasharp U3011 about a month ago and had buyers remorse for about a week until i got use to it lol. Now it's the best monitor i've ever owned.
> 
> Sorry to go off topic, but how do i get my rig to show up in my sig? I filled out the rig builder thing when i first singed up.
Click to expand...

I went from 1080p with the GTX 580 to 1600p with the 7970 (no in betweens). And even with the higher resolution, the 7970 is still a good bit faster than my 580 was at a lower resolution. I absolutely couldn't be happier.

The 680 is a great card at a great price right now, but I see no reason to jump from the 7970 when the cards literally trade blows with each other...especially since I've had my card since January (as have a lot of us 7970 owners). If AMD puts a price drop on the 7970, then honestly either card is a great choice right now (or if you can pick a 7970 up used for cheaper...even better).

To make a sig rig, go to your user profile (click your name at the top right of any page). Scroll down to your signature and click "Edit Signature". Then there will be 3 drop down boxes to display your stuff in your sig. Just choose the rig you built with rig builder.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> I went from a reference 580 at 933 core to my 7970 (again reference). I don't regret it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also went from 1080p to 1600p, and I STILL notice the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> How much did you get your 7970 for? Was it cheaper than the GTX 580 when you got that, if so AMD has really done themselves proud.
Click to expand...

I got my 7970 for $525 locally, used. It was literally one week old, the original owner bought it on release day. This card wasn't even available new when I bought it, because everyone grabbed the Sapphire ones up real quick. Saved $35 though (this one was $560 at the time on newegg, but OOS). The GTX 580's were about the same price on newegg. I bought my 580 though for $400 (used) about a year, maybe a year and a half ago.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> I went from 1080p with the GTX 580 to 1600p with the 7970 (no in betweens). And even with the higher resolution, the 7970 is still a good bit faster than my 580 was at a lower resolution. I absolutely couldn't be happier.
> The 680 is a great card at a great price right now, but I see no reason to jump from the 7970 when the cards literally trade blows with each other...especially since I've had my card since January (as have a lot of us 7970 owners). If AMD puts a price drop on the 7970, then honestly either card is a great choice right now (or if you can pick a 7970 up used for cheaper...even better)
> 
> To make a sig rig, go to your user profile (click your name at the top right of any page). Scroll down to your signature and click "Edit Signature". Then there will be 3 drop down boxes to display your stuff in your sig. Just choose the rig you built with rig builder.


Thanks for the tip. Yea, I'm not going to complain about my purchases. The way i see it is there is not that much of a performace difference between the 2 to justifiy my purchasing some 680's. Now if the 680 beat the 7970 by like 100 fps, I would of jumped on it in a hearbeat lol.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> I went from 1080p with the GTX 580 to 1600p with the 7970 (no in betweens). And even with the higher resolution, the 7970 is still a good bit faster than my 580 was at a lower resolution. I absolutely couldn't be happier.
> The 680 is a great card at a great price right now, but I see no reason to jump from the 7970 when the cards literally trade blows with each other...especially since I've had my card since January (as have a lot of us 7970 owners). If AMD puts a price drop on the 7970, then honestly either card is a great choice right now (or if you can pick a 7970 up used for cheaper...even better)
> 
> To make a sig rig, go to your user profile (click your name at the top right of any page). Scroll down to your signature and click "Edit Signature". Then there will be 3 drop down boxes to display your stuff in your sig. Just choose the rig you built with rig builder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the tip. Yea, I'm not going to complain about my purchases. The way i see it is there is not that much of a performace difference between the 2 to justifiy my purchasing some 680's. Now if the 680 beat the 7970 by like 100 fps, I would of jumped on it in a hearbeat lol.
Click to expand...

If it were even a 10% performance increase after both cards were overclocked...I would've jumped on one in a heartbeat. I love having the latest tech I can afford. But from what I've seen...after both cards are overclocked, the differences are "meh" at best. So I'll just take the money I'd save, since I'd have to sell my 7970 at a loss and put money towards the 680.....and use that money for a better cooler, and enjoy even more performance, with less noise.


----------



## Mootsfox

AMD builds a better architecture that does more work per clock.

Nvidia builds better drivers that make real-world performance in games shine.

At least that's how I see it.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*
> 
> AMD builds a better architecture that does more work per clock.
> Nvidia builds better drivers that make real-world performance in games shine.
> At least that's how I see it.


I have to agree with this. If AMD would spend half as much time as Nvidia does on driver development, AMD could go places.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I want to see clock per clock benchmarks, theyre not even out there.. im surprised.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> In all the reviews, we are actually seeing 1110 Mhz (Turbo) GTX 680s against 925 Mhz 7970s, yet these cards both overclock to about the same Ghz value. (Lets see 1300/1800 vs 1300/1800, and you would notice Nvidia lags behind). Nvidia has the stock crown, while AMD has the overclock crown because its overclocking performance and clock gap is highest. There is no obvious winner in my opinion, yes the GTX 680 is newer, but is it enough? And is it too late?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> the 8970 will blow everything out of the water if the trend in performance increase continues, as it has with AMD from the 4890 - 5870 - 6970 - 7970. Nvidia has started good but has had hiccups, from GTX 285 to GTX 480 to GTX 580 to GTX 680. The last three are somewhat comparable in performance (within ~60%), whle the 7970 is more than 300% the performance of a 4890.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> this small 5-10% difference in performance when compared to the 7970 (925 mhz) is only justified by the 680's 15-20% (1058-1110) stock turbo clock advantage


Since you are so concerned with clock for clock performance, what about CORE for CORE performance, as well as who has the better overall architecture?

Let's analyze this further.

*AMD 7970 key specs:*

Steam Processors: *2048*
Texture Units: 128
ROP's: 32
Memory Bus Width: *384 bit*
Memory: *3GB*
FP64: *1/4*
Transistor Count: *4.31B*
Price: *$549*

*GTX 680 key specs:*

Steam Processors: 1536
Texture Units: 128
ROP's: 32
Memory Bus Width: 256 bit
Memory: 2GB
FP64: 1/24 FP32
Transistor Count: 3.5B
Price: $499

It's pretty clear who has the better architecture, considering the 680 has mainstream specs ( for Nvidia standards), plus inferior specs compared to the 7970 in almost every way ( 25% more stream processors, 384 bit, 3GB Memory, 6x FP, $50 more ), yet the 680 manages to...



We're also seeing launch drivers vs 2-3 month old drivers for the 7970 being compared.

One last thing, for those who will argue that THIS is Nvidia's flagship CHIP, you may want to review these specs.

Which card does the 680 specs have more in common with, a GTX 560 or GTX 580?


----------



## bmgjet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> Where did you manage to find a 7970 for $679, the cheapest I found was on Price spy for $849.00


Techworld has one left for $731.58 including shipping.
Price spy hasnt updated for the price changes but its next crawl of the websites will update it.
And if you go though PCBLADE they have it for $679. Computer1 has run out of stock but had them at $680
Whole sales have it even cheaper but they dont sell to public normally.

If your quick you could get a 7950 for $296 http://www.techworld.co.nz/sapphire-radeon-hd7950-gddr5-p-40469.html
1 left in stock.

Dont always go off pricespy, There prices only refresh every few days so it pays to check the stores your self.


----------



## cold2010

Seen here

http://www.google.com.sa/search?q=FX-8150+polyzp&hl=en&safe=active&prmd=ivns&ei=uIhtT_-bEMen4gSi3Nm_Ag&start=0&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=910










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> Disabled PhysX eye candy for the AMD card. Hell yeah that was going to beat it in this instance.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> For anyone glancing at the results on this page it would seem like a clear win for AMD however the tables don't tell the full story. Arkham City takes full advantage of NVIDIA PhysX to enhance image quality, including advanced cloth, paper and particle effects. These really do add to the realism and immersiveness of the game and the extra work required does drop performance. That said we can disable the technology if we wish and that brings the GTX 680 up towards the reference 7970 scores in this game.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you been reading all the benchmarks? Your picking only benches were AMD wins, we're not fools here dude.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's look at Multiple monitors with insane resolution and where the 680 has 1GB less than the 7970. Also an area that Nvidia is new to and AMD has been the sole GPU to accomplish this for years. Let's also take the benches from HardOCP an AMD favorite website. Should kill the 680 right?
> Most popular FPS game out there right now.
> 
> Here is the same Batman Arkam City game and both run without PhysX to be fair to AMD where it N/A.
> 
> Here is an AMD sponsered game even. This I couldn't believe because it wasn't as comparable like the other two.
> 
> This game AMD has a slight edge and has across all the benches I've seen from other review sites.
> 
> Your trying to prove this entire thread your point is failed. Most of us here have stated it OVER and OVER that both are great cards and this time it's not as easy as who's 'king of the hill'.
> So we fall back on the other features and pricing to really determine the winner.
> Nvidia - Multiple moinitors comparably so AMD can't claim this arena this round anylonger, Adaptive V-sync (better addressed micro-stutter than ever before) something AMD has never addressed, lower power consumption something AMD used to win every series round too, unrivaled 3D Vision an area where Nvidia excelled even further from last year where AMD wasn't even close to doing it right, and one of the most important points = less expensive price / performance arena where AMD used to also claim year after year and no longer the case. Should they drop price then I'd say it's a dead even match with no winner.
> Obviously our opinions on which is better may vary and to be honest there's no loser this round because we've got some amazing performance at stock or over clocked than previous gen cards easily. You poll will be just a popularity contest. Trying to persuade us to think differnetly may work for your less tech savvy friends but not the majority of OCN members.
Click to expand...

and


----------



## levontraut

I think you got a drives and cpu problem with the nvidia card. as in cpu not strong enough and drivers still in beta mode to say.


----------



## Penryn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> If it were even a 10% performance increase after both cards were overclocked...I would've jumped on one in a heartbeat. I love having the latest tech I can afford. But from what I've seen...after both cards are overclocked, the differences are "meh" at best. So I'll just take the money I'd save, since I'd have to sell my 7970 at a loss and put money towards the 680.....and use that money for a better cooler, and enjoy even more performance, with less noise.


I agree with this. I was considering one but the performance at eyefinity resolutions is the same considering that the stock clocks for a 680 are 15% higher than my 7970. All I have to do is OC a bit and that gap increases. I do hope that this causes a price war though as I'd love a second 7970 but am waiting till summer to see what Tenerife XT is all about along with GK110. Whichever is better at that point will probably be my next upgrade.

For some reason though, I can see multiple cards being blasted out from both companies this year as they try and tip toe over the previous top card to milk our money XD.


----------



## derickwm

What's annoying is that neither is the obvious winner. AMD wins in games that are optimized for AMD and nVidia wins in games that are optimized more for nVidia. As of right now there is no clear winner, which is how it should be imo. As annoying as it is to not really be able to have "the best", competition is good for prices and future cards.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *derickwm*
> 
> What's annoying is that neither is the obvious winner. AMD wins in games that are optimized for AMD and nVidia wins in games that are optimized more for nVidia. As of right now there is no clear winner, which is how it should be imo. As annoying as it is to not really be able to have "the best", competition is good for prices and future cards.


Good point. +rep


----------



## Phantom_Dave

This reminds me of the Bulldozer craze... "They broke the OC world record!"... we all know how that ended.

I'll stick with green. At least I'll know my drivers will be working.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> This reminds me of the Bulldozer craze... "They broke the OC world record!"... we all know how that ended.
> 
> I'll stick with green. At least I'll know my drivers will be working.


Have you even TRIED an AMD graphics card recently?









I love how everybody hates on the drivers. I have NEVER had a driver related issue, except with the first beta drivers for this 7970. Note....BETA. Never did on my 4890, 4850, or any of my other countless AMD / ATI cards either.

I've honestly had more driver issues with Nvidia than AMD lately. I still won't run any Nvidia driver past 266.58.


----------



## derickwm

^this.

I've had waaaay more problems with nvidia drivers over amd drivers.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Have you even TRIED an AMD graphics card recently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how everybody hates on the drivers. I have NEVER had a driver related issue, except with the first beta drivers for this 7970. Note....BETA. Never did on my 4890, 4850, or any of my other countless AMD / ATI cards either.
> I've honestly had more driver issues with Nvidia than AMD lately. I still won't run any Nvidia driver past 266.58.


Really, I'm running 295.73 and I've yet to have ANY driver issues for as long as I've had my card.

I see people complaining about AMD drivers ALL the time. Individual results vary.


----------



## renaldy

I'm not buying the 680 very dissapointed' i will wait until nvidia come with something better....

the 680 it only does 101 fps in BF3 in SLI

I'M runing BF3 110fps with my two GTX 580 sli

1920x1200 ultra setting...


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> This reminds me of the Bulldozer craze... "They broke the OC world record!"... we all know how that ended.
> I'll stick with green. At least I'll know my drivers will be working.


It still holds the world record on hwbot.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> This reminds me of the Bulldozer craze... "They broke the OC world record!"... we all know how that ended.
> I'll stick with green. At least I'll know my drivers will be working.
> 
> 
> 
> It still holds the world record on hwbot.
Click to expand...

Not anymore. Kingpin (spelling is wrong I know), broke the world record yesterday I think with a 1.90GHz GTX 680.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232947/hwbot-gtx-680-takes-record-1900-mhz/0_50


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I see people complaining about AMD drivers ALL the time. Individual results vary.


ALOT of those problem turn out to be PEBCAK. But of course denial can be a mofo lol.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Not anymore. Kingpin (spelling is wrong I know), broke the world record yesterday I think with a 1.90GHz GTX 680.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1232947/hwbot-gtx-680-takes-record-1900-mhz/0_50


I know. I was refering to the Bulldozer comment.


----------



## siryak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renaldy*
> 
> I'm not buying the 680 very dissapointed' i will wait until nvidia come with something better....
> the 680 it only does 101 fps in BF3 in SLI
> I'M runing BF3 110fps with my two GTX 580 sli
> 1920x1200 ultra setting...


The drivers for the 680 will improve. SLI performance is usually the last one to get the performance boost. Just give it time. I am sure that SLI performance will come up.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> Lol, that's why the 680 run's hotter than the sun. lol


How so? The temperatures for the 680 are about par for a reference cooler. Also their default fan profile is not very aggressive. A slight bump to fan speed and those temps come down nicely. This cooler is very quiet for a reference cooler, so it is no problem to up the fan speed a bit.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Not anymore. Kingpin (spelling is wrong I know), broke the world record yesterday I think with a 1.90GHz GTX 680.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1232947/hwbot-gtx-680-takes-record-1900-mhz/0_50
> 
> 
> 
> I know. I was refering to the Bulldozer comment.
Click to expand...

Ahh, nevermind then. That part probably is true, Bulldozer is a beast when cold.


----------



## firestorm1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> ALOT of those problem turn out to be PEBCAK. But of course denial can be a mofo lol.


Lol. Ive been seeing a lot of that lately.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> ALOT of those problem turn out to be PEBCAK. But of course denial can be a mofo lol.


I always hear that as well.









I personally can't verify one way or another, sadly, my rig wasn't built for an AMD card, though that's what I wanted originally. For my needs, Nvidia was my only choice. ( Video Editing with Adobe Premiere primarily, gaming 2ndary )


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marcus Rogers*
> 
> ALOT of those problem turn out to be PEBCAK. But of course denial can be a mofo lol.
> 
> 
> 
> I always hear that as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally can't verify one way or another, sadly, my rig wasn't built for an AMD card, though that's what I wanted originally. For my needs, Nvidia was my only choice. ( Video Editing with Adobe Premiere primarily, gaming 2ndary )
Click to expand...

The way I look at it....

If you limit yourself to just one company, be it AMD or Nvidia, or Intel / AMD (whatever), you're just cutting off half your potential upgrades in the future. This is why I'm a price / performance "fanboy", if anybody was to even call me that word. I could care less who makes my gear, so long as its the best I can afford at the time.

You needed Nvidia for your editing and stuff. And there's nothing at all wrong with Nvidia. I needed a faster card than my 9800GT and I had $525 to spend on one...so the 7970 fit my bill, since I just use it for OCN / gaming.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> I always hear that as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally can't verify one way or another, sadly, my rig wasn't built for an AMD card, though that's what I wanted originally. For my needs, Nvidia was my only choice. ( Video Editing with Adobe Premiere primarily, gaming 2ndary )


I just came from 2x 580 Lightning Xtremes and was having nothing but driver problems after the release of 280.26. So far things have been going really smooth with the latest WHQL that AMD has out.


----------



## Marcus Rogers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The way I look at it....
> If you limit yourself to just one company, be it AMD or Nvidia, or Intel / AMD (whatever), you're just cutting off half your potential upgrades in the future. This is why I'm a price / performance "fanboy", if anybody was to even call me that word. I could care less who makes my gear, so long as its the best I can afford at the time.
> You needed Nvidia for your editing and stuff. And there's nothing at all wrong with Nvidia. I needed a faster card than my 9800GT and I had $525 to spend on one...so the 7970 fit my bill, since I just use it for OCN / gaming.


You make a good point. I will use what ever suits my needs up until it starts becoming more of a problem than it is worth. That's why i switched over to AMD this time for my GPUs.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The way I look at it....
> If you limit yourself to just one company, be it AMD or Nvidia, or Intel / AMD (whatever), you're just cutting off half your potential upgrades in the future. This is why I'm a price / performance "fanboy", if anybody was to even call me that word. I could care less who makes my gear, so long as its the best I can afford at the time.
> You needed Nvidia for your editing and stuff. And there's nothing at all wrong with Nvidia. I needed a faster card than my 9800GT and I had $525 to spend on one...so the 7970 fit my bill, since I just use it for OCN / gaming.


I'm not limited by personal choice though. I had to go the Nvidia route due to Adobe Premiere's Mercury Playback Engine built with CUDA. AMD wasn't even an option.

At the time, I wanted to get a 5870, since Fermi wasn't out then, upon further research I realized that the 5870 would've been pointless for my needs.

My build path went...

1090T + 5870 as my *original* choices, and ended up with this i7 + GTS 250 --> GTX 460 --> GTX 470

I didn't see a need to upgrade further to 5xx, and sadly the 680 is not a viable option for me either









I'm hoping Nvidia doesn't cripple FP performance so much on the 780 and goes back to 1/8 FP32.

My needs are certainly in the minority, I understand the 680 was built for gaming 1st and foremost.

I was upgrading from an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+, I won't go into the rest of my computer building history, switching back and forth from Intel and AMD, let's just say I started out with a Commodore 64









I don't build based on brand preference, but rather, who can give me the best bang for buck for MY needs. Though there was a period of time when AMD used to be the only viable option.


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *derickwm*
> 
> ^this.
> I've had waaaay more problems with nvidia drivers over amd drivers.


^^This

My very first graphics card was a HD 6850, I never installed drivers or anything and it worked. When I installed the drivers..............................it worked perfectly. Now I have a HD 6950 ( cause I blew the 6850 up lol







) and it has no problems with drivers either. So far almost everyone here hasn't had a problem with AMD GPU's


----------



## utking

I have big issues with the drivers for my cards two old 4870 in cf. Got bad microstuttering even with v sync turned off.

I'm currently looking to get the 7970 so i'm hoping they have better drivers for it


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *utking*
> 
> I have big issues with the drivers for my cards two old 4870 in cf. Got bad microstuttering even with v sync turned off.
> I'm currently looking to get the 7970 so i'm hoping they have better drivers for it


I never once had a problem with my 4870 CF, also little to no Microstutter. I was running a q9550 @ 4.25ghz at the time so thats probably why I didn't have much trouble. 4870 is still my favorite videocard of all time. I loved out benching all my buddys with gtx260s.


----------



## Droogie

I wrote AMD off a while ago due to drivers. All the way back to a 9800 pro. Tons of issues. Then I had a x800 GTO2. Loads of driver issues causing random restarts and games crashing to desktop, blue screens, you name it. Went to an 8600gt, no issues. Then I went to a 4870, same driver issues I had with the x800. Switched to a 9800gtx, then a gtx260, now my 470. 680 comes next, as I have never experienced driver issues with these cards.


----------



## Anips

YOU WILL NEVER WIN!!!









- AMD fanatic


----------



## Warfox101

I have never had a problem with AMD drivers. Ive been buying the red cards since the 3xxx series. I'm starting to think all of these bad driver claims are a lie spread by Nvidia secret agents.

Any hoot I think both cards are amazing. They both overclock well And they both play hello Kittie just fine with frames to spare. If you like Nvidia than buy Nvidia same for AMD owners, Both cards are amazing.


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warfox101*
> 
> I have never had a problem with AMD drivers....Both cards are amazing.


Same here and yes to both being amazing


----------



## Penryn

I have never had problems with desktop drivers for either company. It probably is PEBKAC for all the whiners out there. I do however have issues with NVidias optimus drivers for some games on my m14x. Sometimes it works, sometimes.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Have you even TRIED an AMD graphics card recently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how everybody hates on the drivers. I have NEVER had a driver related issue, except with the first beta drivers for this 7970. Note....BETA. Never did on my 4890, 4850, or any of my other countless AMD / ATI cards either.
> I've honestly had more driver issues with Nvidia than AMD lately. I still won't run any Nvidia driver past 266.58.


I don't need to try them, nor do I want to. After all the problems I had in the past I will NEVER buy another AMD GPU. I don't care if they become the best or not. The only way I will ever buy another AMD card is if that's the only card available.

Every AMD GPU I've ever had was riddled with problems from drivers and CCC. Yet I've never had a problem with Nvidia. So roll your eyes all you want. It doesn't change the facts.


----------



## Riou

7970 and 680 are both overpriced and underperforming ripoffs. Save your money for next generation when AMD and Nvidia stop being lazy and produce good cards.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Riou*
> 
> 7970 and 680 are both overpriced and underperforming ripoffs. Save your money for next generation when AMD and Nvidia stop being lazy and produce good cards.


So you consider a single 7970 or 680 that performs close to or above in some cases to the dual 6990 & 590 bad cards that are priced $300 - $250 less?

I think even though its not implemented yet PCIe 3.0 along with AMD's new GCN architecture and Nvidia's Adaptive V-Sync technology that is being implemented is innovation in these new cards. It deserves more credit than your giving them.

Rather than a refresh over the last few years now with little improvements and no steps foward. Your entitled to your opinion though. IMO anyone in a 5000 or 400 series's card would have very nice perfomance gains and would be a definite upgrade.


----------



## polyzp

Just like AMD needs turbo to save their ass in CPUs, Nvidia needs turbo to save their ass in GPUs. The hype behind the GTX 680 is not justified by their overclocking performance, just like some people would think the hype behind AMD bulldozer is not justified by their overclocking performance. Hence why both companies released at very competative pricing, which neither would have to do if their CPU or GPU was *easily* crowned the best.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Riou*
> 
> 7970 and 680 are both overpriced and underperforming ripoffs. Save your money for next generation when AMD and Nvidia stop being lazy and produce good cards.


How is GTX680 overpriced? Its a lot better then GTX580 which it replaces. It has same Price.
GTX480 was $500 and GTX580 replaced it with only 15% more performance.
GTX680 replaces GTX580 with 35%. You just mean to say all flagship cards are too expensive but they do perform.


----------



## Rainstar

I had a few bad versions of CCC when i had a 5870 close to two years ago. It would not hold its overclock right, nor did it want to downclock when idle. So i sold it and used GTX 295, all my problems went away.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Just like AMD needs turbo to save their ass in CPUs, Nvidia needs turbo to save their ass in GPUs. The hype behind the GTX 680 is not justified by their overclocking performance, just like some people would think the hype behind AMD bulldozer is not justified by their overclocking performance. Hence why both companies released at very competative pricing, which neither would have to do if their CPU or GPU was *easily* crowned the best.


This whole thread you've been hyping up the 7970, and putting down the 680, yet the 680 is the faster card? Also, there's one problem with your Bulldozer analogy, Bulldozer is slower in almost everything, not to mention power hungry, and well, you own one so you should know how bad it is compared to Intel's offerings.

The 680 on the other hand is faster, or at the very least trades blows with the 7970 and is power efficient.

You claim that the 7970 was released at competitive pricing, when in fact it's over priced.

The 680 is 30% faster than the 580, and Nvidia released it at the exact same price as the 580. AMD on the other hand released the 7970 $200 over the price of the 6970.

Currently the 680 is about 10% faster, and priced 10% lower than the 7970, and it does it with 25% less cores.


----------



## polyzp

Where did i imply the 7970 was released with competative pricing? If anything i was implying that because it was so ahead of the pack, AMD stamped a grossly high price on it, something Nvidia would most definitly do if their gtx 680 was truly 40% faster than AMD's offerings.

I havent been putting down the gtx 680, it is tied for the best single GPU out there, and is truly a spectacular card at a spectacular price. At current pricing, Nvidia has the edge, but if prices were identical or higher than the 7970 (as expected), its not so clear any more, because there is no *true* performance champion.


----------



## Celeras

680 wins on every level. Power consumption, performance, thermals, noise, drivers. It's not even a question.

I appreciate this thread either way though, as I was not aware that OCN was 36% AMD fanboy.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Celeras*
> 
> 680 wins on every level. Power consumption, performance, thermals, noise, drivers. It's not even a question.
> I appreciate this thread either way though, as I was not aware that OCN was 36% AMD fanboy.


It doesn't win on overclocked performance or thermals that much we know for sure. If you read reviews you would know this. Or you could check out the user made threads on OCN. Also Power consumption increases at a higher rate when you push the clock up on the 680 then the 7970. This is confirmed on Beyond3d. Essentially they are the same card in terms of performance and power consumption for your average enthusaist.


----------



## gregoryH

@Celeras, not everyone play low resolution and have no idea about overclocking like you


----------



## BackwoodsNC

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli-overclock-surround,3162-11.html



there you go guys!!! I think that says it all!


----------



## snipekill2445

^^ According to this graph above, the GTX 680 is good for horrible game like WoW. And the HD 7970 is much better for Good games like Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033. And to that guy saying that the GTX 680 is more efficient, thats a load of cow pat, It uses more power than the 7970 which is another classic Nvidia tactic, to make more power and heat to match AMD Performance.

I think the True king is the AMD HD 7970


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Just like AMD needs turbo to save their ass in CPUs, Nvidia needs turbo to save their ass in GPUs. The hype behind the GTX 680 is not justified by their overclocking performance, just like some people would think the hype behind AMD bulldozer is not justified by their overclocking performance. Hence why both companies released at very competative pricing, which neither would have to do if their CPU or GPU was *easily* crowned the best.


Do you know what you even sound like half the time?

Nvidia's dynamic over clocking with adaptive v-sync is addressing micro-stutter for smoother frame rates in 2D and 3D gaming. At the same time increasing power efficiency by doing so only being used during intense moments in gaming.

Nvidia has always taken micro stutter more proactively at the expense of less scalability in SLI to maintain a higher level of quality.

They don't 'need' it as your suggesting to be a good perfomance card, just looking innovativley at improving GPU's as we know them today. Don't be surprised if AMD takes some notes and comes up with thier own version of it soon.

Your post poll telling you something yet?

Only thing we've yet to learn as OCN members are over clocking them right now is if the DO (Dynamic Overclocking) is going to get in the way of us manually over clocking. If it does then we'll need to see a way around it should it inhibit us in some way. Too early to tell as most of us who ordered on launch day won't see our cards until Monday. So any 'dogging' your doing regarding DO should be on hold because if it's not an obstacle you will have lost credibility when you speak moving foward. Which IMO you've already crossed that bridge a few posts into this thread.


----------



## polyzp

I am confident that if Nvidia didnt have a turbo like implementation, this card would not be up to standard, nor reach people's expectations in performance, actually prooving Nvidia took much longer to create a mediocre card.

Heat/Temperature actually passes the 7970 when you overclock both puppies.

That Toms review still compares a higher clocked 680 (100 mhz advantage) vs a lower clocked 7970.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> ^^ According to this graph above, the GTX 680 is good for horrible game like WoW. And the HD 7970 is much better for Good games like Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033. And to that guy saying that the GTX 680 is more efficient, thats a load of cow pat, It uses more power than the 7970 which is another classic Nvidia tactic, to make more power and heat to match AMD Performance.
> I think the True king is the AMD HD 7970


Funny... According to this graph it loses big time in BF3 when stock clocks are compared, which is how the average consumer will use the card.



Edit: Also wait 3 months and we'll see how the GTX680 does when Nvidia has had more time to revise their drivers like AMD. Coming out of the gate the 7970 drivers were complete crap.


----------



## ducktape

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> Do you know what you even sound like half the time?
> 
> Nvidia's dynamic over clocking with adaptive v-sync is addressing micro-stutter for smoother frame rates in 2D and 3D gaming. At the same time increasing power efficiency by doing so only being used during intense moments in gaming.
> Nvidia has always taken micro stutter more proactively at the expense of less scalability in SLI to maintain a higher level of quality.
> They don't 'need' it as your suggesting to be a good perfomance card, just looking innovativley at improving GPU's as we know them today. Don't be surprised if AMD takes some notes and comes up with thier own version of it soon.
> 
> Your post poll telling you something yet?
> Only thing we've yet to learn as OCN members are over clocking them right now is if the DO (Dynamic Overclocking) is going to get in the way of us manually over clocking. If it does then we'll need to see a way around it should it inhibit us in some way. Too early to tell as most of us who ordered on launch day won't see our cards until Monday. So any 'dogging' your doing regarding DO should be on hold because if it's not an obstacle you will have lost credibility when you speak moving foward. Which IMO you've already crossed that bridge a few posts into this thread.


how does adaptive v-sync reduce microstutter? What about input lag?


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I am confident that if Nvidia didnt have a turbo like implementation, this card would not be up to standard, nor reach people's expectations in performance, actually prooving Nvidia took much longer to create a mediocre card.


Horse hockey pucks. Regardless of how they are acheiving it - it's working and that's bottom line.

Just like AMD all these years not addressing micro stutter in crossfire as well as Nvidia has. AMD is getting better scalability because of this. Regardless the end result is they have better scaling ability is all everyone looks at and touts.

Your logic is failed regarding DO.

Just like everyone was saying Nvidia was cheating with tessellation all these years and AMD finally addressed it with the 7000 series that actually now does well comparably. The problem before wasn't Nvidia cheating as was being claimed by AMD users more than it was AMD not performing as well on a hardware level. It's easier to lay blame then fix the problem and make it work. Kudos for AMD for finally coming to the tessellation table and giving users a good card in that aspect.

Another analogy: Would Intel be taking a back seat to AMD's CPU's if Intel didn't have turbo boost technology? Regardless how it's being accomplished performance at the end of the day is all the end users care about. No matter how the company gets there if it works and their ahead, it's a win.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ducktape*
> 
> how does adaptive v-sync reduce microstutter? What about input lag?


Source HardOCP
Quote:


> It directly affects the smoothness of a game.


Quote:


> With Adaptive VSYNC turned on your games will maximize the framerates to your monitors refresh rate, therefore you won't experience tearing. However, if your framerate drops below the refresh rate VSYNC will kick into real-time FPS mode and deliver the real-time FPS being delivered rather than instantly drop to 30 FPS. You won't experience tearing below your refresh rate, and you also won't get large drops in framerate. It is the best of both worlds, you get to have your no tearing, and still experience the best possible performance in games. This is a feature that directly affects your gameplay experience in a positive way.


----------



## Badness

I don't think anybody denied nvidia being better at tess. People started calling it cheating when they put so much tess in games certain twimtbp games that it didn't improve visual fidelity, it just made AMD cards look worse. Whether or not that actually happened, I don't know.


----------



## adamkatt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smo*
> 
> I'm no fan boy for either camp and came from *a GTX 590 to 2x 7970*s. The only reason being that I wanted more horsepower and there was no other choice at the time.
> *I had every intention of switching to the GTX 680 upon release* and even jumped the gun and advertised my cards.
> However after seeing the genuine benchmarks I can honestly say that it appears these cards are as close to identical in terms of power as I think you can get.
> They're both exceptional. However I don't think you can ignore the fact that the 680 is clocked at 1050+ while the 7970 is at 925 so when the 680 is 'just edging the 7970' that is why!
> At the end of the day it really comes down to the performance of each card when they're completely maxed out if you care that much about a victor.


Sounds like a huge waste of money... If you WAS planning on going 680 why bother buying 2x 7970 if you had a 590 that could have held up until the 690's? Lol.


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> Funny... According to this graph it loses big time in BF3 when stock clocks are compared, which is how the average consumer will use the card.
> 
> Edit: Also wait 3 months and we'll see how the GTX680 does when Nvidia has had more time to revise their drivers like AMD. Coming out of the gate the 7970 drivers were complete crap.


Let's face it, if your going to buy a $500.00 graphics card and don't overclock it, your an idiot.

That would be like buying a Water loop, and then not overclocking.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> Let's face it, if your going to buy a $500.00 graphics card and don't overclock it, your an idiot.
> That would be like buying a Water loop, and then not overclocking.


I guess I'm an idiot then. I paid $580 for mine and it's not OC. It's not the same as buying a water loop... Most people don't overclock anything they own and most people don't have a H2O cooling system.

I love how people resort to name calling when they know they are losing... If I'm an idiot then what does that make you? Tool...


----------



## Rabbs

Like i said before and I'll say it again. Reason I' am a nvidia fanboi it's not because there green and awesome and have great drivers it's because of PHYS X. That's where AMD fails in my eyes and it's not because of drivers because i own a old crappy 5770 in my everyday desktop, and never had a driver problem. I'll waiting on 4GB 680 hydro copper classified's.


----------



## polyzp

My friend must be an idiot, because he paid over 1000 dollars for a waterloop system, to find his 2600k not overclocking any higher than it did with a 39 dollar air cooler. Hes basically facing the fact that sandy bridge has a cold bug, and now just runs everything at stock. ^^

But you are correct, with high end cards people are generally intrested in OC performance, not stock. This is where the battle becomes dangerously close, as of the latest drivers.


----------



## polyzp

Poll results are intresting to say the least,

TEAM AMD : 74 votes

TEAM NVIDIA : 125 votes

This just shows everyone that the GTX 680 is not a clear winner in the opinion of an overclocking community.

If i had made a GTX 580 vs AMD 6970, who is the real KING of *performance* thread, the votes would be more on the lines of: (Because it is much more obvious)

TEAM AMD: 10 votes

TEAM Nvidia: 189 votes


----------



## steadly2004

Hell, I think that the gtx680 is probably slightly better than the 7970, but that didn't stop me from sending a payment for a used 7970 just 2 minutes ago..... Anyway, they're pretty close.

I do understand wanting to know who's the best. Nobody wants a tie, not at a super bowl, not in a UFC match, and certainly not here.


----------



## Rabbs

This whole competition thing is as bout as stupid as xbox 360 vs PS3.


----------



## Evil Penguin

I just want to comment on the efficiency part of the argument.
Just because the 7970 has slower compute units does it make it less efficient.
If power draw and overall performance is in check, that's simply part of the architecture.
Unlike CPU cores, GPU cores are much easier to schedule for games.
Now if someone says the GTX 680 is more power efficient than the 7970...
They are completely disregarding GPGPU performance...

I think we can agree that these cards have their strengths and weaknesses.
Both cards are very nice and both are relatively new.

Choose whichever best fits your usage and price point in my opinion.


----------



## jtom320

I'd like to point out adaptive Vsync is very common in 360 games and there is a trade off with it.

Regular Vsync will hold even when the framerate drops under 60 FPS. This will result in increased input lag and stutter.

Adaptive Vsync will drop Vsync once your frames drop under 60FPS. Sounds great because you will not get horrible lag that comes with non-refresh synced Vysync. The trade-off however is that you *will* get tearing. All adaptive vsync really does act like a frame limiter much like any other one like the one included in MSI afterburner. It's a bit redundant and I'm not sure why Nvidia is so proud of it.


----------



## Badness

Well, if you're running stock, it appears the 680 is better with today's games. But this is OCN... Any word on how our community's GTX 680s are overclocking?


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> Well, if you're running stock, it appears the 680 is better with today's games. But this is OCN... Any word on how our community's GTX 680s are overclocking?


From what I've seen briefly, a lot of the retail cards tend to top out around 1150MHz with the +50 boost (so 1200 turbo).


----------



## amstech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> According to Tech Power Up the 7970 is 2% slower at 1600p.
> With AMD's better support for SSAA alone I don't think I'd agree with you on Nvidia having better driver features. Stability though for sure has always favored Nvidia. (Although ATI stability issues are often overstated)


According to Anandtech the 680 is faster at 1600p.
And there is no argument about the drivers, Nvidia wins no contest.


----------



## USFORCES

BF3 is what I play.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg6/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-battlefield-3.html


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> From what I've seen briefly, a lot of the retail cards tend to top out around 1150MHz with the +50 boost (so 1200 turbo).


From what I've seen around here, most of the 7970 cards can hit ~1250 without extra voltage. If I am not mistaken, the 7970 is better clock for clock, and overclocking scales better. Does that mean that the HD 7970 is still the proper enthusiast choice? It would seem that way to me. Until GK110 comes out...


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> ^^ According to this graph above, the GTX 680 is good for horrible game like WoW. And the HD 7970 is much better for Good games like Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033. And to that guy saying that the GTX 680 is more efficient, thats a load of cow pat, It uses more power than the 7970 which is another classic Nvidia tactic, to make more power and heat to match AMD Performance.
> I think the True king is the AMD HD 7970


It's naive to assume people don't play "bad" games like WoW and only play "good" games like BF3.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> Funny... According to this graph it loses big time in BF3 when stock clocks are compared, which is how the average consumer will use the card.


I'm willing to wager that a majority of people buying enthusiast level cards will overclock them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> From what I've seen briefly, a lot of the retail cards tend to top out around 1150MHz with the +50 boost (so 1200 turbo).


That's disappointing. Anand's card couldn't reach the top step of 1110Mhz, well, not at that voltage.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> From what I've seen briefly, a lot of the retail cards tend to top out around 1150MHz with the +50 boost (so 1200 turbo).
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen around here, most of the 7970 cards can hit ~1250. If I am not mistaken, the 7970 is better clock for clock, and overclocking scales better. Does that mean that the HD 7970 is still the proper enthusiast choice? It would seem that way to me. Until GK110 comes out...
Click to expand...

Not sure. I just tested with kcuestag and his new GTX 680. He was at 1260 core and +500 memory (whatever that is). I was at 1200 / 1600 stock volts and +20%. We tied in Heaven, both had 53.1 FPS. He beat me by a good 5 FPS at stock (I had 42, he had 47).

So by that ONE test, clock for clock the 7970 wins in Heaven. But that's just one test. Both cards were at stock volts / max overclock. So its hard to say.

He's claiming the 680 won because it was less of an overclock (+175 on his vs. +275 on mine). But that's because the 680 is clocked higher at stock. We both did max overclock on stock volts, so if you ask me, that's a fair comparison.


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Not sure. I just tested with kcuestag and his new GTX 680. He was at 1260 core and +500 memory (whatever that is). I was at 1200 / 1600 stock volts and +20%. We tied in Heaven, both had 53.1 FPS. He beat me by a good 5 FPS at stock (I had 42, he had 47).
> So by that ONE test, clock for clock the 7970 wins in Heaven. But that's just one test. Both cards were at stock volts / max overclock. So its hard to say.


Well that's the way I like it, neck and neck. The GTX 680's superior stock performance should drop the price of the 7970 below it (I hope). That means that the card that is just as good when the clock speed is cranked (maybe even better







) will be cheaper. Kind of like 570 vs. 6970 type of thing going on.


----------



## JunkoXan

i've had nVidia cards and Radeons, Radeons scaled very well in my experience my 460 scaled very well against it's competitor the 6850/70. in multi GPU forms tho the Radeons had a near perfect scaling in alot games and applications in tho the tessellation gave negative scaling to the radeons which sucked







but still great cards for their price. even if the 7970 is alittle bit more pricey but imo it's well worth the little extra for that scaling factor the OP has shown which is great.









i like how these tests are both show weakness and strengths, it all comes down to the buyer which is win/win ethier way.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JunkoXan*
> 
> i've had nVidia cards and Radeons, Radeons scaled very well in my experience my 460 scaled very well against it's competitor the 6850/70. in multi GPU forms tho the Radeons had a near perfect scaling in alot games and applications in *tho the tessellation gave negative scaling to the radeons* which sucked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but still great cards for their price. even if the 7970 is alittle bit more pricey but imo it's well worth the little extra for that scaling factor the OP has shown which is great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i like how these tests are both show weakness and strengths, it all comes down to the buyer which is win/win ethier way.















On topic...
So long as the 680 is cheaper, 680>7970.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JunkoXan*
> 
> i've had nVidia cards and Radeons, Radeons scaled very well in my experience my 460 scaled very well against it's competitor the 6850/70. in multi GPU forms tho the Radeons had a near perfect scaling in alot games and applications in *tho the tessellation gave negative scaling to the radeons* which sucked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but still great cards for their price. even if the 7970 is alittle bit more pricey but imo it's well worth the little extra for that scaling factor the OP has shown which is great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i like how these tests are both show weakness and strengths, it all comes down to the buyer which is win/win ethier way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -snip-
> 
> On topic...
> *So long as the 680 is cheaper, 680>7970.*
Click to expand...

Honestly, whichever card is cheaper is the winner. If you can buy a used 7970 (with warranty obviously) for less, then the 7970 wins. It all boils down to how much each card costs, as they perform neck and neck after overclocks.


----------



## mkclan

I agreed that the 680 is better, but where is the promised total debacle?
Nvidia fanboy said that all 7970 owners would to make suicides (I mean thought figuratively) , because make wrong choice of GPU. But in the end the difference is very small.
think that there are few who regrets his choice. In my opinion, +50 dollars on 500 dollars worth of GPU is not so much.
Sorry my english!


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkclan*
> 
> I agreed that the 680 is better, but where is the promised total debacle?
> Nvidia fanboy said that all 7970 owners would to make suicides, because make wrong choice of GPU. But in the end the difference is very small.
> think that there are few who regrets his choice. In my opinion, +50 dollars on 500 dollars worth of GPU is not so much.
> Sorry my english!


Say what? Nvidia fanboys said 7970 owners would commit suicide for choosing the wrong GPU?









If you have a quote, please share, I'd love to see who'd say something *ridiculous* like that.

It's just a graphics card, and just money at the end of the day, why would someone commit suicide over spending $550? That's just ridiculous. Even if the 680 was 100% faster and you bought a 7970, you could simply sell it, cut your losses, and switch.


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Not sure. I just tested with kcuestag and his new GTX 680. He was at 1260 core and +500 memory (whatever that is). I was at 1200 / 1600 stock volts and +20%. We tied in Heaven, both had 53.1 FPS. He beat me by a good 5 FPS at stock (I had 42, he had 47).
> So by that ONE test, clock for clock the 7970 wins in Heaven. But that's just one test. Both cards were at stock volts / max overclock. So its hard to say.
> He's claiming the 680 won because it was less of an overclock (+175 on his vs. +275 on mine). But that's because the 680 is clocked higher at stock. We both did max overclock on stock volts, so if you ask me, that's a fair comparison.


I've been talking with him too and so far his GPU is the best overclocker on OCN (that we've came across).. So your 7970 is winning against most 680s. He is able to get his core 50MHz higher than mine, and his RAM nearly 100MHz higher.

EDIT: I just ran heaven a few minutes ago on max settings and got 53.0FPS.. so it doesn't seem to scale very well with overclocks after a certain point (at least in heaven).

If we get voltage control the 680 will take the lead.. but according to EVGAJacob voltage control is not going to happen (at least for reference 680s). Since the BIOS are also digitally signed, no way to force voltage with a BIOS flash either. We would have to pencil mod, or physically mod in order to increase it. =/


----------



## mkclan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Say what? Nvidia fanboys said 7970 owners would commit suicide for choosing the wrong GPU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a quote, please share, I'd love to see who'd say something *ridiculous* like that.
> It's just a graphics card, and just money at the end of the day, why would someone commit suicide over spending $550? That's just ridiculous. Even if the 680 was 100% faster and you bought a 7970, you could simply sell it, cut your losses, and switch.


sorry suicide I thought figuratively


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> If you have a quote, please share, I'd love to see who'd say something *ridiculous* like that.


Chinese make the best power supplies in the world, especially the ones with no name and no 80+ rating.


----------



## polyzp

AMD tying nvidia in heaven, a notoriously nvidia favoured benchmark, while overclocked at same clock just shows you that there is no clear winner..









Only because the gtx 680 is cheaper at the moment , it has the advantage.


----------



## toX0rz

fail thread is fail.

Kingpin already managed ~15200 with a GTX 680 @ 1900 MHz
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I want to see clock per clock benchmarks, theyre not even out there.. im surprised.


Who cares about clock for clock?
Of course different architectures will perform differently with same clocks and thats why Kepler as an arcitecture that relies on high clocks will also OC higher under extreme cooling than AMDs card.

GCN architecture is a little bit faster if compared to Kepler at exact same clocks indeed, but how is that relevant at all?

Sorry but this just looks like a troll thread


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sapientia*
> 
> I'm willing to wager that a majority of people buying enthusiast level cards will overclock them.


You don't gamble much I take it? Most people who spend that much money on a GPU aren't going to want to risk killing it. Maybe a majority of the peeps on this forum would, but not the majority of the consumer market. The majority of the consumer market wouldn't even know how to overclock it. They just buy it because it's among the best. Just like people who buy Alienware... it's the best you can get without having to build your own (or at least the most well known). Obviously there's a market for Alienware or else it wouldn't be sold anymore.

That being said, even my card is not overclocked beyond the MSI overclock. I OCed it at first, but reverted back to stock after a very short while. The extra heat, power consumption, and reduced life of the GPU wasn't worth the marginal gain I got from OCing it to me. "Oh WOW, 90 fps instead of 80 fps..." I'd rather just tune the settings down a tad and save the environment as well as money on my electric bill.


----------



## polyzp

3dmark 11 world record doesnt mean it is the better performing card overall at maximum air 24/7 overclocks. It just means it performs better with l2n.


----------



## Penryn

There is no winner. That is why all the graphs are different. I think the problem is very few reviewers make clear in these graphs what clocks the cards are at. Most are "stock" which would be 925mhz core for 7970 and 1058mhz for the 680. Both cards remain very even. There is no winner so people who are saying there is a clear winner are wearing those tinted glasses. When someone has both cards in hand and makes a real comparison that isn't getting paid by some sponsor, I may believe it but for now, it seems like lining of the pockets determines the victor.

I may have to go buy a 680 locally for a day to bench both at 6048x1200 just to show how it is.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> I've been talking with him too and so far his GPU is the best overclocker on OCN (that we've came across).. So your 7970 is winning against most 680s. He is able to get his core 50MHz higher than mine, and his RAM nearly 100MHz higher.
> EDIT: I just ran heaven a few minutes ago on max settings and got 53.0FPS.. so it doesn't seem to scale very well with overclocks after a certain point (at least in heaven).
> If we get voltage control the 680 will take the lead.. but according to EVGAJacob voltage control is not going to happen (at least for reference 680s). Since the BIOS are also digitally signed, no way to force voltage with a BIOS flash either. We would have to pencil mod, or physically mod in order to increase it. =/


Probably because he bought his card in Germany so got complete different batch. 1.2Ghz almost 90% of HD 7970 can do providing its cool enough.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Probably because he bought his card in Germany so got complete different batch. 1.2Ghz almost 90% of HD 7970 can do providing its cool enough.


1200 is not that high really. I have to slightly boost voltage to get there but I have one of the lower voltage 7970's so my total volts at 1200 are below what some stock 7970s ship with. So happy I got a nice chip for once.

If Nvidia does allow voltage control for future 680s I wonder if it changes the dynamics of the race enough to put it ahead of the 7970. Looks like there is a lot of people who voted in this poll without realizing you are voltage locked on a 680. If this is not the most aggresive OCP ever I don't know what is.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> 1200 is not that high really. I have to slightly boost voltage to get there but I have one of the lower voltage 7970's so my total volts at 1200 are below what some stock 7970s ship with. So happy I got a nice chip for once.
> If Nvidia does allow voltage control for future 680s I wonder if it changes the dynamics of the race enough to put it ahead of the 7970. Looks like there is a lot of people who voted in this poll without realizing you are voltage locked on a 680. If this is not the most aggresive OCP ever I don't know what is.


For your current OC how high does the fan get in games and what temps you get? Whats your VID?


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> For your current OC how high does the fan get in games and what temps you get? Whats your VID?


Stock volts are 1112 in AB. For 1200 voltage is upped to 1174 (which is the stock voltage for most 7970s) and for 1260 voltage is 1225. For me in order to hit 1300 I have to set voltage to it's max 1300 level. It's stable enough to bench on there but I would never use it for every day gaming. In fact I have three OC profiles, 1125 stock volts, 1200, and 1260 with the voltages you see above. If I'm playing an easy game I'll lower it down to 1125.

My fan curve has a pretty slow rise. I keep it below 45 til it hits 80 C and then it rapidly goes up. In BF3 at 1260 the average temp seems to be about 81 degrees. Honestly though I don't play games all that much. If you'd like I'll take a screen with Afterburner in the top corner in BF to give you a good idea.


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *toX0rz*
> 
> Of course different architectures will perform differently with same clocks and thats why Kepler as an arcitecture that relies on high clocks will also OC higher under extreme cooling than AMDs card.
> GCN architecture is a little bit faster if compared to Kepler at exact same clocks indeed, but how is that relevant at all?
> Sorry but this just looks like a troll thread


I want to know clock for clock too. The purpose of it is not to decide which GPU is better, but rather to tell which is better when they're both overclocked, like in individual cases. Yes, everybody know the 680 is better at stock.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> For your current OC how high does the fan get in games and what temps you get? Whats your VID?
> 
> 
> 
> Stock volts are 1112 in AB. For 1200 voltage is upped to 1174 (which is the stock voltage for most 7970s) and for 1260 voltage is 1225. For me in order to hit 1300 I have to set voltage to it's max 1300 level. It's stable enough to bench on there but I would never use it for every day gaming. In fact I have three OC profiles, 1125 stock volts, 1200, and 1260 with the voltages you see above. If I'm playing an easy game I'll lower it down to 1125.
> 
> My fan curve has a pretty slow rise. I keep it below 45 til it hits 80 C and then it rapidly goes up. In BF3 at 1260 the average temp seems to be about 81 degrees. Honestly though I don't play games all that much. If you'd like I'll take a screen with Afterburner in the top corner in BF to give you a good idea.
Click to expand...

There are 3 stock voltage 1.049, 1.11, 1.159 volts, mine is 1.049 stock. I can't hit 1200 MHz at stock 1.049v. Keep that in mind, there are 3 different voltages running around.

After about 1250 MHz, the voltage requirement for the last 100 MHz, totaling about 1357, takes about +200mV for me. Very inefficient at the end.


----------



## CoD511

Needs a neither option


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> There are 3 stock voltage 1.049, 1.11, 1.159 volts, mine is 1.049 stock. I can't hit 1200 MHz at stock 1.049v. Keep that in mind, there are 3 different voltages running around.
> 
> After about 1250 MHz, the voltage requirement for the last 100 MHz, totaling about 1357, takes about +200mV for me. Very inefficient at the end.


Add 1.174 too the list. I can do 1175Mhz on Stock voltages. I undervolted it to 1.125v and 1125Mhz

Edit: As far as the battle goes this is the Same as HD 6970 vs GTX570. There is no GTX580 this round. So AMD and Nvidia will need another card to determine victories.


----------



## marsey99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> Well, if you're running stock, it appears the 680 is better with today's games. But this is OCN... Any word on how our community's GTX 680s are overclocking?
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've seen briefly, a lot of the retail cards tend to top out around 1150MHz with the +50 boost (so 1200 turbo).
Click to expand...

at stock volts they seem to be topping out around 1200mhz.

i love this thread, i just spent a while going thru it and the main fact everybody is missing is that this 680 is the gk104, it was designed to compete with the 7800s, not the 7900s that it is currently a match for.

then we have the fact that these early results from ln2 land are with early ic, not much binning has taken place yet so wait till k|ngp|n and the likes gets an above average sample, i hear zotac are binning their top cards for 2ghz boost, imagine how fast that will go under ln2.

and thats just the hardware, not mentioned that nv tend to take a couple of shots at the driver before they get it right. launch drivers aint worth a ****, give a couple of months and then look what each card is doing then and only then will it be a fair playing field.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marsey99*
> 
> at stock volts they seem to be topping out around 1200mhz.
> i love this thread, i just spent a while going thru it and the main fact everybody is missing is that this 680 is the gk104, it was designed to compete with the 7800s, not the 7900s that it is currently a match for.
> then we have the fact that these early results from ln2 land are with early ic, not much binning has taken place yet so wait till k|ngp|n and the likes gets an above average sample, i hear zotac are binning their top cards for 2ghz boost, imagine how fast that will go under ln2.
> and thats just the hardware, not mentioned that nv tend to take a couple of shots at the driver before they get it right. launch drivers aint worth a ****, give a couple of months and then look what each card is doing then and only then will it be a fair playing field.


Yeah it can compete with HD 7870 if AMD clocked it up 1.4Ghz,


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> There are 3 stock voltage 1.049, 1.11, 1.159 volts, mine is 1.049 stock. I can't hit 1200 MHz at stock 1.049v. Keep that in mind, there are 3 different voltages running around.
> 
> After about 1250 MHz, the voltage requirement for the last 100 MHz, totaling about 1357, takes about +200mV for me. Very inefficient at the end.


That's why you got such great OC's you have the low voltage model. Wish I had it but I'm ok being in the middle. Way better then my absolutely awful 2500k.


----------



## krazyatom

I think people should just buy GPU whatever games that performs better.
I mainly play WoW and 7970 doesn't really perform well compared to nvidia GPUs, so I am going to get a gtx 680.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> That's why you got such great OC's you have the low voltage model. Wish I had it but I'm ok being in the middle. Way better then my absolutely awful 2500k.


Oh absolutely, it does look like XFX is binning the Black Editions, not just flashing them with a "cool" bios.


----------



## polyzp

Check out OBR's 3dmark 11 xtreme score, seems like hes purposly clocking the AMD lower (Why is everybody avoiding clock per clock) so it loses by a hair.. What would have made more sense is to run clock per clock, and reveal the REAL truth. not to mention, i have a feeling that the MSI isnt as loud as he makes it out to be.

http://www.obr-hardware.com/2012/03/best-oced-radeon-hd-7970-lightning-vs.html

Also note that the CPU score and combined score for the AMD is also lower.

The error in 3Dmark11 xtreme scores is around +-50 points overall, i have noticed this running many tests for 3dmark11 in my own review. So despite the clock difference, these cards are literally within error clock per clock, in 3dmark 11. (a benchmark that at first glance shows nvidia much further ahead when comparing stock 1100 mhz for gtx 680 vs stock 925 mhz for 7970)

Also he doesnt show the temperature of the gtx 680, he hides it in the msi afterburner screenshot. I am guessing ocd it is much hotter than the 7970, in accordance with all reviewers, despite the much lower power draw.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Check out OBR's 3dmark 11 xtreme score, seems like hes purposly clocking the AMD lower (Why is everybody avoiding clock per clock) so it loses by a hair.. What would have made more sense is to run clock per clock, and reveal the REAL truth. not to mention, i have a feeling that the MSI isnt as loud as he makes it out to be.
> 
> http://www.obr-hardware.com/2012/03/best-oced-radeon-hd-7970-lightning-vs.html
> 
> Also note that the CPU score and combined score for the AMD is also lower.
> 
> The error in 3Dmark11 xtreme scores is around +-50 points overall, i have noticed this running many tests for 3dmark11 in my own review. So despite the clock difference, these cards are literally within error clock per clock, in 3dmark 11. (a benchmark that at first glance shows nvidia much further ahead when comparing stock 1100 mhz for gtx 680 vs stock 925 mhz for 7970)


His power consumption isn't accurate either. I didn't pull that much with my overclocked and overvolted 580...and I KNOW my 7970 pulls less than that.

Only 1200Mhz on the Lightning? Really? What an insult!


----------



## polyzp

OBR is a perfect example of someone trying to show nvidia in best light, but even then the scores are within 2% of each other, which is smaller than the error in testing. Repeat twenty times for each, and you could have just as easily put the worst nvidia score with the best amd score and shown the opposite.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I think its quite fair to compare the two cards at max OC at stock volts. Why? Because then there is a concrete result that applies to ALL cards. Anything above stock voltage is luck of the draw so one guy claiming that the 7970's are better because HIS card clocks to 1350mhz or whatever is not necessarily indicative of EVERY 7970. With testing done at stock voltage you can guarantee that EVERY card will perform at that level.. That's why Linus tested the two at max OC on stock voltage and I'm sure that's why most of these overclocked reviews are doing the same.


----------



## Smo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think its quite fair to compare the two cards at max OC at stock volts. Why? Because then there is a concrete result that applies to ALL cards. Anything above stock voltage is luck of the draw so *one guy claiming that the 7970's are better because HIS card clocks to 1350mhz or whatever is not necessarily indicative of EVERY 7970*. With testing done at stock voltage you can guarantee that EVERY card will perform at that level.. That's why Linus tested the two at max OC on stock voltage and I'm sure that's why most of these overclocked reviews are doing the same.


Neither is comparing overclocks on stock voltage because not every card has the same stock voltage, or will reach the same overclock based on that voltage.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Smo*
> 
> Neither is comparing overclocks on stock voltage because not every card has the same stock voltage, or will reach the same overclock based on that voltage.


No, there is no way to make things EXACTLY even but limiting the overclocks to stock voltage will give you as fair a comparison as is possible. I think its clear that these two cards are very even when overclocked as Pioneer and Kcuestag's results have shown. Anybody comparing the two for purchase ought to be looking at what they want to do with the card and deciding which one does that best. If you don't want to adjust voltages, want PhysX, and need lower power consumption the 680 is the best choice. If you need to use OpenCL and like to overvolt your cards get a 7970...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

So in the end you we payed $50 to have HD 7970 2 months before. The only downside i see for the GTX680 is that i cant find a store that has it on stock. Also the fact that it does cost me more then i bough the HD 7970 for.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> So in the end you we payed $50 to have HD 7970 2 months before. The only downside i see for the GTX680 is that i cant find a store that has it on stock. Also the fact that it does cost me more then i bough the HD 7970 for.


Extra 1GB of VRAM too. Not that it makes much difference for most of us.


----------



## stinart

I looked into some high o/ced 680 results : here

i tested the same settings on :
a crappy i7 920 o/c 3.8
crappy o/c to my 7970 (only CCC)
a crappy 7200 rpm old sata (low min fps)
and 16x AF (this guy runs only 4x)
and only 1 pass (too lazy to wait for second)

My result :



Not impressed *at all* with 680. Doesn't worth the hype imo.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stinart*
> 
> I looked into some high o/ced 680 results : here
> i tested the same settings on :
> a crappy i7 920 o/c 3.8
> crappy o/c to my 7970 (only CCC)
> a crappy 7200 rpm old sata (low min fps)
> and 16x AF (this guy runs only 4x)
> and only 1 pass (too lazy to wait for second)
> My result :
> 
> Not impressed *at all* with 680. Doesn't worth the hype imo.


But let me guess, you are super impressed with your 7970 that performs the same but at a higher cost of efficiency and price?


----------



## thorian88

relative performance, a 6970 is more powerful than a 480... across all boards... this is irrelevant and misconstrued information


----------



## stinart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> But let me guess, you are super impressed with your 7970 that performs the same but at a higher cost of efficiency and price?


I got almost the same result with far less o/c on core and mem. So yes the word efficiency suits perfectly for my 7970. As for the price , yes i believe that 7970 and even 680 are both highly overpriced.


----------



## thorian88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> For comparison sake, the GTX 580 absolutley destroyed the 6970 clock per clock.


maybe... but the 6970 is equal too or better in crossfire...


----------



## Ivan TSI

Wow fanboy war here.
I'm in. LoL
But the gtx680 does the same performance as a 7970 with around 500 less cores, less power, for $50 less and have physx!


----------



## polyzp

discussion is between a gtx 680 and a 7970, but i was getting at thre fact that a gtx 580's clock didnt need to be so high to perform so well. A GTX 580 at 1100 mhz will more than likley beat a gtx 680 at the same clok.


----------



## m3t4lh34d

With all of the trouble 680 owners are having overclocking, I'm led to believe Nvidia clocked these chips as aggressively as they could to just barely edge out the 7970 at stock, but fortunately for us 7970 owners, we have up to 400mhz of extra headroom on our chips


----------



## Mr Frosty

It's obvious what Nvidia did with these cards and any one that can't see it is blind.

They made GK104, see that with some aggressive clocking that it can compete with the 7970, so release that and save GK110 for another time and place.

GK104 was designed to be a mid-range part and as such was destined for mid-range clocks and not 1Ghz+ that it released with but Nvidia decided to clock it high and go after the 7970 with it.

Aggressive clocks on GK104 while proving to be a win at stock meens that when overclocked the 7970 easily beats it.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m3t4lh34d*
> 
> With all of the trouble 680 owners are having overclocking, I'm led to believe Nvidia clocked these chips as aggressively as they could to just barely edge out the 7970 at stock, but fortunately for us 7970 owners, we have up to 400mhz of extra headroom on our chips


We've already been over this in the main news thread. GTX 680 has a couple hundred mhz typically in it at most, and is NOT any more difficult to OC than previous video cards (it's a new way of doing it though so people don't get the gist of it yet). GTX 680 oc's also can almost always be done on quiet, auto fan, without even having to manually test/tweak voltage, just clock offset (which is super-easy comparatively). A 7970 reaches ~1100, 1125 on stock cooling without raising volts *in general* and maintaining reasonable non-deafening vacuum-cleaner noise levels. So, really, stock-card to stock-card, they OC about the same, and the GTX 680 remains faster. Now, at full-out max OC'ing including voltage raises, the radeon 7970 can finally catch up, but it becomes noisy, hot, etc. and a GTX 680 is still $50 cheaper.


----------



## polyzp

I am tired of people saying the gtx 680 is midrange when it costs 550 USD after taxes.. If it really was made to compete with the 7870 then its pricing would reflect that, obviously it was designed to compete with the 7970. GK110 will be a bigger jump from the gtx 680 than the gtx 680 is from 7970, but not by much (i am guessing 10-15%) with better overclockability. This card (GTX 685) will cost 599 USD, the 7970 will adjust to 449 USD, and the 7990 will cost 899 USD. Nvidia's dual card solution will be based on gk104, keeping the price is accordance with the 7990. AMD might or might not have an answer to the GTX 685. (They never did for the GTX 285 back in the day) But never the less, their flagship dual cards will be neck and neck, it comes down to which runs cooler and which can clock higher while overclocked.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoldenTiger*
> 
> We've already been over this in the main news thread. GTX 680 has a couple hundred mhz typically in it at most, and is NOT any more difficult to OC than previous video cards (it's a new way of doing it though so people don't get the gist of it yet). GTX 680 oc's also can almost always be done on quiet, auto fan, without even having to manually test/tweak voltage, just clock offset (which is super-easy comparatively). A 7970 reaches ~1100, 1125 on stock cooling without raising volts *in general* and maintaining reasonable non-deafening vacuum-cleaner noise levels. *So, really, stock-card to stock-card, they OC about the same, and the GTX 680 remains faster*. Now, at full-out max OC'ing including voltage raises, the radeon 7970 can finally catch up, but it becomes noisy, hot, etc. and a GTX 680 is still $50 cheaper.


From what I've just seen in the GTX680 overclocking thread a 1150Mhz 7970 was matching a 1200Mhz+ GTX680 in heaven


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoldenTiger*
> 
> We've already been over this in the main news thread. GTX 680 has a couple hundred mhz typically in it at most, and is NOT any more difficult to OC than previous video cards (it's a new way of doing it though so people don't get the gist of it yet). GTX 680 oc's also can almost always be done on quiet, auto fan, without even having to manually test/tweak voltage, just clock offset (which is super-easy comparatively). A 7970 reaches ~1100, 1125 on stock cooling without raising volts *in general* and maintaining reasonable non-deafening vacuum-cleaner noise levels. So, really, stock-card to stock-card, they OC about the same, and the GTX 680 remains faster. Now, at full-out max OC'ing including voltage raises, the radeon 7970 can finally catch up, but it becomes noisy, hot, etc. and a GTX 680 is still $50 cheaper.


I dont know how about GTX680 benefit from Water Cooling but the fact that HD 7970 can clock high means that you can go water not just being cool and quite but OC good too. You can get a 1.4v Bios and push it over 1250Mhz even for a poor card. I dont know how much the power delivery system will handle when it comes to 680.


----------



## polyzp

I still think that if your going to liquid cool your graphics, that you should go with the better overckocking chip, which the 7970 seems to be.

stock cooler/ stock temperatures / stock voltage / stock clock performance becomes absolutley unimportant for true enthusiasts.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I dont know how about GTX680 benefit from Water Cooling but the fact that HD 7970 can clock high means that you can go water not just being cool and quite but OC good too. You can get a 1.4v Bios and push it over 1250Mhz even for a poor card. I dont know how much the power delivery system will handle when it comes to 680.


So your solution to get the same performance from an already-more-expensive-by-$50 card is to spend another $100+ on water cooling, further worsening the value, and resulting in a ton of work? I don't see how that is an objective opinion whatsoever as to what most people should do.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I still think that if your going to liquid cool your graphics, that you should go with the better overckocking chip, which the 7970 seems to be.
> stock cooler/ stock temperatures / stock voltage / stock clock performance becomes absolutley unimportant for true enthusiasts.


The number of people who watercool with custom loops is MINUTE compared to the number who overclock. It's a niche of a niche, and adds even further large expense to an already costly card, all to match/slightly beat it finally. For virtually everyone, the GTX 680 is the better choice... if you are doing custom watercooling, well, that's an exceptional case and in your particular circumstance you may be better served with a Radeon 7970.


----------



## Mr Frosty

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> *I am tired of people saying the gtx 680 is midrange when it costs 550 USD after taxes.. If it really was made to compete with the 7870 then its pricing would reflect that, obviously it was designed to compete with the 7970*. GK110 will be a bigger jump from the gtx 680 than the gtx 680 is from 7970, but not by much (i am guessing 10-15%) with better overclockability. This card (GTX 685) will cost 599 USD, the 7970 will adjust to 449 USD, and the 7990 will cost 899 USD. Nvidia's dual card solution will be based on gk104, keeping the price is accordance with the 7990. AMD might or might not have an answer to the GTX 685. (They never did for the GTX 285 back in the day) But never the less, their flagship dual cards will be neck and neck, it comes down to which runs cooler and which can clock higher while overclocked.










You need to learn how profit margins and pricing work my friend.

Why would Nvidia charge a mid-range price for a product that can beat the competitions top card and reduce profit margins?

Please don't ever go into business for your self.


----------



## slickric21

Both cards are absolutely great lets not forget that.

When they are both overclocked they perform very very close across the board, with both having a few games they seem to like.
For the 7970 its Metro 2033, for the 680 its BF3.

I think most people buying a card today would go for a 680 if they are honest - if they are priced equal why not get the card which shades the other at stock, and does so using less power ???
Thats why AMD should lower the price a little really. (or alot would be great !!!)

However having said that 7970's here in the UK are a tad cheaper, cheapest being a Sapphire @ £381 Here
680's are starting @ £397 Here , Palit.

Personally I got one of the above Sapphires a month or so ago and i'm over the moon with it at 1260/1640, of course i'd love it it it used less power (but it sure uses less than my old 580 3GB did) but if i was making the choice about which card to buy now, well i'd probably go for the 680 if i'm honest.


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> No, there is no way to make things EXACTLY even but limiting the overclocks to stock voltage will give you as fair a comparison as is possible. I think its clear that these two cards are very even when overclocked as Pioneer and Kcuestag's results have shown. Anybody comparing the two for purchase ought to be looking at what they want to do with the card and deciding which one does that best. If you don't want to adjust voltages, want PhysX, and need lower power consumption the 680 is the best choice. If you need to use OpenCL and like to overvolt your cards get a 7970...


Stock voltage is hard to do, with the 680 changing its voltage while boosting and all.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sapientia*
> 
> Stock voltage is hard to do, with the 680 changing its voltage while boosting and all.


You cannot boost the 680 past its "stock" voltage, it maxes and automatically goes to 1.175v software-sensing and there's nothing you can do to change that. Thus, it is stock as it comes that way.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr Frosty*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn how profit margins and pricing work my friend.
> Why would Nvidia charge a mid-range price for a product that can beat the competitions top card and reduce profit margins?
> Please don't ever go into business for your self.


well then its not midrange just based off the price alone. Nvidia would even tell you its *not* midrange GPU.


----------



## corhen

the gist i get from reading this thread, is that if you ignore the fact that the 7970 has had much more time to work on the drivers, and ignore the fact that the 680 beats the 7970 at temp, power usage, and performance when at stock speeds, and you ignore the fact that the 680 is currently significantly cheaper, as well as the fact that the majority of Overclock.net users agree that the 680 is currently the king of cards.. the cards come out as a draw. If you DONT ignore these facts, the 680 comes out as the clear winner.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *corhen*
> 
> the gist i get from reading this thread, is that if you ignore the fact that the 7970 has had much more time to work on the drivers, and ignore the fact that the 680 beats the 7970 at temp, power usage, and performance when at stock speeds, and you ignore the fact that the 680 is currently significantly cheaper, as well as the fact that the majority of Overclock.net users agree that the 680 is currently the king of cards.. the cards come out as a draw. If you DONT ignore these facts, the 680 comes out as the clear winner.


Basically this.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Isn't there an entire 680 vs 7970 battle royale thread going to hash out which card truly performs best? Why not just wait for the results rather than stating opinions that have no relevance? By the way, I've already decided who wins this round from my point of view: MSI R7970 Lightning! As soon as I can get my hands on two they will be in my rig!. Of course when they release 680 Lightnings I may have to amend my decision...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoldenTiger*
> 
> So your solution to get the same performance from an already-more-expensive-by-$50 card is to spend another $100+ on water cooling, further worsening the value, and resulting in a ton of work? I don't see how that is an objective opinion whatsoever as to what most people should do.
> The number of people who watercool with custom loops is MINUTE compared to the number who overclock. It's a niche of a niche, and adds even further large expense to an already costly card, all to match/slightly beat it finally. For virtually everyone, the GTX 680 is the better choice... if you are doing custom watercooling, well, that's an exceptional case and in your particular circumstance you may be better served with a Radeon 7970.


No i am saying HD 7970 has more potential under water. Its a root many people take. You dont want to go water and end up spending 100+ and not gain a single MHz.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> No i am saying HD 7970 has more potential under water. Its a root many people take. You dont want to go water and end up spending 100+ and not gain a single MHz.


Not many people even as a percentage of overclockers go for custom water. Obviously the 7970 would have higher mhz speeds if you used that cooling method, but then it costs even more money just to trade blows and finally slightly beat a stock-cooled stock-oc'd, $500 GTX 680, with a total cost of minimum $650+ for a watercooled 7970 being generous ($550 + 100 or more for blocks/etc.). At that point you've eliminated the noise problem, but made the cost, perf/price, etc. even worse as well as put work into physically changing everything over. *I have no question that a custom-loop water-cooled 7970 would beat out a GTX 680, but that's A) not something most people do, and B) adds even further expense.*


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> No i am saying HD 7970 has more potential under water. Its a root many people take. You dont want to go water and end up spending 100+ and not gain a single MHz.


Then again, another way of looking at it is to say that the 680 renders water cooling an expensive and unnecessary addition.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Then again, another way of looking at it is to say that the 680 renders water cooling an expensive and unnecessary addition.


An interesting way of looking at it, too...


----------



## polyzp

Now it is a misconception that the GTX 680 runs cooler than a 7970 with stock heatsink.. I have seen reviews showing both ways.

AMD is the way to go if your looking to mod your GPU to get the most out of it. An example is my XFX 6990. I threw on a 3rd party accelero turbo air cooler on that puppy, and manages to actually squeeze out a much higher stable oc with the exact same voltage settings.

Pre cooler - 935 Mhz / 1350 Mhz stable OC - 1.23V
Post cooler - 990 Mhz / 1500 Mhz stable OC - 1.23V


----------



## StaticFX

Didn't read the entire thread. But did anyone mention that the 680 runs a fair amount hotter than the amd?


----------



## Droogie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StaticFX*
> 
> Didn't read the entire thread. But did anyone mention that the 680 runs a fair amount hotter than the amd?


Not really. Some reviews have shown it significantly cooler.


----------



## polyzp

I think it depends ion which card they reviewed , and at what turbo voltage setting the card could reach. But isnt it generally a hotter card, despite the fact it is much less power hungry?


----------



## bezelbeater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I think it depends ion which card they reviewed , and at what turbo voltage setting the card could reach. But isnt it generally a hotter card, despite the fact it is much less power hungry?


Of course that can be dependent on the fan profile/heatsink dissipation/fan effectiveness. You can generally let a GPU run a little bit hotter and get away with a little less fan RPM. In this case I would say that the 680 is 4*C hotter in gaming benchmarks because NV lets it be.

You can see that when the GPU is put under extreme load, it dissipates on par with the 7970 _and_ is less noisy which means either the heatsink is more effective or/and the fan is more effective or/and the power consumption is showing it's benefit.


----------



## drBlahMan

Although I have my eyes set on the 680, I'm going to wait for a couple of months to make my final decision. Who ever has the lowest price between the 680 & the 7970 (_lowest being $40 to $50 cheaper_) will be the lucky GPU







BY that time, all the kinks should be fixed by updated drivers for both AMD & Nvidia


----------



## polyzp

If prices were identical it would be a dead even match. From all the hype i was under the impression the gtx 680 would out perform the 7970, as the gtx 580 did the 6970, however we have yet to see GK110 numbers so well see. I still think that sapphire's 1335 mhz stock clocked 7970 (if it ever comes out, and which probably overclocks to 1400+mhz) will be the card up against the gk110.


----------



## Sanger Zonvolt

Honestly, there is not a clear winner, and that if one is leaning towards one side, he'll just go with that side probably. It is basically preference. Anyways this situation is much much better than one card blowing out the other.


----------



## polyzp

Looks like overhype to me

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-epic-samaritan-kepler-fermi,14966.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/161547/Kepler-Unbeatable-NVIDIA.html?cp=2


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Looks like overhype to me
> http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-epic-samaritan-kepler-fermi,14966.html
> http://www.techpowerup.com/161547/Kepler-Unbeatable-NVIDIA.html?cp=2


So now a facebook wall post from nvidia Italy counts as overhype? I don't think that was exactly a press release but honestly, at stock he's right.....


----------



## Badness

Well, I mean, they said kepler was unbeatable, not GK104. Since the 680 is upsetting the crowd with a win over the 7970, I really doubt the GK110 can be anything but a winner, at least as far as performance is concerned.


----------



## chefman21

Not sure what is happening over there, but I woke up this morning to see prices had dropped in Australia for the 7970's. Drop was about $50 a card. Nice little surprise on a Monday morning.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chefman21*
> 
> Not sure what is happening over there, but I woke up this morning to see prices had dropped in Australia for the 7970's. Drop was about $50 a card. Nice little surprise on a Monday morning.


Now its on!


----------



## chefman21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Now its on!


Thank god! Hope Team Green follows up within the next 48 hours.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> Well, I mean, they said kepler was unbeatable, not GK104. Since the 680 is upsetting the crowd with a win over the 7970, I really doubt the GK110 can be anything but a winner, at least as far as performance is concerned.


If you think of the GTX680 as a GTX670, That would make the GK110 the True GTX680. If they did come out like they have always been you would not see more then ~ 15-20% more performance. To do that Nvidia has to adjust a lot more things then just the Core. AMD can just adjust the core and have a HD 7980 out with 20% and have another close tie. HD 7970 is not designed to fight a card 9-12 months after its launch.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> If prices were identical it would be a dead even match. From all the hype i was under the impression the gtx 680 would out perform the 7970, as the gtx 580 did the 6970, however we have yet to see GK110 numbers so well see. I still think that sapphire's 1335 mhz stock clocked 7970 (if it ever comes out, and which probably overclocks to 1400+mhz) will be the card up against the gk110.


1335/925 = +45% increase in clock ==> GK110 must perform alot over 45% better than the 7970 at stock to "leave it in the dust".


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> If you think of the GTX680 as a GTX670, That would make the GK110 the True GTX680. If they did come out like they have always been you would not see more then ~ 15-20% more performance. To do that Nvidia has to adjust a lot more things then just the Core. AMD can just adjust the core and have a HD 7980 out with 20% and have another close tie. HD 7970 is not designed to fight a card 9-12 months after its launch.


Except, it is GK104, so it is like the GTX 460 of the 600 series, or GTX 660 (ti?).


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> Except, it is GK104, so it is like the GTX 460 of the 600 series, or GTX 660 (ti?).


Kind of like GTX560TI OCed can match a GTX570?


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Kind of like GTX560TI OCed can match a GTX570?


I believe you need 1000mhz core to be on par with a stock 570, which is at the upper end of what a 560 ti is capable of. But you should be asking what does it take to make a 560 ti on par with a 580. Or, I suppose that is what you should ask given what I am speculating









Anyway, the GTX 680 is like what nvidia should have done with the GTX 480. They should have released a fully enabled GF104, which would have had a 384 cuda cores like the 560 ti. It would have been better and more power efficient than the 5870, just like the case right now. Instead they mutilated their good chip and released a broken power hog that was only barely better. By the time the 560 ti got to the market, it was meant with competition from the 6000 series, that beat it bad.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *corhen*
> 
> the gist i get from reading this thread, is that if you ignore the fact that the 7970 has had much more time to work on the drivers, and ignore the fact that the 680 beats the 7970 at temp, power usage, and performance when at stock speeds, and you ignore the fact that the 680 is currently significantly cheaper, as well as the fact that the majority of Overclock.net users agree that the 680 is currently the king of cards.. the cards come out as a draw. If you DONT ignore these facts, the 680 comes out as the clear winner.


You must not know AMD if you think 7970 drivers are mature. Your comment about temperature is wrong as well. And considering well this is OCN stock speeds don't really amount to much at the end of the day. Some websites even have the 680 drawing more power in certain tests including 3dmark11. The only thing the 7970 has going against it is price and I'm sure that will be changed within the next couple of weeks. The second the 7970 is the same price as the 680 to your average OC'er it's a toss up on what card to buy. The second it's ten bucks cheaper it's the pretty clear choice (IMO). My guess is it goes down to the 450 range.


----------



## Arizonian

We can sit here and debate forever, this round of cards there is no clear winner like the 580 beating the 6970 easily. Both are great cards at the end of the day. If there is a performance gain whether stock or OC seems to yield little difference to crown either a winner. The 'king' would have to win by a further margin to be a clear winner. Rather than bicker, or put down the other card I think we can come to the conclusion that there is no 'true king'.

Hoestly I'm surprised this debate went this far because the bias around here wreaks. It always turns into a pissing contest.

As for popularity contest it's safe to say OCN has crowned a winner based on the numbers.

Oh well I've got my card coming Monday and going to familiarize myself. I'm building a second rig this week that will compliment PCIe 3.0 and Z68 mobo. Either SB or IVY. Going to focus on more important things. I'm more than happy with Nvidia in the 3DVision which in that area is the best hands down.

Even if 7970 is faster in OC, they've lost thier only niche this year which was multiple monitors. That alone took the biggest reason to choose AMD IMO.

Happy gaming to all the new owners of both. It's a good time for both camps to play maxed settings.


----------



## Badness

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> You must not know AMD if you think 7970 drivers are mature. Your comment about temperature is wrong as well. And considering well this is OCN stock speeds don't really amount to much at the end of the day. Some websites even have the 680 drawing more power in certain tests including 3dmark11. The only thing the 7970 has going against it is price and I'm sure that will be changed within the next couple of weeks. The second the 7970 is the same price as the 680 to your average OC'er it's a toss up on what card to buy. The second it's ten bucks cheaper it's the pretty clear choice (IMO). My guess is it goes down to the 450 range.


Stock don't mean much here, proof being the GTX 470.


----------



## Robilar

The way I see it 4 factors come into play here:

Price: 680 is cheaper (in Canada by $100), from what I have seen on the US side, the delta is closer about $50 difference.

Multiple monitor support: both are equal in this regard as of the latest nvidia release. This was a big caveat for single AMD cards and something Nvidia should have resolved much sooner.

Performance: Pretty close, 680 is faster stock vs. stock (which lets face it, the majority of non-overclockers will be looking at) At extreme overclocks via LN2 (which on the other end, only a very few will ever use) the 7970 has a slight lead.

Multi-GPU support: Unless AMD has pulled off some magic trick with this generation of 7 series cards in Crossfire, I expect we will see many of the same minor (but cumulatively annoying) issues that have been present in every set of AMD crossfire cards for the last several years. I sold paired 6970's, paired 6870's, paired 5870's, paired 5850's, paired 4890's, paired 4870's etc. after finding the many little irritants just too annoying to justify keeping the cards. That said, SLI in the past has been only marginally better but I can say with certainty that in the last year it has improved dramatically with each driver release. I'd have to give it to Nvidia (although this is something that AMD keeps promising to fix with new driver releases).

The winner? Based on price and performance alone for most users, the 680 comes out ahead slightly. For multi gpu arrays, Nvidia wins, at least for now.


----------



## polyzp

I say AMD wins with crossfire because scaling is ahead. Both crossfire and SLI have microstuttering issues. If AMD matches or drops its price below the gtx 680, it will be the clear victor. I cant find a gtx 680 in canada cheaper than 525 dollars, which is only 24 dollars less than the 7970.


----------



## Saizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> It will be a big fiasco when the 7990 is released in 1-2 weeks, with up to +100% performance of the gtx 680. I actually thought the gtx 680s performance would be higher than what it is. Nvidia's turbo boost is just better to 1058 mhz+. And apparently it continues to work even when you oc your GPU to high mhz, so most ocing benchmarks dont put this into consideration. If you can somehow disable turbo boost and run the gtx 680 at the exact same clocks as a stock 7970, the difference in performance between them will vanish (averaged).


And when the 690 comes out, it will be 100% better than the 7990







. Just like the 590 with the 6990


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> The way I see it 4 factors come into play here:
> Price: 680 is cheaper (in Canada by $100), from what I have seen on the US side, the delta is closer about $50 difference.
> Multiple monitor support: both are equal in this regard as of the latest nvidia release. This was a big caveat for single AMD cards and something Nvidia should have resolved much sooner.
> Performance: Pretty close, 680 is faster stock vs. stock (which lets face it, the majority of non-overclockers will be looking at) At extreme overclocks via LN2 (which on the other end, only a very few will ever use) the 7970 has a slight lead.
> Multi-GPU support: Unless AMD has pulled off some magic trick with this generation of 7 series cards in Crossfire, I expect we will see many of the same minor (but cumulatively annoying) issues that have been present in every set of AMD crossfire cards for the last several years. I sold paired 6970's, paired 6870's, paired 5870's, paired 5850's, paired 4890's, paired 4870's etc. after finding the many little irritants just too annoying to justify keeping the cards. That said, SLI in the past has been only marginally better but I can say with certainty that in the last year it has improved dramatically with each driver release. I'd have to give it to Nvidia (although this is something that AMD keeps promising to fix with new driver releases).
> The winner? Based on price and performance alone for most users, the 680 comes out ahead slightly. For multi gpu arrays, Nvidia wins, at least for now.


HD 7970 bight be $600 in most Stores but you can easily find it for $550.
http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102961&nm_mc=OTC-sho6b0tCA&cm_mmc=OTC-sho6b0tCA-_-Video+Cards-_-Sapphire+Tech-_-14102961
Also not sure what you mean SLI is better then CF. I have always had CF, Never SLI but i can Tell you SLI cant be better then Single GPU and CF did not give me any different gaming experience then single GPU. If you mean by not actually working then thats a different problem but hen it works its brilliant if you need the power.


----------



## Ocnewb

Lol since when the GTX 590 is 100% better than the 6990 may i ask? Yes i owned 2x GTX 590 Classified and a 6990 before so i would know.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> HD 7970 bight be $600 in most Stores but you can easily find it for $550.
> http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102961&nm_mc=OTC-sho6b0tCA&cm_mmc=OTC-sho6b0tCA-_-Video+Cards-_-Sapphire+Tech-_-14102961
> Also not sure what you mean SLI is better then CF. I have always had CF, Never SLI but i can Tell you SLI cant be better then Single GPU and CF did not give me any different gaming experience then single GPU. If you mean by not actually working then thats a different problem but hen it works its brilliant if you need the power.


Better? Perhaps I should clarify, less BSOD's, crashes to desktop, flickering textures and enviroments, etc.

Micro-stutter is evident in both setups to varying degrees, I made no mention of that in my comments nor did I make reference to scaling. I could care less if my crossfire setup scales better if I get texture and graphic anomalies and crash to desktop every 20 minutes.

Also, I hadn't checked recent prices so the delta may be closer.

I bought my 680's for $499 each at NCIX in Canada. The cheapest 7970 was just under $600 (The Asus one I bought was $589 when I bought it).


----------



## freitz

So which runs multiple monitors smoother?


----------



## Robilar

Well I have a 7970 running 3 monitors currently. I plan to try them out with one of my 680's. I'll post back once I tinker a bit.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m3t4lh34d*
> 
> Look at how pathetic the 680s score in Quad SLI vs the 7970s...
> http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2641/7/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-quad-sli-review-english-version-battlefield-3


I'm sure the .001 % of high end video card users who actually run quad video cards will care. Us normal humans don't. The 680 has spanked the 7970 (single card and 2-way SLi) while being cheaper and using less power. Get over it.


----------



## freitz

ok sounds good.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sheyster*
> 
> I'm sure the .001 % of high end video card users who actually run quad video cards will care. Us normal humans don't. The 680 has spanked the 7970 (single card and 2-way SLi) while being cheaper and using less power. Get over it.


I'm also sure that scaling will improve with more polished drivers.

I love these wars. Let's beat it while it's down! If this thread compared the 7970 at launch to the GTX680 at launch the 7970 would have been demolished because of drivers.


----------



## bezelbeater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> If prices were identical it would be a dead even match. From all the hype i was under the impression the gtx 680 would out perform the 7970, as the gtx 580 did the 6970, however we have yet to see GK110 numbers so well see. I still think that sapphire's 1335 mhz stock clocked 7970 (if it ever comes out, and which probably overclocks to 1400+mhz) will be the card up against the gk110.




Seriously. Leap frogging has been happening for ever, and it's only good for technology and the customer. There is no point taking sides because NV will knock AMD and then AMD will punt NV.

The fact that you have a flame makes me want somehow create a teleport with which I can beam myself to a different universe.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Better? Perhaps I should clarify, less BSOD's, crashes to desktop, flickering textures and enviroments, etc.
> Micro-stutter is evident in both setups to varying degrees, I made no mention of that in my comments nor did I make reference to scaling. I could care less if my crossfire setup scales better if I get texture and graphic anomalies and crash to desktop every 20 minutes.
> Also, I hadn't checked recent prices so the delta may be closer.
> I bought my 680's for $499 each at NCIX in Canada. The cheapest 7970 was just under $600 (The Asus one I bought was $589 when I bought it).


Never got BSOD form any AMD card period, CF or not. I crashed to Desktop only from a non Stable OC otherwise never, flickering textures and environments i cant say i never experienced this but i dont thing its more GPU then game related, at least it not something CF related because i have a texture problem in BF3 which was evident in all single GPU and CF setup, Stutter is evident with all multi GPUs.

As for prices. Its nice that GTX680 "was" $499 but no more. Most are out of stock now and higher priced. There are so many HD 7970 to chose from and you can find them for $550 if you look around.


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *freitz*
> 
> So which runs multiple monitors smoother?





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Saizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ocnewb*
> 
> Lol since when the GTX 590 is 100% better than the 6990 may i ask? Yes i owned 2x GTX 590 Classified and a 6990 before so i would know.


Since the beginning of times.


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Saizer*
> 
> And when the 690 comes out, it will be 100% better than the 7990
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Just like the 590 with the 6990


lol, technically the 6990 was about the same as a GTX590 because:

1. It wasn't limited so they were easy to buy
2. In my country it is cheaper
3. They both perform almost identically.
4. You are obviously a nvidia fanboy who dreams alot.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Better? Perhaps I should clarify, less BSOD's, crashes to desktop, flickering textures and enviroments, etc.
> Micro-stutter is evident in both setups to varying degrees, I made no mention of that in my comments nor did I make reference to scaling. I could care less if my crossfire setup scales better if I get texture and graphic anomalies and crash to desktop every 20 minutes.
> Also, I hadn't checked recent prices so the delta may be closer.
> I bought my 680's for $499 each at NCIX in Canada. The cheapest 7970 was just under $600 (The Asus one I bought was $589 when I bought it).


I know your a mod and all but I don't buy that you were having multiple BSODs with your CF setups. Having owned both a CF and SLI setup and never ever experiencing a BSOD with either my thinking is that user error was involved somewhere along the line.

Flickering textures happen in some games but generally that is fixed with CAP updates and is an issue reserved for new releases. Crash to desktops every 20 minutes sounds like a huge stretch as well. I've experienced that with both SLI/CF and single card setups but never 'every twenty minutes'. If I was crashing every twenty minutes I'd go online and find something to fix it. If you can find me an example of a game that currently suffers from the "crashing to desktop every twenty minutes" in SLI/CF bug though I'd love to hear you out.

CF/SLI is not an easy way to go and that's not what I'm trying to say. People on these forums however have a tendency to blow issues wayyy out of proportion. The reality is that the biggest issue you will encounter with either setups is some games simply not supporting them.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bezelbeater*
> 
> 
> Seriously. Leap frogging has been happening for ever, and it's only good for technology and the customer. There is no point taking sides because NV will knock AMD and then AMD will punt NV.
> The fact that you have a flame makes me want somehow create a teleport with which I can beam myself to a different universe.


Intresting! The 7970 @ 1335 mhz is 45% higher clocks, while the gk110 claims to be 50% better than the gtx 680. These still seem very close, and it will ultimatley come down to overcklockability.

Given the GTX 690 is 2 x GK 104 (2 x gtx 680), and the 7990 is 2 x 7970, i bet ASUS will create a dual GK 110 card for their MARS III ROG collection, and will have this exclusivley.


----------



## polyzp

414 replies within 2 days! This seems to be a hot topic


----------



## symmetrical

At this point, I don't know why people are arguing over this. The GTX 680 is 5-15% faster than the 7970, consumes a bit less power, and is $50 cheaper (or more considering the crazy 7970 mark up).

Either way it doesn't matter, AMD NEEDS to drop the price of the 7970 NOW. Make that sucker $449 and it will be priced where it should and people will start thinking twice whether to grab that or the 680.

I actually recently bought two 6950s and ran them in crossfire. Wow I was disappointed and now see for myself the headache that people go through. Driver issues, extra heat, extra noise, micro-stutter. It's an absolute nightmare! I'm already putting them back up for sale and looking to get the 680 when they come in stock. It's going to be single GPU's for me the rest of my life until Nvidia or AMD eliminates it.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> We can sit here and debate forever, this round of cards there is no clear winner like the 580 beating the 6970 easily. Both are great cards at the end of the day. If there is a performance gain whether stock or OC seems to yield little difference to crown either a winner. The 'king' would have to win by a further margin to be a clear winner. Rather than bicker, or put down the other card I think we can come to the conclusion that there is no 'true king'.
> 
> Hoestly I'm surprised this debate went this far because the bias around here wreaks. It always turns into a pissing contest.
> 
> As for popularity contest it's safe to say OCN has crowned a winner based on the numbers.
> 
> Oh well I've got my card coming Monday and going to familiarize myself. I'm building a second rig this week that will compliment PCIe 3.0 and Z68 mobo. Either SB or IVY. Going to focus on more important things. I'm more than happy with Nvidia in the 3DVision which in that area is the best hands down.
> 
> Even if 7970 is faster in OC, they've lost thier only niche this year which was multiple monitors. That alone took the biggest reason to choose AMD IMO.
> 
> Happy gaming to all the new owners of both. It's a good time for both camps to play maxed settings.


I would rather have nVidia's drivers:







well the extra 50$ for beer too!

I will probably get my OC beat by a pair of 680s with a mediocore overclock and some mature drivers. Then I will have to get into the 7970 bios flashing business. See if I can unlock a second GPU or something...

Any of you future 680 owners that can easily spank all the 7970s are more than welcome to take me on


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *symmetrical*
> 
> At this point, I don't know why people are arguing over this. The GTX 680 is 5-15% faster than the 7970, consumes a bit less power, and is $50 cheaper (or more considering the crazy 7970 mark up).
> Either way it doesn't matter, AMD NEEDS to drop the price of the 7970 NOW. Make that sucker $449 and it will be priced where it should and people will start thinking twice whether to grab that or the 680.
> I actually recently bought two 6950s and ran them in crossfire. Wow I was disappointed and now see for myself the headache that people go through. Driver issues, extra heat, extra noise, micro-stutter. It's an absolute nightmare! I'm already putting them back up for sale and looking to get the 680 when they come in stock. It's going to be single GPU's for me the rest of my life until Nvidia or AMD eliminates it.


The whole point in this thread is to emphasize that 5-15% isnt actually 5-15%, given that the clock on the GTX 680 is 20% higher than the 7970, but their OC limit on a decent air or liquid cooler is within error of eachother.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *symmetrical*
> 
> At this point, I don't know why people are arguing over this. The GTX 680 is 5-15% faster than the 7970, consumes a bit less power, and is $50 cheaper (or more considering the crazy 7970 mark up).
> Either way it doesn't matter, AMD NEEDS to drop the price of the 7970 NOW. Make that sucker $449 and it will be priced where it should and people will start thinking twice whether to grab that or the 680.
> I actually recently bought two 6950s and ran them in crossfire. Wow I was disappointed and now see for myself the headache that people go through. Driver issues, extra heat, extra noise, micro-stutter. It's an absolute nightmare! I'm already putting them back up for sale and looking to get the 680 when they come in stock. It's going to be single GPU's for me the rest of my life until Nvidia or AMD eliminates it.


I don't know how many times it needs to be brought up that once overclocked the cards are basically the exact same performance wise but apparently it is a lot. Any of you guys that think I'm a fanboy or completely wrong are welcome to visit the bench off thread Ragin has made though and shut me up for good with your own results. So far in that thread though it doesn't look to good especially for those of you claiming 15%.


----------



## dklimitless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> Here is an AMD sponsered game even. This I couldn't believe because it wasn't as comparable like the other two.


I wasn't going to comment in this thread. but I'd like to point out that you should observe the settings at which both benches you posted here were run







. "Highest Playable settings" is kinda significant here haha.

Anyway, both cards are neck-in-neck for now. The GTX 680 is imho better value for now. If AMD matches the price of the GTX 680, the game will be even hotter given how well both cards OC.

All in all, buy what you want ... lol


----------



## nabokovfan87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *freitz*
> 
> So which runs multiple monitors smoother?


More VRAM = vastly superior especially for MM gaming.

Look at the 1920x1080 vs. the 2560x1600 benchmarks. That is roughly what you are looking at. In most benches, when you go from the 1920x1080 to the others, AMD pulls ahead. For 3 monitors, it will be a stupid decision to go 680.

The 680 only does 4 monitors, mind you, 1 of which isn't allowed to run gaming. AMD has been at the eyefinity game for some time now and in that aspect the drivers are very mature. The issue is and has been for some time now, game support. You can have up to 6 monitors, and you can do it much more easily with the added VRAM. Get the 7970, lightning version if you really want to do 6 monitors some time in the future.


----------



## polyzp

420th post ^^ (and im about to smoke) EDIT: 422th because this thread is so popular before i finished typing i was 422th









haha , good point on the post above. Whats up with comparing between different settings haha, no point!


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I know your a mod and all but I don't buy that you were having multiple BSODs with your CF setups. Having owned both a CF and SLI setup and never ever experiencing a BSOD with either my thinking is that user error was involved somewhere along the line.
> Flickering textures happen in some games but generally that is fixed with CAP updates and is an issue reserved for new releases. Crash to desktops every 20 minutes sounds like a huge stretch as well. I've experienced that with both SLI/CF and single card setups but never 'every twenty minutes'. If I was crashing every twenty minutes I'd go online and find something to fix it. If you can find me an example of a game that currently suffers from the "crashing to desktop every twenty minutes" in SLI/CF bug though I'd love to hear you out.
> CF/SLI is not an easy way to go and that's not what I'm trying to say. People on these forums however have a tendency to blow issues wayyy out of proportion. The reality is that the biggest issue you will encounter with either setups is some games simply not supporting them.


Perhaps you should factor my 15,000 plus posts and years of membership here instead.

I have a 7970 on hand and another on the way for testing purposes. Would you like me to post pictures of the 30 or so crossfire test rigs I've built and demo'd here over the years?

Grow up and show some respect.

I do not bash products lightly. I've had many AMD products and will continue to do so. Crossfire has been a thorn in my side for years. Great performance, increasingly impressive scaling, and inconsistent as heck.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nabokovfan87*
> 
> More VRAM = vastly superior especially for MM gaming.
> Look at the 1920x1080 vs. the 2560x1600 benchmarks. That is roughly what you are looking at. In most benches, when you go from the 1920x1080 to the others, AMD pulls ahead. For 3 monitors, it will be a stupid decision to go 680.
> The 680 only does 4 monitors, mind you, 1 of which isn't allowed to run gaming. AMD has been at the eyefinity game for some time now and in that aspect the drivers are very mature. The issue is and has been for some time now, game support. You can have up to 6 monitors, and you can do it much more easily with the added VRAM. Get the 7970, lightning version if you really want to do 6 monitors some time in the future.


Then why does AMD fall behind in every single comparison for MM gaming? Edit: okay, not every instance. I misread a few.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1232948/7970-vs-gtx-680-who-is-the-real-king/400#post_16808692

Apparently they couldn't even get The Witcher 2 to run for the testing on the 7970...


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dklimitless*
> 
> I wasn't going to comment in this thread. but I'd like to point out that you should observe the settings at which both benches you posted here were run
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . "Highest Playable settings" is kinda significant here haha.
> Anyway, both cards are neck-in-neck for now. The GTX 680 is imho better value for now. If AMD matches the price of the GTX 680, the game will be even hotter given how well both cards OC.
> All in all, buy what you want ... lol


If you look around (especially at [H] article on Deus Ex), SSAO Normal and High have a huge performance impact. The above compare isn't right. Show the apples to apples score. Normal vs Normal, or High vs High. See this:


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> If you look around (especially at [H] article on Deus Ex), SSAO Normal and High have a huge performance impact. The above compare isn't right. Show the apples to apples score. Normal vs Normal, or High vs High. See this:


If you look at the one's I linked to that same game comes out on top for the 7970 there too...

Edit: Even though the reviews show otherwise I do think that 2GB of vram is low for MM gaming. Once enough cards are added or they are OC enough to run at high framerates I think the vram will play a bigger part. I'm still anti-AMD for my own reasons but I can't believe they only installed 2 gigs of vram on the 680. 2 gigs is barely enough for a single monitor in my experience. I've been over 1.5 gigs many times already on a single monitor.


----------



## sccr64472

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *symmetrical*
> 
> Either way it doesn't matter, AMD NEEDS to drop the price of the 7970 NOW.


No, you only drop pricing when your product isn't selling well. If retailers are still moving the 7970 at its current pricing, then it would be idiotic to lower it. Remember, the average person isn't scouring the internet looking at reviews and comparisons of various cards. They pick up a shiny box and make a decision based on that and you can even toss in a little bit of salesperson's input to the mix.


----------



## symmetrical

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sccr64472*
> 
> No, you only drop pricing when your product isn't selling well. If retailers are still moving the 7970 at its current pricing, then it would be idiotic to lower it. Remember, the average person isn't scouring the internet looking at reviews and comparisons of various cards. They pick up a shiny box and make a decision based on that and you can even toss in a little bit of salesperson's input to the mix.


The "average person" isn't buying $500+ GPUs either my friend.

$50 may not be a big difference, but when you pay "More" for "less" is when its bass ackwards to me.

And nobody should pin me as an Nvidia fanboy, I own both and buy based off of price/performance/features not brand.

At the moment, from what I've seen on a stock 680 vs a stock 7970 is that the 680 pulls ahead and consumes less power for $50 less.

And what's this mumbo jumbo about the 680 being clocked higher than a 7970? Last I checked you cant compare "clock for clock" on AMD vs Nvidia cards. That's like comparing clock for clock on an Intel CPU and AMD cpu. (not towards you sccr64472)


----------



## polyzp

Clock per clock comparisons between AMD and intel CPUs is a very viable comparison in my opinion.

Also, with max OCs in the same range, the clock of the gtx 680 can very well be compared with the clock of the 7970. Nvidia is simply releasing a higher stock clocked gpu with a clock ceiling within error of the 7970.


----------



## Sapientia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chefman21*
> 
> Thank god! Hope Team Green follows up within the next 48 hours.


That's not how it works. lol
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Then again, another way of looking at it is to say that the 680 renders water cooling an expensive and unnecessary addition.


That's not a good way of looking at it. If you water cool it, then the 680 becomes *even* faster.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Saizer*
> 
> And when the 690 comes out, it will be 100% better than the 7990
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . *Just like the 590 with the 6990*


----------



## symmetrical

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Clock per clock comparisons between AMD and intel CPUs is a very viable comparison in my opinion.
> Also, with max OCs in the same range, the clock of the gtx 680 can very well be compared with the clock of the 7970. Nvidia is simply releasing a higher stock clocked gpu with a clock ceiling within error of the 7970.


It's not a viable comparison. Heck, you cant even compare an Intel cpu to another Intel cpu unless its from the same series. I'd rather have a 3.4ghz i7 2600k over a 5ghz Pentium.









And I'm sure its the same with GPUs. 1ghz 7970 =/= 1ghz 680.

But back on topic, the biggest benefit I think the 7970 still has over the 680 is the 3GB VRAM in which will definitely make a difference on 3 monitor set ups. Now that I think about it, I'm just going to wait for the non-reference versions of the 680 and not be impatient like when I bought my 580 lol.

Exciting times though in the GPU world!


----------



## chefman21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Clock per clock comparisons between AMD and intel CPUs is a very viable comparison in my opinion.
> Also, with max OCs in the same range, the clock of the gtx 680 can very well be compared with the clock of the 7970. Nvidia is simply releasing a higher stock clocked gpu with a clock ceiling within error of the 7970.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sapientia*
> 
> *That's not how it works. lol*
> That's not a good way of looking at it. If you water cool it, then the 680 becomes *even* faster.


One can only hope.


----------



## polyzp

Yes but comparing a 1 ghz 2600k to a 1 ghz pentium 4 will still give you a good comparison for IPC. Whats the harm in this? But in this case, we arent comparing 15 year old tech to brand new tech. Frankly, i am comparing the 7970 with the gtx 680 clock per clock because performance per ghz is close to identical, and so is the overclock ceiling. So if naturally one is 20% higher stock clock (1110 mhz vs 925 mhz), this is what gives the gtx 680 the first apparent , yet illusionary edge in benchmarks. (~6% avg performance benefit over 7970 at stock)


----------



## Levesque

All this is very funny.

AMD is king, since Nvidia are totally copy and pasting them. The 680 is Nvidia admitting AMD were right all along.










-AMD were always doing small and efficient chips. Now Nvidia are doing the same thing. Before, they were doing big, hot power hungry inefficient chips. 680 = copy and pasting AMD.

-AMD were doing 3 displays on a single cards. Nvida were doing it on 2 cards. Now they are doing it AMD's way on a sinlge card. So they knew all along AMD was doing it right.

Funny. It's like Nvidia said ''let's copy and paste'' what the competiton (AMD) is doing exactly. And they have done a 680.

So Nvidia are simply doing now what AMD were doing all along.

So all the Nvidia fanactics should think about that. Nvidia just told us with the 680 that AMD were doing the right thing, not them. Copy and pasting the competition = admitting the designs of the competition were better, and hurting our sales.


----------



## nabokovfan87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> Then why does AMD fall behind in every single comparison for MM gaming? Edit: okay, not every instance. I misread a few.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1232948/7970-vs-gtx-680-who-is-the-real-king/400#post_16808692
> Apparently they couldn't even get The Witcher 2 to run for the testing on the 7970...


That's cute, a benchmark to prove your point. I guess you misread the thread where this is all about OC vs. OC right?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/graphics/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680/22_oc2560_big.png







OC THAT stock card, then come talk to me.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nabokovfan87*
> 
> That's cute, a benchmark to prove your point. I guess you misread the thread where this is all about OC vs. OC right?
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/graphics/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680/22_oc2560_big.png
> 
> 
> 
> OC THAT stock card, then come talk to me.


Why is 7950 faster then HD 7970?


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque*
> 
> All this is very funny.
> AMD is king, since Nvidia are totally copy and pasting them. The 680 is Nvidia admitting AMD were right all along.


And yet Nivida manage to make a card that uses less power, that is cheaper and is faster in most games. Maybe AMD should copy Nvidia's theory of price to performance ratio. LOL


----------



## CaPoX

The 7970 is a nice card and so is the 680. They are so close in performance.......... it's unreal compared to previous gen! We need to be happy about this fact. It could affect prices and the development of the next gen cards, right?

We need to stop wining about small percentages in difference? It really comes down which one you prefer and it is a fact that the 7970 and the 680 are two monster cards.
In my country the price difference between the two is zero so that isn't the issue (the Netherlands). You like green go green, you like red go red. My 2 cents. Peace.


----------



## wireeater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> And yet Nivida manage to make a card that uses less power, that is cheaper and is faster in most games. Maybe AMD should copy Nvidia's theory of price to performance ratio. LOL


The AMD 79xx series was only priced the way it was due to it's competition at the time which was nothing really. They got the jump on NVIDIA by a couple months. Now that the 680 is out, I'm almost sure the price is going to come down to compete. That's a pretty dumb argument. It's easy to undercut your competition when you already have a price point to aim towards.









The fact is, these cards only over perform/under perform each other by a very small margin, small enough that it isn't really easy to call an EASY winner. They both have their pros and cons and at the end of the day, they both will play every game with pleasurable results.


----------



## snipekill2445

Yes, but the 680 is still faster, like in Battlefield 3 which is super popular atm. But your right, they are both great card. I wish I had a 7970, but I'm too poor


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Both crossfire and SLI have microstuttering issues.


Actually, SLI has a very very slight built in variable latency (depending on GPU loads/frametimes) that smooths the jittering much better overall than crossfire does. This is acknowledged and discussed by the companies here in an in-depth article regarding it: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21516/11 . It is referred to as "frame metering" by nVidia.


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> My friend must be an idiot, because he paid over 1000 dollars for a waterloop system, to find his 2600k not overclocking any higher than it did with a 39 dollar air cooler. Hes basically facing the fact that sandy bridge has a cold bug, and now just runs everything at stock. ^^


Do you even know what a cold bug is? I mean straight watercooling has absolutely *nothing* to do with SB's cold bug...


----------



## dklimitless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> If you look around (especially at [H] article on Deus Ex), SSAO Normal and High have a huge performance impact. The above compare isn't right. Show the apples to apples score. Normal vs Normal, or High vs High. See this:


... that was my point ... i just wanted him to realize it himself


----------



## snipekill2445

Dues Ex is a AMD game isn't it? Like Metro 2033 is a Nvidia game?


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> Dues Ex is a AMD game isn't it? Like Metro 2033 is a Nvidia game?


That doesn't mattter so much. Deus Ex and Metro both perform better on AMD. Dirt 3 is an AMD game to though and it performs better on Nvidia.
Quote:


> Perhaps you should factor my 15,000 plus posts and years of membership here instead.
> 
> I have a 7970 on hand and another on the way for testing purposes. Would you like me to post pictures of the 30 or so crossfire test rigs I've built and demo'd here over the years?
> 
> Grow up and show some respect.
> 
> I do not bash products lightly. I've had many AMD products and will continue to do so. Crossfire has been a thorn in my side for years. Great performance, increasingly impressive scaling, and inconsistent as heck.


Uh yeah I'm not sure where I wasn't showing you respect. All I said was that I've owned SLI/CF setups as well and never had any of the issues you seemed to have so badly. Sorry for disagreeing with you bro but I simply don't believe that you were having BSODs and crashes *every twenty minutes* without some sort of user error. I believe you had the rigs to so you don't even have to get into that. My experience was simply radically different then yours obviously.


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> If you look at the one's I linked to that same game comes out on top for the 7970 there too...
> Edit: Even though the reviews show otherwise I do think that 2GB of vram is low for MM gaming. Once enough cards are added or they are OC enough to run at high framerates I think the vram will play a bigger part. I'm still anti-AMD for my own reasons but I can't believe they only installed 2 gigs of vram on the 680. 2 gigs is barely enough for a single monitor in my experience. I've been over 1.5 gigs many times already on a single monitor.


I'd be about 99% certain that Surround/Eyefinity resolution Deus Ex comparison actually shows no difference in terms of the impact of vram _quantity_. I don't think that the card running out of vram would have nearly that subtle of an effect on the benchmark graph, nor on the fps.

IMHO, the 7970 (like the past few gens of AMD cards) probably simply works better as resolution goes up vs. comparable nV cards. It's been like that ever since at least the 5000-series vs the 2xx series (like say the 5850 vs 285), and it's held true all through the Fermi-era, even when AMD cards had LESS vram than their competitor, they generally performed (relatively) better as resolution went up (until they hit the vram wall).

There's probably a few reasons for that (the way the driver's tuned being a big part I'd guess), but In this particular case, I'd guess that AMD's SSAO algorithm is slightly more efficient than nV's in this particular game.

Also, OC'ing does not increase the 'need' for vram, at all.

Lastly, the amount of vram 'usage' in Afterburner is not true 'bare-metal usage' measurement. It is actually a measurement of the amount of vram being 'reserved' by the application. I've played a few games that have tapped out my vram 'usage' in Afterburner at single monitor resolution (I have 1.28GB), but never actually seen it impact my fps or the way the game plays.

IMHO, people put WAAAAAY too much stock in the vram usage measurements they see from AB. I'd be virtually positive my cards could run your '1.5GB usage' scenario just fine, even though they only have 1.28GB of vram.

If you go back and look at reviews of the 768MB 460 vs. the 1GB 460, there was only one game where there was an actual, obvious performance hit caused by the lack of vram in the 768MB model at 1080p resolution, and that was in Metro 2033. To suggest that 2gb of vram is 'barely enough' for 1080p ... is crazy-talk, IMO


----------



## Awaz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Perhaps you should factor my 15,000 plus posts and years of membership here instead.
> I have a 7970 on hand and another on the way for testing purposes. Would you like me to post pictures of the 30 or so crossfire test rigs I've built and demo'd here over the years?
> Grow up and show some respect.
> I do not bash products lightly. I've had many AMD products and will continue to do so. Crossfire has been a thorn in my side for years. Great performance, increasingly impressive scaling, and inconsistent as heck.


I do not buy either that you are having that much problem. Perhaps you can start by showing some respect to jtom320's view?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> I'd be about 99% certain that Surround/Eyefinity resolution Deus Ex comparison actually shows no difference in terms of the impact of vram _quantity_. I don't think that the card running out of vram would have nearly that subtle of an effect on the benchmark graph, nor on the fps.
> IMHO, the 7970 (like the past few gens of AMD cards) probably simply works better as resolution goes up vs. comparable nV cards. It's been like that ever since at least the 5000-series vs the 2xx series (like say the 5850 vs 285), and it's held true all through the Fermi-era, even when AMD cards had LESS vram than their competitor, they generally performed (relatively) better as resolution went up (until they hit the vram wall).
> There's probably a few reasons for that (the way the driver's tuned being a big part I'd guess), but In this particular case, I'd guess that AMD's SSAO algorithm is slightly more efficient than nV's in this particular game.
> Also, OC'ing does not increase the 'need' for vram, at all.
> Lastly, the amount of vram 'usage' in Afterburner is not true 'bare-metal usage' measurement. It is actually a measurement of the amount of vram being 'reserved' by the application. I've played a few games that have tapped out my vram 'usage' in Afterburner at single monitor resolution (I have 1.28GB), but never actually seen it impact my fps or the way the game plays.
> IMHO, people put WAAAAAY too much stock in the vram usage measurements they see from AB. I'd be virtually positive my cards could run your '1.5GB usage' scenario just fine, even though they only have 1.28GB of vram.
> If you go back and look at reviews of the 768MB 460 vs. the 1GB 460, there was only one game where there was an actual, obvious performance hit caused by the lack of vram in the 768MB model at 1080p resolution, and that was in Metro 2033. *To suggest that 2gb of vram is 'barely enough' for 1080p ... is crazy-talk, IMO*


Absolute rubbish! My 1.5GB 580's can max any game there is on the planet at 1080p and never run into any VRAM limitations. 2GB is waaaaaaaaaaaaay overkill for 1080p (and probably any single-monitor resolution)....

*EDIT - Just reread my post and it makes it seem like I'm disagreeing with Brett but I am actually wholeheartedly agreeing!


----------



## OwnedINC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Absolute rubbish! My 1.5GB 580's can max any game there is on the planet at 1080p and never run into any VRAM limitations. 2GB is waaaaaaaaaaaaay overkill for 1080p (and probably any single-monitor resolution)....


Well you're in luck, I just happen to have this program from Kepler-22b. I've been assured that no machine on earth can max it.
TEST YOUR MIGHT!


----------



## jtom320

On my 480s I never ran into a game that out-VRAMed them at 1080p. Being on a 1600p moniter though I'm pretty sure a few games would use slightly more then 1.5 but not over 2.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awaz*
> 
> I do not buy either that you are having that much problem. Perhaps you can start by showing some respect to jtom320's view?


? What would you like to see? Screen shots of corrupted terrain? bsod screenshots? crash to desktop is a bit of a challenge to capture. Perhaps captured video of stutter?

When someone pretty much calls me a liar, sorry but I reply in kind. Why would I respect someone insulting a statement that I can back up easiy?

Insulting another member whether or not they are a moderator is simply childish and pointless.

I currently have 9 AMD cards spread around here and 3 nvidia cards. The point is that I have no issue with the hardware on it's own. For the most part single AMD cards work fine (although my Asus 7970 is doing some wierd stuff in BF3 that I am having trouble replicating). The Crossfire issues are inconsistent. Sometimes the cards work just fine and then an issue will occur. I've tried to replicate graphic anomalies with limited success. Other issues are hit or miss. I have two 6870's in my kid's rig that run fine for a couple of weeks and then crash to desktop in a random game she is playing. Disable crossfire and the issues go away. It's frustrating more than anything else.

My current cards. I have to take a couple of shots of my 7970 as well.


----------



## jtom320

Dude I never even hinted that you were lying about anything especially not whether you owned the cards or not. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill please and try to twist what I said. What I said was that if you were having all those awful issues across so many different cards and as often as you claimed (every twenty minutes) user error was involved somewhere. BSODs should not be happening with CF or SLI setups with any kind of regularity. This would generally indicate a bigger problem. Both 5850CF and 480SLI worked pretty much error free for me. As I said in my first post every now and then you'd get flickering but 95% of the time that was cleared up with CAP updates and was generally only a problem in new releases. The reason I am with a single card now and will likely only use single or triple card setups in the future is I am extremely sensitive to Microstutter something you didn't even mention in your post. Temperature and noise to me are something you expect when you put two 250 watt cards right next to each other. People that buy these setups not expecting to deal with this were simply not prepared for what they were getting themselves into.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Dude I never even hinted that you were lying about anything especially not whether you owned the cards or not. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill please and try to twist what I said. What I said was that if you were having all those awful issues across so many different cards and as often as you claimed (every twenty minutes) user error was involved somewhere. BSODs should not be happening with CF or SLI setups with any kind of regularity. This would generally indicate a bigger problem. Both 5850CF and 480SLI worked pretty much error free for me. As I said in my first post every now and then you'd get flickering but 95% of the time that was cleared up with CAP updates and was generally only a problem in new releases. The reason I am with a single card now and will likely only use single or triple card setups in the future is I am extremely sensitive to Microstutter something you didn't even mention in your post. Temperature and noise to me are something you expect when you put two 250 watt cards right next to each other. People that buy these setups not expecting to deal with this were simply not prepared for what they were getting themselves into.


Fair enough. I don't recall indicating that the issues had that frequency. Terrain corruption is pretty much ongoing in my 6 series cards in several games under crossfire. The other, more serious issues don't happen with any frequency (as I mentioned it could be a week before something goes awry). To be fair to AMD, the issues have gotten less prevalent with newer driver releases.

Heck my GTX470's in SLI had horrible issues with Bad Company 2 for almost a year before Nvidia resolved it (low gpu usage for example).

Multi cards seem to bring a host of issues with them. Personally even the smallest issues bother me. I have a friend that runs 6850's in crossfire and has flickering terrain and he doesn't seem to even notice it. I, on the other hand find it very annoying.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Fair enough. I don't recall indicating that the issues had that frequency. Terrain corruption is pretty much ongoing in my 6 series cards in several games under crossfire. The other, more serious issues don't happen with any frequency (as I mentioned it could be a week before something goes awry). To be fair to AMD, the issues have gotten less prevalent with newer driver releases.
> Heck my GTX470's in SLI had horrible issues with Bad Company 2 for almost a year before Nvidia resolved it (low gpu usage for example).
> Multi cards seem to bring a host of issues with them. Personally even the smallest issues bother me. I have a friend that runs 6850's in crossfire and has flickering terrain and he doesn't seem to even notice it. I, on the other hand find it very annoying.


To be honest with you I have no idea how people don't notice Microstutter. I love the performance CF/SLI give me but I just can't stand it. I have read however that Tri-Fire/SLI all but eliminates it so I think that will be my next big setup.

My biggest gripe to be truthful with you was games releasing and having absolutely zero support for it. Skyrim was the last big one I can think of. I read though in the last Cap they finally put it in so I guess that's good but my machine running 5850s has been replaced for a long time now.


----------



## Arizonian

Robilar I fully understand what you're saying. I mentioned once I had BSOD's and game lock ups when I went from single 6870 to crossfire and was told it was user error. I also had a lot of micro stutter which was very annoying. I moved to a single 580 and have had no driver issues, no micro stutter and free of problems for the last 13 months. Yet if you tell any AMD user that this was happening to you, they say it was an error in between the keyboard and the monitor.

Then to suggest you somehow didn't know how to correct the problem is taking your own actual knowledge in computing into question. I guess he doesn't really know who's talking to suggesting it and then trying to justify it.

I'm sure there are set ups where there are no issues unfortunately for a lot of us there are and yet the others are in disbelief because they have no problems. Denial of crossfire issues that are clearly happening to more than just a few of us.

*sarcasim* AMD is perfect, flawless, didn't you know that?


----------



## rcfc89

For me it really comes down to the biggest and most gpu demanding game out right now. As well as my personal favorite BF3. A stock reference 680 beats out a 7970 Lightning at 1260mhz. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg6/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-battlefield-3.html What is even more appealing is that a very small percentage of 7970's can actually even break 1200mhz let alone 1260. Then out of those who do break the 1200mhz very few are 24/7 stable. Add in a 100 dollar cheaper price tag. Its a no brainer the 680 has taken the crown. A stable cool running card for 500 dollars that is as fast as a 7970 at 1260mhz. Kudos to Nvidia.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> For me it really comes down to the biggest and most gpu demanding game out right now. As well as my personal favorite BF3. A stock reference 680 beats out a 7970 Lightning at 1260mhz. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg6/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-battlefield-3.html What is even more appealing is that a very small percentage of 7970's can actually even break 1200mhz let alone 1260. Then out of those who do break the 1200mhz very few are 24/7 stable. Add in a 100 dollar cheaper price tag. Its a no brainer the 680 has taken the crown. A stable cool running card for 500 dollars that is as fast as a 7970 at 1260mhz. Kudos to Nvidia.


This is a bit better for real world scenario without the use of the horrible 4x MSAA reviews tend to use for BF3.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> This is a bit better for real world scenario without the use of the horrible 4x MSAA reviews tend to use for BF3.


Yeah OK, now show me MIN FPS...









Hint: nVidia BF3 min FPS is higher by 10+ %...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sheyster*
> 
> Yeah OK, now show me MIN FPS...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hint: nVidia BF3 min FPS is higher by 10+ %...


? Looking at all reviews they have very similar min fps.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> ? Looking at all reviews they have very similar min fps.


Sigh... let me find that pic from the OTHER thread... Just a minute!


----------



## Sheyster

OK, here it is. MIN FPS is higher on a *stock* 680 in BF3 than an *OC'd* 7970.


----------



## killerhz

Quote:


> 7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING?










my GTX 680 is king...


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killerhz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my GTX 680 is king...
Click to expand...

Lets see your benches.


----------



## Faded

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sheyster*
> 
> 
> OK, here it is. MIN FPS is higher on a *stock* 680 in BF3 than an *OC'd* 7970.


i'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion, with the chart you listed?

maybe i'm reading it wrong but it looks to me like the OC'd 7970 beat out the stock 680, in min fps *shrug*

Herp Derp EDIT - I see's it now... maybe if i had learn to read, in school....


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> This is a bit better for real world scenario without the use of the horrible 4x MSAA reviews tend to use for BF3.


Real world scenario my arse. (2560x1600) Maybe 5% of gamers are running 30" monitors. 1920x1080 120hz is where its at man. I'll pass on laggy 60hz 2560 resolutions and "fish bowl" eyefinity crap.


----------



## Ironman517

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faded*
> 
> i'm trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion, with the chart you listed?
> maybe i'm reading it wrong but it looks to me like the OC'd 7970 beat out the stock 680, in min fps *shrug*
> Herp Derp EDIT - I see's it now... maybe if i had learn to read, in school....


84 vs 79?


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> 84 vs 79?


lollerskates.


----------



## Faded

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> 84 vs 79?


yup, i found it... thus the edit...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Real world scenario my arse. (2560x1600) Maybe 5% of gamers are running 30" monitors. 1920x1080 120hz is where its at man. I'll pass on laggy 60hz 2560 resolutions and "fish bowl" eyefinity crap.


Most people that thrive for performance and need to get over 60fps are those with high res screens. 1080p @ 120fps is a Want because it will not make a difference.
Also min fps means nothing without a graph. I can hit then min 1 time and thats not very accurate.


----------



## Evildemon

What we all want to see is real world gtx680 benches (games for example)
I think that the benchmark section should be used


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> Robilar I fully understand what you're saying. I mentioned once I had BSOD's and game lock ups when I went from single 6870 to crossfire and was told it was user error. I also had a lot of micro stutter which was very annoying. I moved to a single 580 and have had no driver issues, no micro stutter and free of problems for the last 13 months. Yet if you tell any AMD user that this was happening to you, they say it was an error in between the keyboard and the monitor.
> Then to suggest you somehow didn't know how to correct the problem is taking your own actual knowledge in computing into question. I guess he doesn't really know who's talking to suggesting it and then trying to justify it.
> I'm sure there are set ups where there are no issues unfortunately for a lot of us there are and yet the others are in disbelief because they have no problems. Denial of crossfire issues that are clearly happening to more than just a few of us.
> *sarcasim* AMD is perfect, flawless, didn't you know that?


If you think AMD drivers are so bad that the average CF user is having a BSOD every twenty minutes I don't even know what to say to you. Maximum Hyperbole I guess. Going from any dual GPU to any single GPU is going to get rid of Microstutter on any setup so not really sure how that is relevant. Fact of the matter is that you will notice Microstutter when you are running under 60FPS but if the framerate is steady it's pretty hard to see for most people. Personally I do see Microstutter but again it's card agnostic and really only happens when it dips below 60.

And I don't really care who I'm talking to to be honest with you. Post count doesn't impress me, knowledge does and someone having crashes/bsods that often obviously has something to fix end of story. I also am not implying he doesn't know what he's doing or that he's not telling the truth about anything (3rd time I've said this now).

This applies to both SLI/CF as well so please don't try to make it as if I'm fanboying around in your next post that's really not what this is about.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nabokovfan87*
> 
> OC THAT stock card, then come talk to me.


Sure thing, in 3 months when more polished drivers are out.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Most people that thrive for performance and need to get over 60fps are those with high res screens. 1080p @ 120fps is a Want because it will not make a difference.
> Also min fps means nothing without a graph. I can hit then min 1 time and thats not very accurate.


Huh? You can't view anything over 60fps on 2560 resolutions because they are only 60hz. There is a huge advantage to running over 120fps on a 120hz monitor. Thus is why all gaming tournaments use them. You have it all backwards bro. 2560 resolutions are for photo editing not fps gaming.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> If you think AMD drivers are so bad that the average CF user is having a BSOD every twenty minutes I don't even know what to say to you. Maximum Hyperbole I guess. Going from any dual GPU to any single GPU is going to get rid of Microstutter on any setup so not really sure how that is relevant. Fact of the matter is that you will notice Microstutter when you are running under 60FPS but if the framerate is steady it's pretty hard to see for most people. Personally I do see Microstutter but again it's card agnostic and really only happens when it dips below 60.
> And I don't really care who I'm talking to to be honest with you. Post count doesn't impress me, knowledge does and someone having crashes/bsods that often obviously has something to fix end of story. I also am not implying he doesn't know what he's doing or that he's not telling the truth about anything (3rd time I've said this now).
> This applies to both SLI/CF as well so please don't try to make it as if I'm fanboying around in your next post that's really not what this is about.


A. Now your putting words into my post. Never said 'I thought the average user is having BSOD's every 20 min'. I said I believed Robilar was and do believe it's possible.

B. I was unclear on my BSOD'S I had was on single GPU with 10.2 drivers. Sorry for that confusion.

C. I was dealing with micro stutter in crosstie and that happens to both AMD and Nvidia. Naturally going to single card I eliminated that actually. I didn't even leave AMD for those specific reasons, I moved onto 3D Vision.

D. I'm saying that when I had the BSOD's it was implied I was at error rather than something that could be fixed.

E. When someone 'suggests' they find it 'hard to believe' that implies they think the other person is lying. I don't know any other interpretations of that?

F. I realize regardless about how many posts or reps any members have dosent mean they know what they are saying but had you been on OCN long enough you'd know Robilar is quite knowledgeable. I believe him having those issues regardless his impossible you think it might be. I also understand you weren't saying he was making it up but you have to admit it if you don't buy it, what else could it mean? Hyperbole means you don't. Guess your entitled to your opinion regardless it happened.


----------



## MoBeeJ

Grats guys...Real happy for us. We keep arguing over those cards and both manufacturers will get greedy = no price cuts.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Most people that thrive for performance and need to get over 60fps are those with high res screens. 1080p @ 120fps is a Want because it will not make a difference.
> Also min fps means nothing without a graph. I can hit then min 1 time and thats not very accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? You can't view anything over 60fps on 2560 resolutions because they are only 60hz. There is a huge advantage to running over 120fps on a 120hz monitor. Thus is why all gaming tournaments use them. You have it all backwards bro. 2560 resolutions are for photo editing not fps gaming.
Click to expand...

You've clearly never gamed at 2560x1600 then.


----------



## Ha-Nocri

well well, who would have thought AMD and nVidia top of the line preforming the same. Way to go AMD...


----------



## Awaz

I did switch to the red team when the 6900s were released. But I have to say thaf factoring in the cost for the performance, GTX 680 is the winner here. Can't beat equal or slightly better performance for $50 less. I am still not able to gauge the overclocking ability of the GTX 680. I am hoping it will not pop/sizle/create a firework when pushed harder (just going by the GTX 590 fiasco - nothing else).
I will wait this round out though and continue on with my 6950s.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You've clearly never gamed at 2560x1600 then.


2560 x 1600 and quality of IPS.

2560 + IPS > 120Hz


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 2560 x 1600 and quality of IPS.
> 2560 + IPS > 120Hz


Can you please translate this?

You are saying that IPS is better for gaming than a 120hz monitor? What kind of gaming exactly? FPS? World of Warcraft?


----------



## Awaz

Cannot edit my post for some reason. Gets stuck on 'please wait' bar. Anyway, just want to mention thanks to Robilar to clear up the multi-gpu issue. jtom32 and I just need to give it a rest now


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> A. Now your putting words into my post. Never said 'I thought the average user is having BSOD's every 20 min'. I said I believed Robilar was and do believe it's possible.
> B. I was unclear on my BSOD'S I had was on single GPU with 10.2 drivers. Sorry for that confusion.
> C. I was dealing with micro stutter in crosstie and that happens to both AMD and Nvidia. Naturally going to single card I eliminated that actually. I didn't even leave AMD for those specific reasons, I moved onto 3D Vision.
> D. I'm saying that when I had the BSOD's it was implied I was at error rather than something that could be fixed.
> E. When someone 'suggests' they find it 'hard to believe' that implies they think the other person is lying. I don't know any other interpretations of that?
> F. I realize regardless about how many posts or reps any members have dosent mean they know what they are saying but had you been on OCN long enough you'd know Robilar is quite knowledgeable. I believe him having those issues regardless his impossible you think it might be. I also understand you weren't saying he was making it up but you have to admit it if you don't buy it, what else could it mean? Hyperbole means you don't. Guess your entitled to your opinion regardless it happened.


Ah it's whatever regardless I'm dropping it. We've always get along and it really doesn't matter.









As an aside I definitely prefer IPS for gaming even though 120hz is technically better. I'm not much for competitive play I'd rather have the better looking / higher resolution screen.


----------



## qwwwizx

Does it really matter?

As far as I see it, they both perform really well, and both will be even better when improved drivers are released. When games start suffering again, and I reach the limits of overclocking it matters what will be the fastest option for the given game I will play, but right now with the two mentioned choices it just doesn't make sense.

I pray that AMD will provide a good set of drivers soon. I really find CCC crappy, and drivers always sucks for something. This driver for this game, another driver for another game, and suttenly when you get a brand new driver that works in this game, the other game won't run properly anymore. If drivers from AMD was working as on NVIDIA, I would love my 7970, they just aren't and thats what make the ATI card the cheap, low quality option to NVIDIA, it has nothing to do with the hardware. AMD should help them self and invest some money in a new software team and start to take software testing more serious.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Ah it's whatever regardless I'm dropping it. We've always get along and it really doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside I definitely prefer IPS for gaming even though 120hz is technically better. I'm not much for competitive play I'd rather have the better looking / higher resolution screen.


I have an IPS monitor which I use for work (and love). I tried it for FPS games and found the input lag drove me nuts... Did you find the same sense of it?


----------



## dklimitless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 2560 x 1600 and quality of IPS.
> 2560 + IPS > 120Hz


that's subjective.
Some people prefer 2560+IPS for their games, while other won't trade their 120Hz monitors for anything ...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> I have an IPS monitor which I use for work (and love). I tried it for FPS games and found the input lag drove me nuts... Did you find the same sense of it?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Can you please translate this?
> You are saying that IPS is better for gaming than a 120hz monitor? What kind of gaming exactly? FPS? World of Warcraft?


Most games. BF3 for once does not need 120Hz. If you believe that 120Hz will make you better in any way or more responsive then you are not playing BF3. Game like COD or CS which are much faster paste could benefit from 120Hz. Also its not just IPS it high resolution too.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dklimitless*
> 
> that's subjective.
> Some people prefer 2560+IPS for their games, while other won't trade their 120Hz monitors for anything ...


Those "gamers" i suppose that have something like 10 K/D to take advantage of 120Hz. Also what did these games do during the time where 120Hz LCDs did not exist? If they were playing with their CRTs i understand but thats not the case for 95% of them.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Most games. BF3 for once does not need 120Hz. If you believe that 120Hz will make you better in any way or more responsive then you are not playing BF3. Game like COD or CS which are much faster paste could benefit from 120Hz. Also its not just IPS it high resolution too.


No game "needs" 120Hz. It's a want.

As for BF3 I can feel a clear difference between 60Hz and 120Hz even when my fps isn't hitting over 100. I have both types of monitors. The game is a lot more responsive at 120Hz.

What does any of this have to do with the OP?


----------



## Rmerwede

Quote:


> You realize kingpin already broke the world record with the 680?


Bulldozer b roke clock records too... And we all saw the sad end to that story...


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You've clearly never gamed at 2560x1600 then.


Actually have and the lag was terrible. Once you go 120hz its difficult to tolerate any 60hz monitor regardless of the resolution.


----------



## Woundingchaney

I will be buying either 2 x 680s or 2 x 7970s come this friday. Im wondering how AMDs drivers are for Xfire and if anyone has heard of the availability of the 680s currently or what they think it will be later on in the week.


----------



## Robilar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> No game "needs" 120Hz. It's a want.
> As for BF3 I can feel a clear difference between 60Hz and 120Hz even when my fps isn't hitting over 100. I have both types of monitors. The game is a lot more responsive at 120Hz.
> What does any of this have to do with the OP?


No just responsiveness but also input lag is eliminated. The reason in part that it feels more responsive is that with a 60hz monitor, any frames above 60 FPS are dropped. Enabling VSYNC can help with this to a degree.

Anyone that criticizes using a 120hz monitor in conjunction with cards capable of generating the necessary frame rates obviously have never tried one for any length of time. There are a number of owner threads here for the 120hz monitors and I don't recall anyone saying they haven't seen a difference. It always seems to be criticized by those that don't have one


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woundingchaney*
> 
> I will be buying either 2 x 680s or 2 x 7970s come this friday. Im wondering how AMDs drivers are for Xfire and if anyone has heard of the availability of the 680s currently or what they think it will be later on in the week.


Out of your questions I can only answer one in regards to the sales of the GTX 680. Right now sales are going fast just like when AMD first released the 7970. Selling out almost as soon as its showing in stock.

Even though Nvidia made sure all thier partners had stock prior to release it was gone within in an hour. I bought less than an hour after launch, had one in cart and at checkout it was no longer avail when I hit purchase. Kept hitting F5 and saw another cone back into inventory and even after cart lost it. Third try after another hour of trying before I lucked out.

I'm going to assume the reason why it came back into inventory was someone else's got rejected or cancelled after they had it in cart.

It still the same. Going like hot cakes as soon as it's available just like the 7970 was at first launch. At $499 it's a tuff deal to pass for equal performance. Good luck. Defintely worth it especially for two and save $100 to boot.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Phantom_Dave*
> 
> No game "needs" 120Hz. It's a want.
> As for BF3 I can feel a clear difference between 60Hz and 120Hz even when my fps isn't hitting over 100. I have both types of monitors. The game is a lot more responsive at 120Hz.
> What does any of this have to do with the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> No just responsiveness but also input lag is eliminated. The reason in part that it feels more responsive is that with a 60hz monitor, any frames above 60 FPS are dropped. Enabling VSYNC can help with this to a degree.
> 
> Anyone that criticizes using a 120hz monitor in conjunction with cards capable of generating the necessary frame rates obviously have never tried one for any length of time. There are a number of owner threads here for the 120hz monitors and I don't recall anyone saying they haven't seen a difference. It always seems to be criticized by those that don't have one
Click to expand...

Nothing is more beautiful than 1600 resolution, but no way in hell would I toss out my [email protected], she sits right next to me as a satellite.

I can't believe more people haven't discovered 120 Hz monitors especially when even moderate GPU hardware can push most titles to at least 120 frames per second.

Anybody who thinks AMD drivers are top notch or stellar, simply aren't pushing their cards hard enough or playing WoW constantly. I believe currently BF3 is geared to blow and GTAIV is un-usable on half the 7970s. Its funny, inside the owner's thread, dozens of post about x y z not working, yet outside everyone jumps to the other side of the fence to defend these drivers.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dklimitless*
> 
> ... that was my point ... i just wanted him to realize it himself


Sorry, guess I misunderstood your post. But all in all. I have to admit, the 680 does pretty well outperform the 7970 in more than a few games. But I have a strong sense that the 7970 is being held back by drivers, AMD really need to pick this up and get drivers up to scratch. Nvidia's Geforce drivers seem to be well ahead of AMD in this department. Heck, AMD could even implement their own version of 'GPU Boost' at the driver level if they wanted to. The 7970 appears more than capable especially with the huge OC headroom available.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I just decided who was king with my wallet! Got two 7970 lightnings on the way! Couldnt resist the temptation of the 7970 given msi's lightning treatment! Hopefully drivers will be ok...


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 2560 x 1600 and quality of IPS.
> 2560 + IPS > 120Hz


I sort of agree but not with the 30" 2560x1600 IPS monitors. I prefer the much tighter pixel pitch of the 27" 2560x1440's, plus it's easier to drive them as well (10% less pixels = measurable FPS gain).









The only problem is the input lag that comes with IPS, but the newer monitors seem to be much better than before (like the HP ZR2740W).


----------



## ZealotKi11er

The Problem with 120Hz is that you need to get close to 120 fps and more to benefit from it. To do this you need a lot of GPU power and at the same time being 1080p a lot of CPU power. At to the fact that you would have to CF or SLI to get those nice frames, you get away from input lag which is not a big deal if you understand that it really is and welcome stutter from dual GPUs. While Gaming might be better with 120hz having more pixels is better for everything else, having better colors is better for everything else, having better viewing angles is better for everything else.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The Problem with 120Hz is that you need to get close to 120 fps and more to benefit from it. To do this you need a lot of GPU power and at the same time being 1080p a lot of CPU power. At to the fact that you would have to CF or SLI to get those nice frames, you get away from input lag which is not a big deal if you understand that it really is and welcome stutter from dual GPUs. While Gaming might be better with 120hz having more pixels is better for everything else, having better colors is better for everything else, having better viewing angles is better for everything else.


This.

And input lag is not an issue at all if you choose the right panels. Yes, SOME of the higher end IPS panels do have noticeable input lag that would drive even a trained monkey insane. But some of the other ones (like my 3007WFP as an example)....have very little, to the point its no different than any other LCD as far as input lag goes.

LED LCD and 120Hz panels ALL have input lag as well. Its just a matter of how noticeable it is.


----------



## Humafold

I don't notice lag on my planar 120hz. I considered going surround over 120 for a long time. I believe once you cross the 100hz threshold you notice the difference. If I was anything other than a gamer I probably would have gone IPS. IPS has its flaws as does 120hz but as a gamer I have to go 120. If there was a 120hz IPS...


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I just decided who was king with my wallet! Got two 7970 lightnings on the way! Couldnt resist the temptation of the 7970 given msi's lightning treatment! Hopefully drivers will be ok...


You will be fine. Download RadeonPro. Make sure you keep up to date on Caps. Google Catalyst Creator twitter and bookmark it.

Someone up there alluded to BF3 not working on AMD drivers and it's just not true. I played BF3 on 5850CF and it worked on release day. Still can't imagine how some of you people have all these issues but whatever. I feel sorry for you. And for the record I don't think I've ever even posted in the owners thread. I'll tell you what though I am enjoying the new MSAA/SSAA options AMD added to Dx10/11 games. Just the kind of update an IQ junkie like me loves.

As far as 120hz vs IPS I definitely do notice the input lag with IPS but it's very slight and simply doesn't bother me. I'm just not the type to worry about my k/d ratio. I spend tons of money on GPUs to make it look good. 60 FPS is plenty for me. I spend time switching between my PS3 and PC so truthfully even 60 FPS on an IPS seems pretty responsive to me. I just recently finally finished MGS4 and let me tell you that game drops under 30 all the time. It just doesn't really bother me that much. People are sensitive to different things though as I said earlier Microstutter drives me nuts. I think the 120hz vs 1600p argument is kind of silly considering it's c ompletely subjective on which one you enjoy more.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The Problem with 120Hz is that you need to get close to 120 fps and more to benefit from it. To do this you need a lot of GPU power and at the same time being 1080p a lot of CPU power. At to the fact that you would have to CF or SLI to get those nice frames, you get away from input lag which is not a big deal if you understand that it really is and welcome stutter from dual GPUs. While Gaming might be better with 120hz having more pixels is better for everything else, having better colors is better for everything else, having better viewing angles is better for everything else.


That would be true if you are talking about a trash 120hz monitor but I think if you check the monitor section you will see that high-end displays like the 950d have very accurate colors and the viewing angles are not that bad at all. Add to that the overall smoothness that you get in everything from maximizing windows to dragging stuff across the screen, the fluid way that everything moves in games, and the fact that 1080p is a perfect resolution (not too big or too small) for most people and 120hz monitors definitely make a case for themselves. True, hi-res screens are beautiful to look at but I wouldn't trade the way my monitor "feels" for anything.

And your point about needing a lot of gpu power to benefit from 120hz is kind of moot in this thread as I doubt many of the guys with 7970's or 680's are having trouble pushing 120fps in most games...


----------



## raizooor3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I know your a mod and all but I don't buy that you were having multiple BSODs with your CF setups. Having owned both a CF and SLI setup and never ever experiencing a BSOD with either my thinking is that user error was involved somewhere along the line.
> Flickering textures happen in some games but generally that is fixed with CAP updates and is an issue reserved for new releases. Crash to desktops every 20 minutes sounds like a huge stretch as well. I've experienced that with both SLI/CF and single card setups but never 'every twenty minutes'. If I was crashing every twenty minutes I'd go online and find something to fix it. If you can find me an example of a game that currently suffers from the "crashing to desktop every twenty minutes" in SLI/CF bug though I'd love to hear you out.
> CF/SLI is not an easy way to go and that's not what I'm trying to say. People on these forums however have a tendency to blow issues wayyy out of proportion. The reality is that the biggest issue you will encounter with either setups is some games simply not supporting them.


New drivers sometimes messes up SLI/XFIRE setups. It's also game dependant. Other factors come into play as well.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raizooor3*
> 
> New drivers sometimes messes up SLI/XFIRE setups. It's also game dependant. Other factors come into play as well.


Of course. Things come up. I just haven't personally experienced it anywhere near as badly on either my 480s or 5850s. Lucky me I guess!


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The whole point in this thread is to emphasize that 5-15% isnt actually 5-15%, given that the clock on the *GTX 680 is 20% higher than the 7970*, but their OC limit on a decent air or liquid cooler is within error of eachother.


Dude you keep spewing misinformation to try and justify that the 7970 is better.

Learn to do math before you make claims.

1. The 7970 has 25% more cores
2. The 7970 has a 384 bit vs 256 bit
3. 7970 is priced 10% higher

Now to your math lesson:

The 680 is clocked 8% higher, 12.5% with the turbo boost, *NOT 20%!*

Did you also complain when the 6990 was clocked 27% higher than the GTX 590 @ stock, and 31% higher when unlocked?


----------



## Arni90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Dude you keep spewing misinformation to try and justify that the 7970 is better.
> Learn to do math before you make claims.
> 1. The 7970 has 25% more cores
> 2. The 7970 has a 384 bit vs 256 bit
> 3. 7970 is priced 10% higher
> Now to your math lesson:
> The 680 is clocked 8% higher, 12.5% with the turbo boost, *NOT 20%!*


You should do correct math before accusing others of not doing so:
The GTX 680 clocks up to a maximum slightly above 1100 MHz at full turbo from what reviews indicate.
Clock frequency: 1100/925 = 1.189189 which is roughly 20% higher clocks when comparing boost and 9% when comparing stock vs stock.
Amount of ALUs: 2048/1536 = 1.33333 which is roughly 33% more cores


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arni90*
> 
> You should do correct math before accusing others of not doing so:
> The GTX 680 clocks up to a maximum slightly above 1100 MHz at full turbo from what reviews indicate.
> Clock frequency: 1100/925 = 1.189189 which is roughly 20% higher clocks when comparing boost and 9% when comparing stock vs stock.
> Amount of ALUs: 2048/1536 = 1.33333 which is roughly 33% more cores


Every review I've seen states the turbo boost is 1058 so that's the value I"m going by!



925/1006 = .92

1536/2048=.75

We'll have to get a 2nd non-biased opinion on which formula to go by.

If you want to ignore percentages the *7970 has 512 more stream processors, and is priced $50 HIGHER* These value you can't ignore.


----------



## tconroy135

After looking at the Benchmarks I really couldn't see jumping from the 7970 to the 680. What i think will be interesting is if NVIDIA can release the original 680 the Gk100 before the 8970. And the pricing of the GK100.

I always wonder, but am too lazy, who makes more profit on consumer GPUs AMD or NVIDIA?


----------



## wardoc22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Dude you keep spewing misinformation to try and justify that the 7970 is better.
> Learn to do math before you make claims.
> 1. The 7970 has 25% more cores
> 2. The 7970 has a 384 bit vs 256 bit
> 3. 7970 is priced 10% higher
> Now to your math lesson:
> The 680 is clocked 8% higher, 12.5% with the turbo boost, *NOT 20%!*
> Did you also complain when the 6990 was clocked 27% higher than the GTX 590 @ stock, and 31% higher when unlocked?


You cant really, compare an nvidia and an amd card core for core....


----------



## wardoc22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tconroy135*
> 
> After looking at the Benchmarks I really couldn't see jumping from the 7970 to the 680. What i think will be interesting is if NVIDIA can release the original 680 the Gk100 before the 8970. And the pricing of the GK100.
> I always wonder, but am too lazy, who makes more profit on consumer GPUs AMD or NVIDIA?


I think gk110 or 100 or whatever isnt released because its not finished yet


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wardoc22*
> 
> You cant really, compare an nvidia and an amd card core for core....


But it should be compared clock for clock?









The fact that the 680 has 512 less stream processors and at *worst* case scenario trades blows with the 7970, that tells me Kepler is the more efficient architecture. But that's just me.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tconroy135*
> 
> After looking at the Benchmarks I really couldn't see jumping from the 7970 to the 680. What i think will be interesting is if NVIDIA can release the original 680 the Gk100 before the 8970. And the pricing of the GK100.
> I always wonder, but am too lazy, who makes more profit on consumer GPUs AMD or NVIDIA?


I'd imagine Nvidia. They are generally more expensive and AMD has to keep prices down to stay relevant. AMD is technically the larger company but Nvidia is in a better financial position and more focused on graphics.

If it's true that the 680 was supposed to be a mid-range card. And I'm not saying it was I believe there is a lot more to it then that including 28nm yields and the fact that it was probabally tweaked a lot from it's former incarnation. But anyway if this exact card we have now was supposed to be mid-range they are probabally making a massive profit off of it considering it was planned to be profitable at 350.

But that's all speculation AMD could very easily make more money per unit sold. Who knows for sure. We simply don't get those kind of numbers.


----------



## wardoc22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> So it should be compared clock for clock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the 680 has 512 less stream processors and at *worst* case scenario trades blows with the 7970, that tells me Kepler is the more efficient architecture. But that's just me.


Nope clock for clock also. They use different architecture so g.

Btw, amd has ALWAYS had more stream processors than nvdia.


----------



## Phantom_Dave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The Problem with 120Hz is that you need to get close to 120 fps and more to benefit from it. To do this you need a lot of GPU power and at the same time being 1080p a lot of CPU power. At to the fact that you would have to CF or SLI to get those nice frames, you get away from input lag which is not a big deal if you understand that it really is and welcome stutter from dual GPUs. While Gaming might be better with 120hz having more pixels is better for everything else, having better colors is better for everything else, having better viewing angles is better for everything else.


I have very little problem pushing 120 fps on most games and I'm on a GTX580. There are some games I have to tweak the settings a little bit (like turn down AA), but for the most part it's not an issue. So anyone with either of these cards should have even less trouble. The most demanding games are the only ones I have to tweak settings for, and there's only a handful. But that's also only if I want to get up to 120 fps. Even running at 90 fps is better than 60 fps. I dunno where you get that you have to run at 120 fps to enjoy a 120Hz monitor... it's BS.

90% of the games I've bought recently were set to max settings and left there while running at 120 fps. SLI/CF isn't absolutely needed for single monitor gaming.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wardoc22*
> 
> Nope clock for clock also. They use different architecture so g.
> Btw, amd has ALWAYS had more stream processors than nvdia.


Exactly, that's my whole point, tell that to the OP.









He's the one that keeps going on and on about the 680 clocked "20% faster" than the 7970, etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I want to see clock per clock benchmarks, theyre not even out there.. im surprised.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> yes but the highest gtx 680 oc is higher than the highest 7970 oc


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> I have a feeling the difference is within error when you average it over many games. If you run both at lets say 1250/1800 Mhz, the 7970 will be the performance KING. Look at the two overclockersclub links, and see for yourself. A Lower clocked 7970 (1235) gets up in the face of the gtx 680 at 1305 Mhz. If the 7970 could be further clocked to 1305 aswell, you would notice that it either surpases the 680 overall, or its a dead tie. The difference in performance with overclocking is much more benfitial with the 7970 than with the gtx 680. If you are running at stock and only stock the 680 is the clear choice, but lets say you want to run a water loop and get the highest clock possible, the 7970 edges ahead. L2N is a different story, and so far it looks like Nvidia is ahead (barley).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The whole point in this thread is to emphasize that 5-15% isnt actually 5-15%, given that the clock on the GTX 680 is 20% higher than the 7970, but their OC limit on a decent air or liquid cooler is within error of eachother.


I won't point to the other gazillion times he keeps saying this.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wardoc22*
> 
> Nope clock for clock also. They use different architecture so g.
> Btw, amd has ALWAYS had more stream processors than nvdia.


Yeah they are different architectures. Nvidia does seem to have an ever so slightly more efficient architecture this round but again everything is so close I'm not sure it matters. People on Beyond3d said that on average the 7970 draws more power on stock settings however the 680's power consumption increases more per mhz overclocked. These two cards are just so close it's ridiculous and I think anyone making definitve statements about either does not have enough information yet.


----------



## RagingCain

Shame the 680s overclocking is a bit limited, hands down I think as far as being able to overclock that victory goes to the 7970 for being the simpler of the two.

Sure the world record is in the GTX 680s hands but that required fraken-cards to be made.

You can get a 45+% overclock on 7970s on the good ones and about 30% (1200 MHz) on most others. That's a victory I think that matters to most enthusiasts. After all, the most impressive thing to the 580 was not only being powerful, but it had a lot of headroom to OC.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain*
> 
> Shame the 680s overclocking is a bit limited, hands down I think as far as being able to overclock that victory goes to the 7970 for being the simpler of the two.
> 
> Sure the world record is in the GTX 680s hands but that required fraken-cards to be made.
> 
> You can get a 45+% overclock on 7970s on the good ones and about 30% (1200 MHz) on most others. That's a victory I think that matters to most enthusiasts. After all, the most impressive thing to the 580 was not only being powerful, but it had a lot of headroom to OC.


3dmark 11 also seems to just be a bit faster on 680s. Thankfully for us with AMD cards (most) games are way closer or favor us. That is if that's the world record you were talking about?

Anyway yeah the 680 is not a great OCer. I don't think anyone thought that would happen a week ago. It's too bad.


----------



## CULLEN

I bet that if AMD would step up their game in the driver section, and actually make a superior driver, they cards would perform nearly identical or the HD7970 would defeat the GTX680.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CULLEN*
> 
> I bet that if AMD would step up their game in the driver section, and actually make a superior driver, they cards would perform nearly identical or the HD7970 would defeat the GTX680.


Only *IF*... Let us know when that happens.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Yeah they are different architectures. Nvidia does seem to have an ever so slightly more efficient architecture this round but again everything is so close I'm not sure it matters. People on Beyond3d said that on average the 7970 draws more power on stock settings however the 680's power consumption increases more per mhz overclocked. These two cards are just so close it's ridiculous and I think anyone making definitve statements about either does not have enough information yet.


Fermi was already good. Kepler improved on Fermi. AMD's GCN is somewhere between Fermi and Kepler and we can expect the enhanced GCN on Sea Islands to be better than Kepler but not as good as Maxwell. Kepler is the current King no matter what those with AMD cards (myself included) have to deal with. The fact that nvidia used the Gk104 is what is really interesting, GK104 should be competing with Pitcairn and not Tahiti unless AMD have another core up their sleeves (Tenerife?) that is gonna blow away even the GK100 (or GK110). I'll be happy with my 7970 for now, but AMD better sort out these drivers soon. 79xx users deserve at least that much from AMD for coughing up our hard earned cash on their top-tier card.


----------



## wardoc22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Exactly, that's my whole point, tell that to the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's the one that keeps going on and on about the 680 clocked "20% faster" than the 7970, etc.
> I won't point to the other gazillion times he keeps saying this.


Fail. Kelper is, i have to admit, better, but they are so close that I would consider both of them when given a choise


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain*
> 
> Shame the 680s overclocking is a bit limited, hands down I think as far as being able to overclock that victory goes to the 7970 for being the simpler of the two.
> 
> Sure the world record is in the GTX 680s hands but that required fraken-cards to be made.
> 
> You can get a 45+% overclock on 7970s on the good ones and about 30% (1200 MHz) on most others. That's a victory I think that matters to most enthusiasts. After all, the most impressive thing to the 580 was not only being powerful, but it had a lot of headroom to OC.


This is the main reason I went with 7970 Lightnings over 680's (that and I hate to buy any reference card)...

I guess you could say I'm an MSI Lightning fanboy rather than any particular GPU...


----------



## rcfc89

I hope you can get them over 1260mhz because if not a stock 680 is faster and 100 dollars cheaper. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg6/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-battlefield-3.html
HardOp couldn't get their lightnings to be stable past 1200mhz.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/20/msi_r7970_lightning_video_card_review/3
That review alone made me decide on 680's over the lightnings.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I hope you can get them over 1260mhz because if not a stock 680 is faster and 100 dollars cheaper. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg6/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-battlefield-3.html
> HardOp couldn't get their lightnings to be stable past 1200mhz.
> 
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/20/msi_r7970_lightning_video_card_review/3
> That review alone made me decide on 680's over the lightnings.


If you would have read the review, you would have noticed that they also don't adjust voltage at all for that 1200MHz. The Lightning should easily do 1250-1300MHz, maybe even more.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I hope you can get them over 1260mhz because if not a stock 680 is faster and 100 dollars cheaper. http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg6/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-battlefield-3.html
> HardOp couldn't get their lightnings to be stable past 1200mhz.
> http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/20/msi_r7970_lightning_video_card_review/3
> That review alone made me decide on 680's over the lightnings.


I'm not too worried about it. By the results of the 7970 Club and the Battle Royale thread it seems as though the 7970's OC better than the 680's, plus the locked down voltage control really pissed me off. Either way, I'll be happy with my 7970's at least until the 680 Lightning drops, then we shall see...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> If you would have read the review, you would have noticed that they also don't adjust voltage at all for that 1200MHz. The Lightning should easily do 1250-1300MHz, maybe even more.


My thoughts exactly..


----------



## rcfc89

They were only able to increase the memory voltage. Core voltage increases caused instant crashing. They would have done it and tested it if they could have. Either way just a mild overclock on the 680 would eat the lightning up even at 1300mhz. Find me 5 people getting over 1300mhz and being stable with their lightnings.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I really don't care at all about the reviews to be honest. I've been checking out the 680 CLub here on OCN and there are a lot of aggravated guys over there...


----------



## Badness

I know if it wasn't for the bf3 performance and the price, the HD 7970 would be my clear choice.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm betting I can get BF3 up over 120fps on Ultra with my new 7970's considering I already go over 100fps with my 580's...


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Intresting! The 7970 @ 1335 mhz is 45% higher clocks, while the gk110 claims to be 50% better than the gtx 680. These still seem very close, and it will ultimatley come down to overcklockability.
> Given the GTX 690 is 2 x GK 104 (2 x gtx 680), and the 7990 is 2 x 7970, i bet ASUS will create a dual GK 110 card for their MARS III ROG collection, and will have this exclusivley.


I'm not sure what you're saying, can you please clarify? You're saying a 7970 with a 45% over clock will match a GK110 which is 50% faster than a GK104. You do realize the GK110 will over clock as well right and will still be slower than a stock GK110 by a significant margin if the 50% claims are true.


----------



## Arizonian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I really don't care at all about the reviews to be honest. I've been checking out the 680 CLub here on OCN and there are a lot of aggravated guys over there...


Third day in for some of us and first day myself. We haven't even got our feet wet. I just got mine and starting to do some learning. It's a different OC method than before.

Check back when the 7970 Club launched and you'll see a lot of aggravated people too. I've been following it and belive me they are not problem free either. Good luck though Majin your a good egg on OCN and I'm sure will teach those guys what their doing wrong or how to push it even further. They've got a good guy on their team.









Seems the new 28nm fabrication is across the board a new creature. Technically the 680 can't push as many volts with two six pin over an eight and six.

New flavors are coming out soon of the same GTX 680's with more phase power along with eight and six pin connectors.

EVGA's line up in descending order.

*EVGA GTX 680 CLASSIFIED*

*EVGA GTX 680 CLASSIFIED* - 8+8 Power Design + 14 Power Design + OC BIOS Mode

*FTW*

*EVGA GTX 680 FTW* - 8+6 Power Design + 8 Phase PWM Design
*EVGA GTX 680 FTW 4GB + Backplate* - 8+6 Power Design + 8 Phase PWM Design

*SC - Superclocked*

*EVGA GTX 680 SC SIgnature* - 8+6 Power Design + 5 Phase PWM Design
*EVGA GTX 680 SC Signature + Backplate* - 8+6 Power Design + 5 Phase PWM Design
*EVGA GTX 680 SC Signature 2* - Dual Fan Design + 8+6 Power Design + 5 Phase PWM Design

Also if there's a way to disable voltage lock we haven't figured it just yet. Well back to my system I just set it up at stock. Going to see what's the GPU Boost do and figure this out.

Personally I even with my GTX 580 I over clock as far as I can before voltage tweak and leave it there 24/7. So I'm not too concerned.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> Third day in for some of us and first day myself. We haven't even got our feet wet. I just got mine and starting to do some learning. It's a different OC method than before.
> Check back when the 7970 Club launched and you'll see a lot of aggravated people too. I've been following it and belive me they are not problem free either. Good luck though Majin your a good egg on OCN and I'm sure will teach those guys what their doing wrong or how to push it even further. They've got a good guy on their team.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems the new 28nm fabrication is across the board a new creature. Technically the 680 can't push as many volts with two six pin over an eight and six.
> New flavors are coming out soon of the same GTX 680's with more phase power along with eight and six pin connectors.
> EVGA's line up in descending order.
> *EVGA GTX 680 CLASSIFIED*
> 
> *EVGA GTX 680 CLASSIFIED* - 8+8 Power Design + 14 Power Design + OC BIOS Mode
> *FTW*
> *EVGA GTX 680 FTW* - 8+6 Power Design + 8 Phase PWM Design
> *EVGA GTX 680 FTW 4GB + Backplate* - 8+6 Power Design + 8 Phase PWM Design
> *SC - Superclocked*
> *EVGA GTX 680 SC SIgnature* - 8+6 Power Design + 5 Phase PWM Design
> *EVGA GTX 680 SC Signature + Backplate* - 8+6 Power Design + 5 Phase PWM Design
> *EVGA GTX 680 SC Signature 2* - Dual Fan Design + 8+6 Power Design + 5 Phase PWM Design
> Also if there's a way to disable voltage lock we haven't figured it just yet. Well back to my system I just set it up at stock. Going to see what's the GPU Boost do and figure this out.
> Personally I even with my GTX 580 I over clock as far as I can before voltage tweak and leave it there 24/7. So I'm not too concerned.


Thanks man! I still remember the good old days of the 580 OCing club! It really kills me to leave the Nvidia camp but I can't condone the locked down nature they implemented with the 680. I'm sure non-reference cards will fix this eventually but I have the opportunity to get 28nm Lightnings right now so I had to take it! When the 680 Lightnings show up I may have a hard time turning them down.

Btw, I still think the 680 is probably the better card, I just want to try something new...


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Dude you keep spewing misinformation to try and justify that the 7970 is better.
> Learn to do math before you make claims.
> 1. The 7970 has 25% more cores
> 2. The 7970 has a 384 bit vs 256 bit
> 3. 7970 is priced 10% higher
> Now to your math lesson:
> The 680 is clocked 8% higher, 12.5% with the turbo boost, *NOT 20%!*
> Did you also complain when the 6990 was clocked 27% higher than the GTX 590 @ stock, and 31% higher when unlocked?


This thread is really about who is the performance king, without price being a factor, although ultimatley it is one. And the gtx 680's max stock turbo clock is 1110 mhz, while the 7970 is clocked at 925 mhz , so thats a 20% difference.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BizzareRide*
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying, can you please clarify? You're saying a 7970 with a 45% over clock will match a GK110 which is 50% faster than a GK104. You do realize the GK110 will over clock as well right and will still be slower than a stock GK110 by a significant margin if the 50% claims are true.


Yes i expect the atomic 7970s to further overclock, but not by much, so this will give Nvidia the advantage. I am guessing a stock GTX 685/GTX 780 GK110 GPU will perform roughly equivalent to an OCd Sapphire Atomic 7970 @ 1400 mhz. But of course the Nvidia can overclock. Thus why i gave it the edge!


----------



## wireeater

This reminds me of car arguments "Well your car has a supercharger and mine doesn't!".

Run what you brung... If you put your card up against another card claiming huge performance gains then you better well back it up...









There are no excuses about it having less cores, voltage, price, doesn't matter. All the talk was this card was going to smash AMD when actually it was just a slight beneficial gain in SOME areas.

This is not a biased opinion, but facts. If you claim to be the best, you better prove it.


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wireeater*
> 
> This reminds me of car arguments "Well your car has a supercharger and mine doesn't!"


That wasn't a very good simile. Computer components are even remotely relevant to automotive engineering.


----------



## Projector

Quote:


> I'm betting I can get BF3 up over 120fps on Ultra with my new 7970's considering I already go over 100fps with my 580's...


I doubt it =/ thats whats holding me back from the 7970 and im leaning towards the 680 atm becuase while amd do make amazing cards there never optimized for games sadly. The 580 pritty much = the 7970 in bf3 atm. Amd cards are bettter in general and usually do better in all the fancy benchmarks but nvidia always do better in games sadly.


----------



## Arizonian

Does video qaulity for the GTX 680 count to reign 'king' with even more innovation?






Source VR-Zone - NVIDIA's New Dawn for Kepler is on the way

Quote:


> Dawn, NVIDIA's beloved fairy who first made her appearance in a tech demo almost a decade ago will soon be making her return to coincide with Kepler. Dubbed "New Dawn", this will be the official tech demo for Kepler and is said to be more or less a retake of the original, only with the obvious vast improvements across the board in the level of detail on tap.
> 
> Read more: http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-s-new-dawn-for-kepler-is-on-the-way/15344.html#ixzz1qKP1oHnP


Can you just imagine a game like BF 4 looking that real?


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Projector*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm betting I can get BF3 up over 120fps on Ultra with my new 7970's considering I already go over 100fps with my 580's...
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it =/ thats whats holding me back from the 7970 and im leaning towards the 680 atm becuase while amd do make amazing cards there never optimized for games sadly. The 580 pritty much = the 7970 in bf3 atm. Amd cards are bettter in general and usually do better in all the fancy benchmarks but nvidia always do better in games sadly.
Click to expand...

the 7970 =/= gtx580 in BF3. Even at stock the 7970 is a good 10-20fps higher, slightly Overclocked and its about the same as a gtx680

For the Price I would go gtx680, But once a price drops happens on the 7970 they would be a killer card to have.

A gtx680 and 7970 both can not handle BF3 ultra @ 120fps, You will still need sli/cf to achieve this goal.


----------



## Projector

Yes in theory the 7970 is alot better but when it comes to actuall performance of 7970/7950 in bf3 thats not the case its pritty much the same some times less than a 580, check out the 7970/50 owners thread and you will see that so many of them have problems in bf3. If bf3 is your primary game it would be silly to go amd atm as its a nvidia optimized game.


----------



## BizzareRide

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> Yes i expect the atomic 7970s to further overclock, but not by much, so this will give Nvidia the advantage. I am guessing a stock GTX 685/GTX 780 GK110 GPU will perform roughly equivalent to an OCd Sapphire Atomic 7970 @ 1400 mhz. But of course the Nvidia can overclock. Thus why i gave it the edge!


That doesn't make sense to me... The 7970 at those speeds are barely faster than a 680 when over clocked which, itself is barely faster than a stock 680, so how will a 7970 over clocked match a GK110 which is rumored to be 50% faster(re: 50% better performance) than a GTX 680?


----------



## polyzp

To clarify

7970 @ 1400 mhz = GK110 @ stock

is my guess


----------



## Projector

Quote:


> To clarify
> 
> 7970 @ 1400 mhz = GK110 @ stock
> 
> is my guess thumb.gif


I want w/e you are smoking







Because as of the moment 680>7970 in games, Yes when overclocked slight advantage but you are saying its going to match a card 40 percent better than a 680 which is already better than a 7970?! WOW obvious fan is obvious
I dont care how well the drivers improve the performance over time, it will be the 7990 and GK110 comparison.


----------



## Millz59

You seem to be really into the clock speed, which really doesn't matter.

4 Monitors, CUDA, Phyx and the Green Team drivers are more than enough for me to say that the 680 is a better card, not to mention in North America the 680 is cheaper (And to the best of my knowledge it's still cheaper than the 7970 anywhere else when comparing reference to reference)

That aside I really thing Nvidia failed hard here. In terms of RAW computing power the 7970 is the clear winner. I really think that this is something more like what a 670 should have been honestly. I expected more.

Although I can't really say that I dislike either card, for gaming and gaming alone I'd say the 680 comes out on top; however the 7970 seems like the better choice while doing other computing tasks.

*fingers crossed for GK110*


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Millz59*
> 
> You seem to be really into the clock speed, which really doesn't matter.
> 4 Monitors, CUDA, Phyx and the Green Team drivers are more than enough for me to say that the 680 is a better card, not to mention in North America the 680 is cheaper (And to the best of my knowledge it's still cheaper than the 7970 anywhere else when comparing reference to reference)
> That aside I really thing Nvidia failed hard here. In terms of RAW computing power the 7970 is the clear winner. I really think that this is something more like what a 670 should have been honestly. I expected more.
> Although I can't really say that I dislike either card, for gaming and gaming alone I'd say the 680 comes out on top; however the 7970 seems like the better choice while doing other computing tasks.
> *fingers crossed for GK110*


Completely agree with the first part...

In terms of compute performance, judging by the specs, IMO this was supposed to be the 660. FP performance has been cut 3x that of the 580, and twice of the 560. Of course the ROP's, and 256 bit bus are a dead giveaway that this was meant to be a 660 as well.

I'll post this here again for those who missed it.


----------



## dotcom

Ordered mah self a 680








Debating whether or not I should have spent the extra 100 on the 7970 lightning which is currently IN STOCK on newegg. Oh well... The most graphically demanding game I play is Skyrim anyways lol and the 680 performs miracles on that game. All in all, I think I'll be happy with my decision. Both cards are great (though overpriced) :|


----------



## jtom320

Anyone who says the 580 gives you the same performance in BF3 as a 7970 is either willfully ignorant or does not know what they are talking about. The 7970 catches up to the 680 overclocked in BF3. The only way you can make that statement is if you ignore every BF3 benchmark ever made.


----------



## dph314

Put my second 680 in before taking the computer apart to install the new PSU. The first 680 was easily doing 1225mhz core, forgot the exact max stable clock but it was 1275mhz I believe (got the computer with the info saved apart upstairs, on the laptop now). But the second 680 is a bit better. 1.31Ghz stable in 3dMark11, 1.3Ghz stable in Heaven and every other bench run (Metro, Crysis, Just Cause 2, Arkham City, BF3 multiplayer). And it stays below 61C too! I have room to take the fan down a bit. So...two cards and one is stable at 1275mhz and the other is stable at 1310mhz. This really isnt that bad for the max voltage, which is 1.175. And what are the _AVERAGE_ overclocks for the 7970s, 1250mhz? My cards do that at 1.175 @ 59C. 7970 has further to go to get to 1250mhz, but the 680 has a lower max voltage. So...kinda evens out. I got 2 cards and they both very easily and with cool temps exceed 1250mhz. So maybe the 680 doesn't allow for huge overclocks, but it's on par with the 7970 in that regard. And I know 7970s go higher, that's why I said average. 680s go higher too. Cherry-picked for reviews they were hitting 1350mhz.

So, yeah, performance being all over the place for both cards depending on which benches you look at, it's pretty clear that.... Nvidia= * +3D, +PhysX, +drivers, +four monitors on one card, +FXAA, +efficiency/low-temps, +Adaptive V-Sync (BF3 looks so much more amazing->no tearing AND no lag/stuttering!), super-quiet fan until 70% speed * =


----------



## snipekill2445

One of the great things about 28nm. Overclock like beasts, and run cooler. Technology is strange.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Put my second 680 in before taking the computer apart to install the new PSU. The first 680 was easily doing 1225mhz core, forgot the exact max stable clock but it was 1275mhz I believe (got the computer with the info saved apart upstairs, on the laptop now). But the second 680 is a bit better. 1.31Ghz stable in 3dMark11, 1.3Ghz stable in Heaven and every other bench run (Metro, Crysis, Just Cause 2, Arkham City, BF3 multiplayer). And it stays below 61C too! I have room to take the fan down a bit. So...two cards and one is stable at 1275mhz and the other is stable at 1310mhz. This really isnt that bad for the max voltage, which is 1.175. And what are the _AVERAGE_ overclocks for the 7970s, 1250mhz? My cards do that at 1.175 @ 59C. 7970 has further to go to get to 1250mhz, but the 680 has a lower max voltage. So...kinda evens out. I got 2 cards and they both very easily and with cool temps exceed 1250mhz. So maybe the 680 doesn't allow for huge overclocks, but it's on par with the 7970 in that regard. And I know 7970s go higher, that's why I said average. 680s go higher too. Cherry-picked for reviews they were hitting 1350mhz.
> So, yeah, performance being all over the place for both cards depending on which benches you look at, it's pretty clear that.... Nvidia= * +3D, +PhysX, +drivers, +four monitors on one card, +FXAA, +efficiency/low-temps, +Adaptive V-Sync (BF3 looks so much more amazing->no tearing AND no lag/stuttering!), super-quiet fan until 70% speed * =


I'm happy your happy man. One of the great things about 28nm is how cool the cards run now. With my 1260 OC the highest I've ever seen on my card was 75 degrees at 40% fan speed on a reference cooler. The aftermarket coolers are going to make these cards so cool/quiet you won't even be able to hear them.

As an aside I'd like to point out that adaptive vsync is only different then regular vsync in that it disables vsync when you drop under 60FPS. It does that basically to eliminate input lag but it also causes tearing. With two 680s though at 1080p I don't think you will ever actually use the feature. Has got to be a good feeling.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I'm happy your happy man. One of the great things about 28nm is how cool the cards run now. With my 1260 OC the highest I've ever seen on my card was 75 degrees at 40% fan speed on a reference cooler. The aftermarket coolers are going to make these cards so cool/quiet you won't even be able to hear them.
> As an aside I'd like to point out that adaptive vsync is only different then regular vsync in that it disables vsync when you drop under 60FPS. It does that basically to eliminate input lag but it also causes tearing. With two 680s though at 1080p I don't think you will ever actually use the feature. Has got to be a good feeling.


Thank you







But even when v-sync is on with the 680 and keeping the fps steady at 85fps in BF3, there's still much less stuttering/input lag. It seems incredibly more responsive now, and there's no tearing when it drops below 85fps and adaptive v-sync disables itself. So, that's awesome, never know when the second one is in tomorrow though. Again, that coulda been from micro-stuttering from 570 SLI, so I'll have to see if BF3 is still as smooth as it is now when the second 680 is in there.

But yeah, thanks again, definitely enjoying the cards. I guess when it comes down to it, if you want the best performance there's some games you need a 7970 for and there's some you need a 680 for. I personally do not want to cross over to AMD simply because I don't see enough of a performance increase to make it worth it, because it's true, they are pretty close, so regardless of Nvidia's reasons for not releasing GK110, we got what we got and it seems a lot less like a "King" and lot more closer to the 7970 than everyone originally thought. But yeah I won't cross over because gains aren't big enough to justify giving up what im comfortable with and the features I like (I keep thinking about that stone-pillar video demo for physx, good LORD that was beautiful. Can you imagine the destructable environments we're gonna have 5 years from now??







).


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I was coming from 580 Lightnings and had to make a decision 680 vs 7970. I basically went with the 7970 just because of the Lightning being available. I am enough of an MSI Lightning fanboy that I switched GPU manufacturers just to get the newest Lightning! Honestly though I think there is no wrong choice this generation as both cards are so close....


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even when v-sync is on with the 680 and keeping the fps steady at 85fps in BF3, there's still much less stuttering/input lag. It seems incredibly more responsive now, and there's no tearing when it drops below 85fps and adaptive v-sync disables itself. So, that's awesome, never know when the second one is in tomorrow though. Again, that coulda been from micro-stuttering from 570 SLI, so I'll have to see if BF3 is still as smooth as it is now when the second 680 is in there.
> But yeah, thanks again, definitely enjoying the cards. I guess when it comes down to it, if you want the best performance there's some games you need a 7970 for and there's some you need a 680 for. I personally do not want to cross over to AMD simply because I don't see enough of a performance increase to make it worth it, because it's true, they are pretty close, so regardless of Nvidia's reasons for not releasing GK110, we got what we got and it seems a lot less like a "King" and lot more closer to the 7970 than everyone originally thought. But yeah I won't cross over because gains aren't big enough to justify giving up what im comfortable with and the features I like (I keep thinking about that stone-pillar video demo for physx, good LORD that was beautiful. Can you imagine the destructable environments we're gonna have 5 years from now??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


You don't have to justify it to me dude you got an amazing card. With prices where they are right now I do agree the 680 is definitely the better buy anyway.

Now me personally I actually like both manufacturers. I like the fact that AMD gives you more support for SSAA/MSAA options in Dx11 but then again I like the fact that Inspector lets you use SGGSAA in games. I think AMDs AA applications are slightly ahead right now though but this would only matter to someone like me anyway. I am an IQ junkie so whichever one gives me more options in that regard I'll go with all things being equal.

Both of you need to make sure you download Inspector/RadeonPro. Both these programs will make your lives easier and allow you to set IQ profiles for each game. (Sorry if you already knew this) Inspector really opens up your AA options with Nvidia based cards and Radeon Pro *really* helps with crossfire. Every now and then a game will come along that doesn't support CF but with a little bit of luck you'll be able to force it with RP. So yeah both of em are great things.

Anyway you'll both like the cards good luck to you with em.


----------



## dph314

Agreed









I'm just pissed that I can't hit 50fps in Heaven all maxed. I got 49.9 twice!!









Edit: Not really directed towards you or anyone, just spouting off my rants in the same post


----------



## Shogon

All comes down to drivers in my opinion. I would love either card since it has more memory then my 1.5GB 580s.


----------



## Kirby1

I dont really care about this but ill just say when the 680 comes out with more memory on it, it will smoke the 7970 in all categories. The only reason the 7970 does better in a few high res benchmarks is because of larger memory capacity.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> Both of you need to make sure you download Inspector


I can't remember if I tried Inspector a while ago or not, I just looked at the interface though in a pic. Seems kinda cool, but does it do anything that the Nvidia Control Panel, GPU-Z, and Precision can't do?


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dph314*
> 
> I can't remember if I tried Inspector a while ago or not, I just looked at the interface though in a pic. Seems kinda cool, but does it do anything that the Nvidia Control Panel, GPU-Z, and Precision can't do?


Yes in order to enable AA on a lot of DX10/11 games (YOu know how most games use FXAA/MLAA/post-process crap nowadays) you will have to find "driver bits" online. Not really sure what they do exactly but you type a set of numbers in and it allows you to use better AA in modern games (SGGSAA which looks a lot like supersampling, can blur some games, easy to remedy with LOD tweaks). Best thing to do is google all this because it would be impossible for me to explain it all in one post! If you like messing with IQ settings on a pretty high level you will like Inspector.

Here is an example for Mass Effect 3. The fields you see here you will type in under the Mass Effect profile. Inspector is insanlely powerful if you use it.

Antialiasing Compatibility = 0x080100C5 (Mass Effect, Mass Effect II)
Antialiasing Mode = Override any application settings
Antialiasing Setting = 4xMSAA.
Antialiasing Transparency Multisampling = Enabled
Antialiasing Transparency Supersampling = 4x Supersampling
Anisotropic Filtering Mode = User-defined / Off
Anisotropic Filtering Setting = 16x
Texture Filtering Quality = High Quality.

Keep in mind that Mass Effect 3 does not support Multi-sample AA out of the box but Inspector will let you force it with the right compatibility codes. The Nvidia control panel will not do this automatically.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kirby1*
> 
> I dont really care about this but ill just say when the 680 comes out with more memory on it, it will smoke the 7970 in all categories. The only reason the 7970 does better in a few high res benchmarks is because of larger memory capacity.


I don't think that is accurate at all. From what I have seen so far, at max clocks these two cards are almost identical in terms of performance at any resolution. I really don't think there is a wrong choice this time around...


----------



## jtom320

It's obviously not true. Anyone paying any attention at all to the OC'd benches knows that neither of these cards smokes the other one. The 680 wins some and the 7970 wins some. The 7970 wins are definitely not memory related either. You are either read up on this or you're not. The great thing about numbers isn't that they don't leave much room for opinion on these type of things. If the 680 smoked it in everything but VRAM intensive Apps we would all know it.


----------



## dph314

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I don't think that is accurate at all. From what I have seen so far, at max clocks these two cards are almost identical in terms of performance at any resolution. I really don't think there is a wrong choice this time around...


Or are both a bad choice with so many new cards and GK110 coming out so soon? Just playing devil's advocate. I can't honestly say that I'm glad I don't have any patience. I'm weak, I couldn't wait, and I know it. But in a perfect world I probably would have waited 2 or 3 more months to see what Nvidia drops next. But since I couldn't wait, I totally agree there was no blowout this round. But...we'll see what happens in the '780 vs 8970 - Who is the Real King?' thread


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I don't think that is accurate at all. From what I have seen so far, at max clocks these two cards are almost identical in terms of performance at any resolution. I really don't think there is a wrong choice this time around...


With the current issues I'm having with single 7970, I'm honestly thinking of ditching AMD and going with a pair of 680's even though I really do want to stick with AMD for now. I even readied my system for XFire but tying the PCIe power cables next to HDD cages so I can just plugin the second card and game on. But the driver issues I seem to be having are a concern as well. Paying so much for the 7970 and then getting sub-par drivers isn't something I can tolerate for long. AMD needs to fix this, and fix it now.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> With the current issues I'm having with single 7970, I'm honestly thinking of ditching AMD and going with a pair of 680's even though I really do want to stick with AMD for now. I even readied my system for XFire but tying the PCIe power cables next to HDD cages so I can just plugin the second card and game on. But the driver issues I seem to be having are a concern as well. Paying so much for the 7970 and then getting sub-par drivers isn't something I can tolerate for long. AMD needs to fix this, and fix it now.


I (honestly) don't get all these issues people have. What exactly isn't working? Maybe I don't play enough games cause I have had zero issues with anything.

Since I got my card I've played The Darkness 2, Mass Effect 3, Alice and BF3 with literally zero problems. Mass Effect 3 I played on release to.

The only thing even approaching a problem I had was when I first got my card BF3 didn't like my overclock. Driver release fixed that though.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I hope my luck is better than yours dude. I'm nervous but I want to give AMD a shot just for the fact that they aren't as locked down as Nvidia this round. Also, there is no real loss here. If I decide to go 680 Lightning or 685 down the line I can just sell these Lightnings and get most of my money back out of them....


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> I (honestly) don't get all these issues people have. What exactly isn't working? Maybe I don't play enough games cause I have had zero issues with anything.
> Since I got my card I've played The Darkness 2, Mass Effect 3, Alice and BF3 with literally zero problems. Mass Effect 3 I played on release to.
> The only thing even approaching a problem I had was when I first got my card BF3 didn't like my overclock. Driver release fixed that though.


Issues I've got:
1. System waking to black screen after long idle
2. Crashes to desktop (BF3, Metro 2033)

I'll be doing a clean re-install soon to see if the issues resolve themselves (got a new HyperX SSD 240GB) and see if things resolve themselves. I wish I was as lucky as you are, I don't hate the 7970, I love it's performance, but the issues get annoying after a while.


----------



## Methodical

Wow


----------



## forever109

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woundingchaney*
> 
> I will be buying either 2 x 680s or 2 x 7970s come this friday. Im wondering how AMDs drivers are for Xfire and if anyone has heard of the availability of the 680s currently or what they think it will be later on in the week.


that really depends on person...
somone might be lucky, like me n my friend, we never had any problem with the red team, we r new red team buddies. since 7970.
but i do got tons of crazy bug with my gtx 460~ gtx 560 gtx 570. lots of driver no respond for a sec, n recover.

and if u go search over the internet u will ended up lots of reviews of bashing AMD driver or giving low rating even it's a small case of problem. but if u look at the green team side, even people got a bad card or driver problem, no body give anything bad rating..
i know it's kinda funny. just like my friend told me that, Nvidia r more like Apple , n AMD like Android. . so it really depends on u .


----------



## Demondrumer

dayuummm everyone's been talking about how amazing the GTX 680's are... but their surprisingly similar to the hd 7970!!


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *forever109*
> 
> that really depends on person...
> somone might be lucky, like me n my friend, we never had any problem with the red team, we r new red team buddies. since 7970.
> but i do got tons of crazy bug with my gtx 460~ gtx 560 gtx 570. lots of driver no respond for a sec, n recover.
> and if u go search over the internet u will ended up lots of reviews of bashing AMD driver or giving low rating even it's a small case of problem. but if u look at the green team side, even people got a bad card or driver problem, no body give anything bad rating..
> i know it's kinda funny. just like my friend told me that, Nvidia r more like Apple , n AMD like Android. . so it really depends on u .


Saying nvidia=apple and amd=android is a bad analogy. I would say they're both at par. NV tech has been good, and always improves with drivers. AMD however have always had driver issues. I've been with red team since 2005. Green team since '98 until 2005. Have to say this, Red team won me over when HL2 came out. NV have only recently started to get back in the game with Fermi (5xx) and now Kepler. GCN is new, and I'm expecting AMD to fix the drivers with them soon. NV has had the chance to get their drivers well sorted out especially since Kepler is not that big a departure from Fermi. Look at the history of brand new NV architectures and you'll see my point. Drivers at launch always sucked big time, but NV always made things better. ATi on the other hand was slow with drivers, but since AMD took over, things seem to have improved a lot. But I definitely need to see some improvement from AMD soon with the 7970. It's been 3 months now and they still don't have things bolted down.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> If I decide to go 680 Lightning or 685 down the line I can just sell these Lightnings and get most of my money back out of them....


People are selling ref. 580's here in So-cal for $250 on CL right now. I wouldn't count on getting "most" of your money back.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> Issues I've got:
> 1. System waking to black screen after long idle
> 2. Crashes to desktop (BF3, Metro 2033)
> I'll be doing a clean re-install soon to see if the issues resolve themselves (got a new HyperX SSD 240GB) and see if things resolve themselves. I wish I was as lucky as you are, I don't hate the 7970, I love it's performance, but the issues get annoying after a while.


I totally believe you just saying I haven't experienced those issues. BF3 was as I said a bit funky for me on the release drivers but it has since cleared up. GL getting everything fixed. I wish there was some advice I could inpart on other 7970 owners but it really does seem like some people's systems just don't like AMD drivers for whatever reason.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> The 7970 catches up to the 680 overclocked in BF3. The only way you can make that statement is if you ignore every BF3 benchmark ever made.


If I have to post that BF3 graph again I'm gonna shoot myself.







(search for my 2-3 prior posts about it)

At 1920x1080 the 680 totally dominates the 7970 in BF3, especially min FPS. At this res the stock 680 beats the OC'd 7970.

At 2560x1600 it's a little closer but the 680 still wins. Again min FPS is much better.

The 680 is THE card to have for BF3, period.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sheyster*
> 
> If I have to post that BF3 graph again I'm gonna shoot myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (search for my 2-3 prior posts about it)
> At 1920x1080 the 680 totally dominates the 7970 in BF3, especially min FPS. At this res the stock 680 beats the OC'd 7970.
> At 2560x1600 it's a little closer but the 680 still wins. Again min FPS is much better.
> The 680 is THE card to have for BF3, period.


You said the 580 not the 680. As far as the 680 vs 7970 goes you can have your 4 extra FPS. Not really all that worried about it. And don't worry I have the benchmarks.


----------



## Ironman517

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> You said the 580 not the 680. As far as the 680 vs 7970 goes you can have your 4 extra FPS. Not really all that worried about it. And don't worry I have the benchmarks.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


You should really look at those graphs more carefully. You get an 4fps average increase, but the when you get huge dips in fps (low min fps) is when you really start to see fps lag. That graph shows an OC 7970's min fps lower than the GTX 680 @ stock.

But seriously a card that is basically equal to the 7970 at 85% of the cost, it's a no brainer which one to get.









The cards trade blows, it all depends on the game.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg1/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-introduction.html


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jtom320*
> 
> You said the 580 not the 680. As far as the 680 vs 7970 goes you can have your 4 extra FPS. Not really all that worried about it. And don't worry I have the benchmarks.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really look at those graphs more carefully. You get an 4fps average increase, but the when you get huge dips in fps (low min fps) is when you really start to see fps lag. That graph shows an OC 7970's min fps lower than the GTX 680 @ stock.
> 
> But seriously a card that is basically equal to the 7970 at 85% of the cost, it's a no brainer which one to get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cards trade blows, it all depends on the game.
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg1/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-introduction.html
Click to expand...

You do realize that the GTX680 isn't 85% of the cost right now, right?









The only ones I can even FIND in stock are $600+.


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> You should really look at those graphs more carefully. You get an 4fps average increase, but the when you get huge dips in fps (low min fps) is when you really start to see fps lag. That graph shows an OC 7970's min fps lower than the GTX 680 @ stock.
> But seriously a card that is basically equal to the 7970 at 85% of the cost, it's a no brainer which one to get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cards trade blows, it all depends on the game.
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg1/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-introduction.html


Yeah I totally agree it depends on the games.

Considering both cards min FPS is above 60 though does any of this really matter? I mean if my min FPS is higher then my refresh rate what huge fps lag am I seeing? Please enlighten me.


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You do realize that the GTX680 isn't 85% of the cost right now, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I can even FIND in stock are $600+.


Come on bro, NE is OOS, and they retail for $499.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=gtx+680&x=0&y=0

Don't quote the retailers who are price gouging ATM due to demand, plenty of people picked them up for $499, and they will again when they're back in stock.

The 680's retail price is *10% less* than 7970's.

7970's remain at $549+, and PLENTY are in stock.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=100006521&isNodeId=1&Description=amd+7970&x=0&y=0


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You do realize that the GTX680 isn't 85% of the cost right now, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I can even FIND in stock are $600+.
> 
> 
> 
> Come on bro, NE is OOS, and they retail for $499.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=-1&isNodeId=1&Description=gtx+680&x=0&y=0
> 
> Don't quote the retailers who are price gouging ATM due to demand, plenty of people picked them up for $499, and they will again when they're back in stock.
> 
> The 680's retail price is *10% less* than 7970's.
> 
> 7970's remain at $549+, and PLENTY are in stock.
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&N=100006521&isNodeId=1&Description=amd+7970&x=0&y=0
Click to expand...

The ones that DO have stock....are just that. They actually HAVE stock. If you were to buy one TODAY, the GTX680 is $50 more....TODAY.

Note how in my original post...I said the words "RIGHT NOW"?


----------



## Ironman517

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You do realize that the GTX680 isn't 85% of the cost right now, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I can even FIND in stock are $600+.


uhmmm just bought mine today from newegg for $500? It actually is not impossible to get one for that price. you just have to wait till they come back in stock. Sites have been allowing you to purchase a few at a time every day so far.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The ones that DO have stock....are just that. They actually HAVE stock. If you were to buy one TODAY, the GTX680 is $50 more....TODAY.
> Note how in my original post...I said the words "RIGHT NOW"?


bought one today, EVGA for $500


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> You do realize that the GTX680 isn't 85% of the cost right now, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones I can even FIND in stock are $600+.
> 
> 
> 
> uhmmm just bought mine today from newegg for $500? It actually is not impossible to get one for that price. you just have to wait till they come back in stock. Sites have been allowing you to purchase a few at a time every day so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The ones that DO have stock....are just that. They actually HAVE stock. If you were to buy one TODAY, the GTX680 is $50 more....TODAY.
> Note how in my original post...I said the words "RIGHT NOW"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bought one today, EVGA for $500
Click to expand...

Well you must've gotten lucky, because they're out of stock now.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600315498&IsNodeId=1&name=GeForce%20GTX%20600%20series


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The ones that DO have stock....are just that. They actually HAVE stock. If you were to buy one TODAY, the GTX680 is $50 more....TODAY.
> Note how in my original post...I said the words "RIGHT NOW"?


I understand bud, but like I said, that's not their retail price, and we all know that.

As you can see, it's not impossible to get them for $500 today.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> uhmmm just bought mine today from newegg for $500? It actually is not impossible to get one for that price. you just have to wait till they come back in stock. Sites have been allowing you to purchase a few at a time every day so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bought one today, EVGA for $500


You know how Graphics cards launches are, supply is low in the first few days after launch, remember when the 7970 "launched" in December? How many weeks did it actually take before you could buy them?

Some retailers are price gouging, and if you're patient you can get them for their retail price in the next few days when they're back in stock.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2010rig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The ones that DO have stock....are just that. They actually HAVE stock. If you were to buy one TODAY, the GTX680 is $50 more....TODAY.
> Note how in my original post...I said the words "RIGHT NOW"?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand bud, but like I said, that's not their retail price, and we all know that.
> 
> As you can see, it's not impossible to get them for $500 today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> uhmmm just bought mine today from newegg for $500? It actually is not impossible to get one for that price. you just have to wait till they come back in stock. Sites have been allowing you to purchase a few at a time every day so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bought one today, EVGA for $500
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know how Graphics cards launches are, supply is low in the first few days after launch, remember when the 7970 "launched" in December? How many weeks did it actually take before you could buy them?
> 
> Some retailers are price gouging, and if you're patient you can get them for their retail price in the next few days when they're back in stock.
Click to expand...

7970 launched on Janurary 12th though I thought?









Anyway, yes I do know how it goes. I'm just stating if somebody were to buy one RIGHT NOW / TODAY, and wasn't a lucky person that can snipe newegg....then they're looking at $600 for a normal price...today.

And we have yet to see if AMD is going to price drop the 7970's either, which could happen, and probably will. There's no reason for them to right now with Nvidia's current stock of 680's that seem to be out there though. Once there's more stock of 680's out there though, I'll bet the price will drop on the 7970.


----------



## patawic

it appears that the nvidia drivers dont like triple/quad sli yet, its negative scaling past tri-sli D:


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> You should really look at those graphs more carefully. You get an 4fps average increase, but the when you get huge dips in fps (low min fps) is when you really start to see fps lag. That graph shows an OC 7970's min fps lower than the GTX 680 @ stock.
> But seriously a card that is basically equal to the 7970 at 85% of the cost, it's a no brainer which one to get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cards trade blows, it all depends on the game.
> http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg1/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-introduction.html


I agree on this point. Whatever is now, AMD needs to fix the drivers. Tailored drivers for BF3 would be fine, knowing how popular BF3 is and the raw power the 7970 actually has, optimised drivers would be the way for AMD to go. Nvidia did it before, everyone knows that. Nvidia even get games tailored to perform well on their cards (Batman: AA, AC). BF3 needs to rock and AMD and AMD need to do something now.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> The ones that DO have stock....are just that. They actually HAVE stock. If you were to buy one TODAY, the GTX680 is $50 more....TODAY.
> Note how in my original post...I said the words "RIGHT NOW"?


My local Fry's has EVGA 680's *in stock* for $499...


----------



## jrbroad77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sheyster*
> 
> My local Fry's has EVGA 680's *in stock* for $499...


Having fun with that 9% sales tax in Cali? Most people can find an online store where they don't pay tax, boom, $45 savings.


----------



## Sheyster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jrbroad77*
> 
> Having fun with that 9% sales tax in Cali? Most people can find an online store where they don't pay tax, boom, $45 savings.


Our only real option in Cali for no tax is Amazon or Tigerdirect. Newegg charges us tax too.







Yeah, it sucks, but the weather is beautiful here year round, so it's worth it.


----------



## snipekill2445

lol, only 9% tax? Is that it!

In New Zealand we have a massive 15% Tax!!!!!! Holy damn!


----------



## Badness

10% here in cook county...


----------



## drBlahMan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> 10% here in cook county...


That's why I take the 30 minute drive to Westmont & enjoy the 7.75% tax instead of messin' around with Chicago 10% when shopping @ MC


----------



## mkclan

In Latvia tax is 22%


----------



## Alatar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> lol, only 9% tax? Is that it!
> In New Zealand we have a massive 15% Tax!!!!!! Holy damn!


15% is massive Bwahahahah! Oh wait you were serious.... hahahah








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkclan*
> 
> In Latvia tax is 22%


23% here, I win. (or well lose, but you get the idea)


----------



## 2010rig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> lol, only 9% tax? Is that it!
> In New Zealand we have a massive 15% Tax!!!!!! Holy damn!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkclan*
> 
> In Latvia tax is 22%


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alatar*
> 
> 15% is massive Bwahahahah! Oh wait you were serious.... hahahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 23% here, I win. (or well lose, but you get the idea)


Only on OCN can _*how much tax one pays*_ become a competition.


----------



## snipekill2445

23%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To if you bought a $10.000 car, you'd have to pay another $2300 in tax! Jesusonomitoeturtle!


----------



## Celeras

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pioneerisloud*
> 
> 7970 launched on Janurary 12th though I thought?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, yes I do know how it goes. I'm just stating if somebody were to buy one RIGHT NOW / TODAY, and wasn't a lucky person that can snipe newegg....then they're looking at $600 for a normal price...today.
> And we have yet to see if AMD is going to price drop the 7970's either, which could happen, and probably will. There's no reason for them to right now with Nvidia's current stock of 680's that seem to be out there though. Once there's more stock of 680's out there though, I'll bet the price will drop on the 7970.


There's a brand new 7970 on ebay for $675 at the moment. RIGHT NOW / TODAY if I were to buy from there, that would nullify the $600 680s due to them being temporarily sold out at certain retailers.

See how ******ed your argument is?


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> 23%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> To if you bought a $10.000 car, you'd have to pay another $2300 in tax! Jesusonomitoeturtle!


Nope, car tax I win. A fully imported car would cost say MY$50,000. Tax is MY$50,000. Hahaha! 100%. At least there's no tax on PC parts... hahaha...


----------



## darksideleader

13% sales tax here in Canada.

Jumped on a used 7970 460 shipped CAD.

Saved like $100 if were to buy a new GTX 680.


----------



## -X3-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> Nope, car tax I win. A fully imported car would cost say MY$50,000. Tax is MY$50,000. Hahaha! 100%. At least there's no tax on PC parts... hahaha...


Depends on the car. If it's eco friendly (a hybrid car), the tax should be less. But in this case I win, taxes that are imposed on imported cars come to 120% here.


----------



## mkclan

I do not know where our i-shop (Latvia) is get this prices ASUS GTX680-2GD5 ~655$and ASUS HD7970-DC2T-3GD5 ~710$ . In Newegg only 500$ and 580$.


----------



## Projector

Quote:


> I was coming from 580 Lightnings and had to make a decision 680 vs 7970. I basically went with the 7970 just because of the Lightning being available. I am enough of an MSI Lightning fanboy that I switched GPU manufacturers just to get the newest Lightning! Honestly though I think there is no wrong choice this generation as both cards are so close....


Yes definitely agree with you both are very close I guess it all just comes down to what you can get cheaper where you live or if you do have a favourite brand/team. Oh are the lightnings that good?! I have never owned a lightning version before


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Projector*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I was coming from 580 Lightnings and had to make a decision 680 vs 7970. I basically went with the 7970 just because of the Lightning being available. I am enough of an MSI Lightning fanboy that I switched GPU manufacturers just to get the newest Lightning! Honestly though I think there is no wrong choice this generation as both cards are so close....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes definitely agree with you both are very close I guess it all just comes down to what you can get cheaper where you live or if you do have a favourite brand/team. Oh are the lightnings that good?! I have never owned a lightning version before
Click to expand...

Lightnings are great if your not water cooling. I always buy reference because of the ability to add a water block.
The Sapphire Atomic RX will be coming out soon with 1335mhz core clock, will probably OC to 1400mhz easy. Even a heavily overclocked gtx680 couldn't touch that card at those speeds.


----------



## Andrew Moore

Ive voted 680.

Reason - Ive had both 7970 and GTX680, Both 7970 CF and 680 SLI and in 75% of what i use my cards for the 680s are quicker. The difference is literally 1-2FPS here and there which in cases can be 5-8% but when you consider the very low power requirements of the GTX680 it becomes easier to see that the GTX680 is the better purchase... Just.


----------



## 1rkrage

and I thought Chicago tax at 10% was too much ..


----------



## Ironman517

You guys have some high taxes. I think mine is 5% Could be 6% but that's close enough xD


----------



## Imrac

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> You guys have some high taxes. I think mine is 5% Could be 6% but that's close enough xD


You probably have state income tax as well. Here in Washington, we don't have state income tax, so our sales tax is higher. I think its 9.8% in my city.


----------



## kamenjar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1rkrage*
> 
> and I thought Chicago tax at 10% was too much ..


Yeah, but in Latvia you may be get something for your tax. In Chicago you don't. You get crap roads here that bend your wheels on the winter and pay $5+ an hour to park on the street because the city leased the parking meters to a private company that raised the prices 10-fold


----------



## Badness

I love Chicago. I love the cold too. I just pretend the sales tax and the bull crap roads and the horribly humid summers and the extremely corrupt political system is the "world's best pizza tax".


----------



## TrueForm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *snipekill2445*
> 
> lol, only 9% tax? Is that it!
> In New Zealand we have a massive 15% Tax!!!!!! Holy damn!


It used to be 12.5%


----------



## mkclan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kamenjar*
> 
> Yeah, but in Latvia you may be get something for your tax. In Chicago you don't. You get crap roads here that bend your wheels on the winter and pay $5+ an hour to park on the street because the city leased the parking meters to a private company that raised the prices 10-fold


Road in bad condition, as well as many other things could be better. For Chicago do not know, I have not been there. But CM Punk says that a good city and I believe him.


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TrueForm*
> 
> It used to be 12.5%


We thought 12.5% was alot at the time, lol. Now at 15% it's unbelievable. The problem is they'll probably raise tax again soon enough.


----------



## Robilar

13% here in Ontario Canada. Used to be 15%....


----------



## fineyoung

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Robilar*
> 
> 13% here in Ontario Canada. Used to be 15%....


16% here in QC (Can)








Used to be 15%


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I think the real King is anybody who manages to get their hands on EITHER one of these amazing cards!


----------



## dotcom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Badness*
> 
> I love Chicago. I love the cold too. I just pretend the sales tax and the bull crap roads and the horribly humid summers and the extremely corrupt political system is the "world's best pizza tax".


As a fellow resident of Chicago, I agree.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think the real King is anybody who manages to get their hands on EITHER one of these amazing cards!


I still love my Gigabyte card. Benched on Unigine yesterday for 1 hour loop, max temp was 63C, for like 1 minute, average at 60C. Amazing card. I wish prices would drop already so I can Xfire.


----------



## wardoc22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1rkrage*
> 
> and I thought Chicago tax at 10% was too much ..


WE have 11.9% or something...


----------



## snipekill2445

lol, why 11.9? Why not just 11.5 or 12? Stupid politics...


----------



## afadzil21

Oh boy. GTX 680's finally landed in retail here. Price the same as 7970's. Damn retailers...


----------



## snipekill2445

lol, i thought New Zealand was bad lol. ATM the 7970 is about $840 for a reference. And for a GTX 680 it is about $1000.00


----------



## wongwarren

GTX 680 is RM2300 here in Malaysia. Converted into USD that would be about $733.33.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wongwarren*
> 
> GTX 680 is RM2300 here in Malaysia. Converted into USD that would be about $733.33.


RM1999 at LYP. Just went there. Asus cards. Nice to meet a a fellow Malaysian OCN member.


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> RM1999 at LYP. Just went there. Asus cards. Nice to meet a a fellow Malaysian OCN member.


That's still a good $666.66 USD. That's $166.66 over what they sell in NewEgg. Anyways nice to meet you. And frankly I don't trust LYP plus it's in KL and I live in Puchong, so it's quite inconvenient for me. Digitall Mall in SS17 is the way to go.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wongwarren*
> 
> That's still a good $666.66 USD. That's $166.66 over what they sell in NewEgg. Anyways nice to meet you. And frankly I don't trust LYP plus it's in KL and I live in Puchong, so it's quite inconvenient for me. Digitall Mall in SS17 is the way to go.


Yeah. New cards, steep price, typical. It will probably come down once stocks start showing up a bit more. I'm just waiting for the 7970's to come down to more logical price before I get another for XFire.


----------



## Sumatra

Why are ppl complaining so much about clock speeds? These are two different architectures.


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sumatra*
> 
> Why are ppl complaining so much about clock speeds? These are two different architectures.


Because it Matters. The GTX680 turbos the core to 1100mhz, a good 200mhz+ over the 7970. Thing is both cards can typically hit 1250mhz, and because the 7970 is faster clock to clock it goes to show what the better card is. I care less about what a card can do at stock, only a fool keeps a card at stock.

Personally I think clock for clock measurements are great for benches. Shows the true performance of an architecture, not how high they got it to clock. But performance at its highest clock tend to be the best for knowing how fast the chip really is. Same with CPU's, sure at stock AMD cpu's and intel chips arnt that far apart, but when overclocked intel chips take off.


----------



## Mr.Cigar

Why bother making such comparison? Instead of pushing both to theirs limit and see who's the clear winner? Comparing two different architectures clock to clock just makes no sense.


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> Because it Matters. The GTX680 turbos the core to 1100mhz, a good 200mhz+ over the 7970. Thing is both cards can typically hit 1250mhz, and because the 7970 is faster clock to clock it goes to show what the better card is. I care less about what a card can do at stock, only a fool keeps a card at stock.
> Personally I think clock for clock measurements are great for benches. Shows the true performance of an architecture, not how high they got it to clock. But performance at its highest clock tend to be the best for knowing how fast the chip really is. Same with CPU's, sure at stock AMD cpu's and intel chips arnt that far apart, but when overclocked intel chips take off.


So you're saying everyone who knows how to buy and install a graphics card but not as tech savvy as you to know how to overclock are fools?? Damn these people with their one-sided views.


----------



## jdip

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> only a fool keeps a card at stock.


What a dumb statement.


----------



## jdip

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fineyoung*
> 
> 16% here in QC (Can)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Used to be 15%


Buy online from a retailer based in another province that does not have the business listed in QC, e.g. Newegg/NCIX/Memory Express.

That way you only have to pay 5% GST


----------



## DzillaXx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wongwarren*
> 
> So you're saying everyone who knows how to buy and install a graphics card but not as tech savvy as you to know how to overclock are fools?? Damn these people with their one-sided views.


No but we're here on OCN, If you can make it to this site you better be overclocking your cards. Though if someone knows nothing about overclocking, then they probably know little of benchmarks so for the most part would have no clue what card is better. For those people, what ever card is cheapest is the one they are going to get. But if someone if going to buy a $500 viceocard, I Would think they know what their doing and know how to overclock. Getting a High End GPU and not overclocking it would be like getting a High End CPU and not overclocking it, just doesn't make sense. People that do things like that are fools, overclocking is dead easy and not hard to do. When I was 10 I was overclocking my 486 with jumpers, took it from 100mhz to 120mhz. Also added in a pci rage card, allowed the 486 to play quake. Now you don't need to do anything more then change a few numbers in the bios, people who think overclocking is hard needs to go back to school.

Thing is people are treating the gtx680 like it was some killer card, and while its mostly the nvidia fan boys, a 5-10% increase over the 7970 when the gtx680 has a extra 200mhz to work with isnt that great. Nvidia had 3 months to perfect the card, but after all this time and it's really no better then the 7970.


----------



## snipekill2445

Yea, people who know nothing about card generally think the card with more memory is better. So they'll go for the 7970 anyway


----------



## Rabbs

580's and 7970 prices aren't going down IMO. There still the same on EVGA and Newegg. It's like the 580's went up on EVGA's website lol.


----------



## Ironman517

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> only a fool keeps a card at stock.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> No but were here on OCN


Someone with is kind of attitude should not be speaking on behalf of "we here on OCN"









Sure some of OCN might share your same views, but maybe about 5-10% of OCN thinks a "fool" keeps their card at stock speeds.


----------



## jdip

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rabbs*
> 
> 580's and 7970 prices aren't going down IMO. There still the same on EVGA and Newegg. It's like the 580's went up on EVGA's website lol.


Yes but they are out of stock everywhere, so people only have the choice of 580s and 7970s (those models for the sake of argument) right now.

Once 680s are stocked up everywhere that's when you'll see price changes, if they do happen.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> Someone with is kind of attitude should not be speaking on behalf of "we here on OCN"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure some of OCN might share your same views, but maybe about 5-10% of OCN thinks a "fool" keeps their card at stock speeds.


+1

Speak for yourself lol.


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironman517*
> 
> Someone with is kind of attitude should not be speaking on behalf of "we here on OCN"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure some of OCN might share your same views, but maybe about 5-10% of OCN thinks a "fool" keeps their card at stock speeds.


This.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wongwarren*
> 
> This.


I'm with wongworren on this. Just because you don't keep it OC'ed all the time doesn't mean you're a fool. I bring the speed's down back to stock once I'm done gaming. The boost during gaming is enough. Doesn't mean I need to go nuts OC'ing just because I'm at OCN. Even with my D14 I don't see the need to push my 2600k beyond 4Ghz. It's enough for me get my game on and at least not be at stock. Just because I want to OC conservatively doesn't mean I'm a fool. Not everyone here has money to burn on OC'ing like a madman and frying their CPU's, mobo's or GPU's. It's a matter of choice. You've the right to say what you want DzillaXx, but everyone else here has the right to do and say what they want as well. It's freedom of choice.


----------



## Jabba1977

Hi...to compare....This is with my 24/7 computer:

SLI [email protected]/[email protected], WS RAMPAGE, [email protected], 16GB GEIL DRAGON, M4 128GB...










Link with larger thumb:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51/heaven11d.png/

Regards...

EDIT:

I think Nvidia has a very good job with the GTX 680´s...the performance are one little step with de gtx 590....but the 680 has 2GB of VRAM...and
produce less heat and needs less power ;-P

I must say that my GTX 590 cost me around 450€ (2nd hand) and I´m very, very happy with them....

On the other hand,I don´t like on the 680´s the "turbo boost" and OCP...because limiting (for the moment) the OC depending of his temperature....

P.D.: I can benchmarking with my 590 at [email protected] 720Mhz and my 2500k at 5.1-5.3Ghz but I´d post the settings that I used in my hours of gaming...and my OC´s are solid stable.

Thank you, and sorry for my english I´m a spanish boy.


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> I'm with wongworren on this. Just because you don't keep it OC'ed all the time doesn't mean you're a fool. I bring the speed's down back to stock once I'm done gaming. The boost during gaming is enough. Doesn't mean I need to go nuts OC'ing just because I'm at OCN. Even with my D14 I don't see the need to push my 2600k beyond 4Ghz. It's enough for me get my game on and at least not be at stock. Just because I want to OC conservatively doesn't mean I'm a fool. Not everyone here has money to burn on OC'ing like a madman and frying their CPU's, mobo's or GPU's. It's a matter of choice. You've the right to say what you want DzillaXx, but everyone else here has the right to do and say what they want as well. It's freedom of choice.


Where did you get your D14 and how much did it costed you?? I can only find one unit here in Puchong and I don't wanna go all the way down to LowYat lol. Not sure if Digital Mall has it though.


----------



## Madclock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DzillaXx*
> 
> No but we're here on OCN, If you can make it to this site you better be overclocking your cards. Though if someone knows nothing about overclocking, then they probably know little of benchmarks so for the most part would have no clue what card is better. For those people, what ever card is cheapest is the one they are going to get. But if someone if going to buy a $500 viceocard, I Would think they know what their doing and know how to overclock. Getting a High End GPU and not overclocking it would be like getting a High End CPU and not overclocking it, just doesn't make sense. People that do things like that are fools, overclocking is dead easy and not hard to do. When I was 10 I was overclocking my 486 with jumpers, took it from 100mhz to 120mhz. Also added in a pci rage card, allowed the 486 to play quake. Now you don't need to do anything more then change a few numbers in the bios, people who think overclocking is hard needs to go back to school.
> Thing is people are treating the gtx680 like it was some killer card, and while its mostly the nvidia fan boys, a 5-10% increase over the 7970 when the gtx680 has a extra 200mhz to work with isnt that great. Nvidia had 3 months to perfect the card, but after all this time and it's really no better then the 7970.


Have you ever owned a 7970 or a GTX 680? If not, you are not qualified to make that statement! Either card will beat the GTX 470 SLI in your sig rig! That fact alone makes both of them killer cards!


----------



## jtom320

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madclock*
> 
> Have you ever owned a 7970 or a GTX 680? If not, you are not qualified to make that statement! Either card will beat the GTX 470 SLI in your sig rig! That fact alone makes both of them killer cards!


They would barely beat his 470. In fact I think in some games his 470SLI would win out. Just like the 590/6990 are slower in some games a lot of times they actually end up ahead of both the 680/7970. Although this obviously is not that surprising.


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wongwarren*
> 
> Where did you get your D14 and how much did it costed you?? I can only find one unit here in Puchong and I don't wanna go all the way down to LowYat lol. Not sure if Digital Mall has it though.


Just try the usual suspects on 2nd & 3rd floor at LYP. I have a C12P SE14 I'm looking to sell. Used it before I got the D14. Works amazingly well especially if you know how to direct the air flow in your case properly to take advantage of the C12P's top down design.


----------



## polyzp

More Proof that 7970 beats the GTX 680 clock per clock (1100 mhz / 6 ghz)



What I expected, even OBR a known anti-AMD troll admits the 7970 is better clock per clock!

source

HE ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE 7970 IS *~8.0%* BETTER ON AVERAGE CLOCK PER CLOCK, NOT 1.8%, I DID THE MATH AVERAGING MY SELF! DO IT TO CONFIRM!


----------



## Arizonian

BTW GTX 680's are getting phenomenal scaling. It's no longer a reason 'not' to choose Nvidia any longer. Bad scaling is over with 680's. Getting some OCN members showing darn close to 100% scaling.









Is this a 'perfomance' king thread btw? Seems a lot of back and forth trying to prove FPS as the sole reason to choose even though they are close to care.

Take all the perks, features, pricing, compatibility, gaming conflicts or lack of, graphic rendering, visual quality, into consideration per perfomance is a very viable debate as a whole.

Also we all don't serve the same 'king'. So each persons 'king' may vary. Hence why this thread is a dead end. We're all trying to prove each other wrong is subjectional to opinion.


----------



## polyzp

HE ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE 7970 IS *~8.0%* BETTER ON AVERAGE CLOCK PER CLOCK, NOT 1.8%, I DID THE MATH AVERAGING MY SELF! DO IT TO CONFIRM!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arizonian*
> 
> BTW GTX 680's are getting phenomenal scaling. It's no longer a reason 'not' to choose Nvidia any longer. Bad scaling is over with 680's. Getting some OCN members showing darn close to 100% scaling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a 'perfomance' king thread btw? Seems a lot of back and forth trying to prove FPS as the sole reason to choose even though they are close to care.
> Take all the perks, features, pricing, compatibility, gaming conflicts or lack of, graphic rendering, visual quality, into consideration per perfomance is a very viable debate as a whole.
> Also we all don't serve the same 'king'. So each persons 'king' may vary. Hence why this thread is a dead end. We're all trying to prove each other wrong is subjectional to opinion.


Perfect scaling mean micro stutter.


----------



## Ludking

You need to understand that amd has better multi monitor technology and scales better in crossfire, I assume, plus the 3gb on the card, not only that it is better at compute.

What compute would you be using the 7970 for, I have a feeling I may want to switch to Nvidea for some reason I have neither card, but all of a sudden I got interested in both of them.


----------



## Ludking

Let me correct myself will 680 get better when there is a driver update for the cards from Nvidea? rememnber the AAX2 that needs to be adjusted that may have played a factor in amd being ahead.

Look at tomshardware information.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli-overclock-surround,3162.html

also the 4gb versions have not yet released.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> HE ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE 7970 IS *~8.0%* BETTER ON AVERAGE CLOCK PER CLOCK, NOT 1.8%, I DID THE MATH AVERAGING MY SELF! DO IT TO CONFIRM!


Whats with the caps homey, we get the point... You're an AMD fanboi, congratulations.


----------



## wongwarren

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *afadzil21*
> 
> Just try the usual suspects on 2nd & 3rd floor at LYP. I have a C12P SE14 I'm looking to sell. Used it before I got the D14. Works amazingly well especially if you know how to direct the air flow in your case properly to take advantage of the C12P's top down design.


I'm not sure how the C12P performs against my Hyper 212 Plus but if it does outperform, how much are you willing to let it go for??


----------



## snipekill2445

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> HE ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE 7970 IS *~8.0%* BETTER ON AVERAGE CLOCK PER CLOCK, NOT 1.8%, I DID THE MATH AVERAGING MY SELF! DO IT TO CONFIRM!


That still doesn't justify being $50.00 more.


----------



## polyzp

The 7970 has roughly a 8 % better performance per clock, but Nvidia has a 20% stock clock advantage. The whole point of this thread is for the Performance King, *without* price / acoustics / power usage into consideration.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JedixJarf*
> 
> Whats with the caps homey, we get the point... You're an AMD fanboi, congratulations.


Caps because of such a big mistake in such a simple math problem.


----------



## Ludking

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The 7970 has roughly a 8 % better performance per clock, but Nvidia has a 20% stock clock advantage. The whole point of this thread is for the Performance King, *without* price / acoustics / power usage into consideration.


if you add all those 680 wins


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JedixJarf*
> 
> Whats with the caps homey, we get the point... You're an AMD fanboi, congratulations.


Well it depends what your looking for, you can get a 0 Db 6670, does this mean that its infinitely better than a 7970?







I am talking sheer performance KING!


----------



## afadzil21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The 7970 has roughly a 8 % better performance per clock, but Nvidia has a 20% stock clock advantage. The whole point of this thread is for the Performance King, *without* price / acoustics / power usage into consideration.


Let's see now. If it's the KING of OC, we know the 7970 is a definite beast at it, and NV's GPU Boost and Voltage locking pretty much cripple the 680. But let's talk about stock, which most buyers out there (excluding most OCN members) will actually be gaming at. This is where the 680 shines. I hate having my 7970 beat down by the 680 at stock, but that's the fact right now. The general public will consider the 680 as KING just based on the numbers it pulls against the 7970 at stock, even though it's clocked around roughly 20% higher. Now if AMD were to give us a 7980 with much higher clocks, meaning specially binned chips, clocked exactly the same as the 680's and priced accordingly, then we'll be seeing some real competition. AMD is in trouble. I hate to admit it. But that's the case right now. When the 670, 670 Ti's, and 660's come out, they'll be in an even bigger load of hurt, unless Pitcairn can pull of some miracles and beat the crap out the lower spec'ed Kepler parts.


----------



## polyzp

More 7970 OC cards coming out soon! Its interesting to see that the factory overclocked gtx 680s only go as high as 1150 mhz, which is only 50 more mhz than its stock turbo, yet there are 1100 mhz factory overclocked 7970s coming out really soon, which are 175 mhz higher than its stock clock.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I can't wait to start playing with mine and see what they are capable of!


----------



## Ludking

well, it is true amd is in deep crap. I am sorry, it seems nvidea is up to something or has more version cards in the works.


----------



## Mr.Cigar

Ok, so based on the poll. GTX680 is the real king.
HD7970, a wannabe one.
And people please explain, why comparing two different architectures clock to clock? WHAT FOR?


----------



## Arizonian

Well your thread just went from a poll for us to answer to a biased post by changing the title mid stream like that = big AMD fanboy Nvidia hate thread by the OP.

Not to mention such a cheesy source I laughed pretty darn hard.

Tons of these threads like this. Time for the usual lock once this gets going with the responses. -1 rep









I agree with Jedix - Congrats Polyzp. Thread is FAIL. Regardless who's winning the poll.


----------



## GoldenTiger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> More 7970 OC cards coming out soon! Its interesting to see that the factory overclocked gtx 680s only go as high as 1150 mhz, which is only 50 more mhz than its stock turbo, yet there are 1100 mhz factory overclocked 7970s coming out really soon, which are 175 mhz higher than its stock clock.


Wrong. The very first non-reference/factory OC card I've seen turbos to 1200 stock. Please stop spreading FUD, and I can't help but laugh at your thread title edit to try to sway the poll. The cards are rated at their minimum/average turbo, not their normal/max one. For example, a normal GTX 680 turbos to 1100mhz even though the box says 1156







. Go look at any review. P.S. LOL @ the thread title again... they don't come at the same clocks, so invalid comparison.


----------



## jspeedracer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> More Proof that 7970 beats the GTX 680 clock per clock (1100 mhz / 6 ghz)
> 
> What I expected, even OBR a known anti-AMD troll admits the 7970 is better clock per clock!
> source
> HE ACTUALLY MADE A MISTAKE IT LOOKS LIKE THE 7970 IS *~8.0%* BETTER ON AVERAGE CLOCK PER CLOCK, NOT 1.8%, I DID THE MATH AVERAGING MY SELF! DO IT TO CONFIRM!


If you're going to compare clock for clock on these cards you MUST compare "watt for watt" per se.


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoldenTiger*
> 
> Wrong. The very first non-reference/factory OC card I've seen turbos to 1200 stock. Please stop spreading FUD, and I can't help but laugh at your thread title edit to try to sway the poll. The cards are rated at their minimum/average turbo, not their normal/max one. For example, a normal GTX 680 turbos to 1100mhz even though the box says 1156
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Go look at any review. P.S. LOL @ the thread title again... they don't come at the same clocks, so invalid comparison.


I may not have stumbled upon it, which card clocks to 1200 mhz ?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

No need for the title edit, this was a pretty biased thread against the 680 to begin with. That being said....

My advice to all of my GTX 680 friends is to save it for the Battle Royale thread. There is a whole lot of jawing going on but very few actual submissions over there. Why is that? You guys seem so convinced you have the "superior" cards, well, prove it!


----------



## polyzp

clock per clock comparisons are important for those who will push their GPUs to their absolute maximum, because ultimately the clock difference between an ocd 7970 and an ocd 680 is within error (+-200mhz), with only a slight (~50mhz or so) advantage for nvidia.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> clock per clock comparisons are important for those who will push their GPUs to their absolute maximum, because ultimately the clock difference between an ocd 7970 and an ocd 680 is within error (+-200mhz), with only a slight (~50mhz or so) advantage for nvidia.


Clock per clock doesn't matter man, only ultimate performance. The 680 guys have a perfect opportunity to prove us 7970'ers wrong in the Battle Royale thread. If their cards really are the superior ones surely they should have no problem spanking us in that thread???


----------



## polyzp

That thread is limited to only a couple benchmarks and wont give a good general performance indication other than for those benchmarks. I want to see 100+ benchmarks 7970 vs gtx 680 @ 1250 mhz each, and see the average performance difference in percent.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

RaginCain will expand upon it over time, I'm sure of it...


----------



## Tslm

Clock for clock is meaningless and stupid


----------



## renaldy

*The GTX 680 is 15% better than the AMD 7970 take it a look at this benchmark click image..*


----------



## eternal7trance

All I know is, the games I like playing, the GTX 680 did better so that's why I got it.

Also, it can only get better if you give Nvidia 2.5 months like AMD had.


----------



## polyzp

15% better for 20% higher clocks in one specific test is not impressive given that its OC range is much less than the 7970s.


----------



## Mr.Cigar

So you mean almost every review from the past were completely wrong, just because they didn't make some nonsense clock to clock comparisons?
REALLY?


----------



## Murlocke

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *polyzp*
> 
> The 7970 has roughly a 8 % better performance per clock, but Nvidia has a 20% stock clock advantage. The whole point of this thread is for the Performance King, *without* price / acoustics / power usage into consideration.


Really? Because the title is "7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING?" not "7970 vs GTX 680 - Who performs better?".

If i'm looking for the best card I take everything into consideration. Drivers, Heat, Power Draw, Stock Performance, Overclocked Performance, Etc. The GTX 680 takes the lead in everything and trades blows at overclocked performance on drivers that are 3 months more immature than the 7970s. So yes, The GTX 680 is "king" in my eyes. No questions about it...

Silly clock per clock comparisons mean nothing. You keep grasping at straws to try to defend a card that you don't even own?


----------



## polyzp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> Really? Because the title is "7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING?" not "7970 vs GTX 680 - Who performs better?".
> If i'm looking for the best card I take everything into consideration. Drivers, Heat, Power Draw, Stock Performance, Overclocked Performance, Etc. The GTX 680 takes the lead in everything and trades blows at overclocked performance on drivers that are 3 months more immature than the 7970s.
> So yes, The GTX 680 is "king" in my eyes.


I left it open because i felt that those will ultimatley become a factor whether the title says it or not.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

So where were you when GTX 580's stock speed was 100MHz+ lower than HD6970 and still kicked its ass? Oh that's right, drooling over the failure AMD calls FX-8150.

When did clock for clock matter in graphics cards again?


----------



## ezikiel12

This guy will stop viciously trying to rationalize his dying love for this card once a couple new drivers come out. Nvidia cards over there lifetime see a major performance increase just through newer, more mature, driver releases.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Murlocke*
> 
> Really? Because the title is "7970 vs GTX 680 - Who is the real KING?" not "7970 vs GTX 680 - Who performs better?".
> If i'm looking for the best card I take everything into consideration. Drivers, Heat, Power Draw, Stock Performance, Overclocked Performance, Etc. The GTX 680 takes the lead in everything and trades blows at overclocked performance on drivers that are 3 months more immature than the 7970s. So yes, The GTX 680 is "king" in my eyes. No questions about it...
> Silly clock per clock comparisons mean nothing. You keep grasping at straws to try to defend a card that you don't even own?


He doesn't understand rationalization or logic, posting in this thread is pointless until op loses is sense of fanboi.


----------



## pioneerisloud

Enough is enough. Thread locked, and I don't want to see it reposted either.


----------

