[citation][nom]fuzznarf[/nom]Exactly, while you are arguing semantics you are avoiding my point. Most readers here don't care about STOCK FROM FACTORY! they care about OC cards. and i still stand by the fact that the 7970 destroys 680 in compute, and will match 680 in graphics when both are OC to their capacity. [citation]As for improvements, I bet that the 680 would scale exceptionally well with however small of an overclock it can muster. Sure,[/citation]based on what?? you are betting? if you want to argue semantics about overclocking, and then claiming I am putting out false information, you should probably stick to the facts instead of betting.[citation]it probably wouldn't be a large performance gain, but scaling does NOT mean large, it means fairly linear. [/citation] Whoever correlated scaling with large? I said scaling in terms of die shrink. A 20% smaller die does not mean 20% better performance. scaling between circuit size voltage speed performance IS NOT LINEAR. Nobody said anything about running 2 cards. Learn to read.[citation]I'm not sure if I'd call AMD leaving huge headroom a mistake. [/citation] based on all the people who don't read and only look at charts, who think 680 is 'king', it was.[citation]if you overclock your 7970 to the point where it actually beats a 680 (might not be a safe overclock), [/citation] what makes you say it wouldnt be a safe overclock?? more misinformation you are spreading? and FYI i don't have a 7970. Still running a 580.[citation]the 560 TI uses the Fermi arch and the 680 uses the Kepler arch, yeah they are NOT the same. Fermi and Kepler are similar in many ways, but not the same. The 680 uses almost 15% more power than the 560TI, but how much faster is it? About 60% faster. [/citation]60%!?!?! LOL get your facts straight. also, i never said they were the same... learn to read. They are BASED ON THE SAME architecture. [citation]the GPU boost does not lower the clock frequency based on the workload, it increases it based on the workload.[/citation]who said it lowered it based on workload?? learn to read[citation]your entire argument is based on false information that you are trying to spread despite it being wrong.[/citation] look who's talking. you keep 'betting' and putting words in people's mouths. learn to read the article, then learn to read the comments, then learn to respond appropriately. my information isn't wrong,.. the idiotic words that you put in my mouth are. You argue semantics, and use a lot of speculation and conjecture to say I'm wrong. Brilliant.[/citation]
EDIT: (This is where fuzznarf's comment ends, blame fuzznarf's poor citation organization for this discrepancy)
The 560 TI and the 680 aren't based on the same architecture so you already lost. Kepler is more or less based on Fermi, but to say that Fermi and Kepler are based on the same architecture is wrong. Are they similar? Yes. Are they different despite some similarities? Yes and nothing you say can change that fact. There are plenty of differences and that is also why they have different names. Can Kepler be called a gaming improvement upon Fermi? Sure, but an improvement and that which it improves on are not the same, otherwise there wouldn't be an improvement!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-review/14
I only checked the last few benchmarks in the test (I read the whole thing before thinking to check it and only went back a few times) and got about 60%. Now I've checked all 13 gaming test and got a higher number, ~79.5% and by your reaction and this article here, that is a more accurate number. Sorry about that, I didn't expect the last few tests to be so radically different from the first ten or so.
Me saying I bet it would scale well isn't spreading misinformation, it's saying my opinion. I didn't say that it WILL scale well, I said that I expect it too. I based that on the fact that increasing the GPU clock frequency scales well with pretty much every video card I've ever overclocked myself and on these online reviews. It's simple really, GPU clock frequency increases tend to scale performance within 50% of the clock frequency increase. I based that opinion on years of mine and other people's experience with graphics cards.
Looking at the Guru3D review, it seems that the 680 actually does have more overclocking headroom than Tom's thought so long as you didn't use the same overclocking methods used here at Tom's. I think that the Guru3D review is correct about this because it actually made note of how the EVGA Precision program that was used in this Tom's article didn't make much performance difference, but increasing the base clock like conventional overclocking did make a difference.
The picture posted by Why_Me earlier was junk, but now that I've read the Guru3D review, I think that the 680 could have some headroom.
Also, as for me saying that the 7970 being overclocked enough to beat the 680 MIGHT not be a safe overclock, not that it WON'T be a safe overclock. A 5-10% overclock isn't even enough for the 7970 to catch up to the 680, let alone beat it, if the 7970 couldn't beat the 680 in most games even with a 1125MHz GPU clock (slightly over 20%) like this Tom's article says. By that, the 7970 may be able to catch up to the 680 with a 1300MHz GPU clock (and correspondingly greater memory clock), but to actually beat the 680 would need an even greater overclock. Considering that most of the people who really pushed their 7970 only went to about 1300-1400MHz, going beyond that could be an unsafe overclock.
I didn't say that going to 1400-1500MHz so the 7970 will beat the 680 will be an unsafe overclock. Think about it. Most people don't get near that high on air cooling and so I think it might be unsafe. Also, when I say beat, I don't think a 1% or even a 5% improvement, I mean a greater than 5% advantage over the other. Unless the 7970 has a greater than 5% lead in most games when overclocked than the 680, then it's not beating it, it's just too close to see the difference in real life so it doesn't matter.
Obviously NOT misinformation in what I said about that either. Instead of looking at my comment and wondering how it might be right in legitimate ways, you look at how it's wrong in illegitimate ways so you miss how most of it was right because you WANTED it to be wrong.
YOU said that the 680 comes overclocked and lowers it's frequency based on the workload when it actually increases it based on the workload. YOU also said that the 560 TI and the 680 use the same architecture. You did NOT say that they're based off of the same architecture, in which case you would have still been wrong anyway because they aren't based off of the same architecture. Like I said, Kepler and Fermi are similar, but not the same, nor are they based off of the same architecture. Kepler is based off of Fermi. To say that they are based off of the same architecture implies that they have a common heritage instead of one being the heritage of the other.
You are the one who has spread misinformation and then lied about it. I cited your own comment and then you denied what you said despite it being right there for all to see. That's one of many serious problems with many people today; they enjoy an argument more than finding the truth in the argument.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram