GTX 680 vs 7970 GHZ

[bystander]

Outdated information.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

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

What about: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update/Frame-Rat

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

 

[17seconds]

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

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvidia_driver_performance_summary_review/6#.UTUG8hPTmUk
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/21/2012_nvidia_video_card_driver_performance_review/6

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

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

 

[hero1]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvidia_driver_performance_summary_review/6#.UTUG8hPTmUk
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/21/2012_nvidia_video_card_driver_performance_review/6

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

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

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

 

[CaptainTom]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvidia_driver_performance_summary_review/6#.UTUG8hPTmUk
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/21/2012_nvidia_video_card_driver_performance_review/6

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of the day I see someone here saying they had AMD crossfire problems, me saying I have had Nvidia problems, and another person saying he has had none from either. So obviously, neither company has perfect or terrible drivers. Mileage WILL vary. Now can we get back to facts?

 

[CaptainTom]

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

What about: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update/Frame-Rat

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

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

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

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

 

[4745454b]

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

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

 

[bystander]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, what is better is up for debate. I personally would still get a 680 over a 7970. Partly because of the above issues, and for the fact that I also use 3D Vision.

 

[bystander]

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

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

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

My point is you should consider both, and not ignore the problems.

 

[17seconds]

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

Date: Monday , March 04, 2013
Author:Grady McKinney
Editor:Brent Justice
2012 AMD and NVIDIA Driver Performance Summary Review
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvidia_driver_performance_summary_review/6#.UTUfCxPTmUl

 

[CaptainTom]

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

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

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

 

[bystander]

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

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

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

I'd also like to note that I have used a lot of Crossfire and SLI in the last few builds. I have noticed that with Crossfire setups, I'm constantly fussing with MSI Afterburner and CCC to keep things going the way I like. With SLI, I have a tendency to just plug them in and ignore them.

 

[17seconds]

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

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

 

[CaptainTom]

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

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

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

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


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


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

Here is the TH GPU hierarchy:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

As you can see it goes:

7950=670
7970=680
7970 GHz beats all

You also know which are cheaper.

We gave you the info, close the thread!

 

[17seconds]

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

 

[drinkingcola86]

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

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

Mind linking the article because other sites have shown;

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

 

[bystander]

Mind linking the article because other sites have shown;

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

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

 

[smeezekitty]

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/3991/amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition-vs-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-frametimes-review

 

[CaptainTom]

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

I am taking these into account:

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

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

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

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


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

 

[bystander]

I am taking these into account:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[darkspartenwarrior]

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

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

AMD also wins if you want high AA/AF (8x/16x)

 

[cookybiscuit]

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

 

[bystander]

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

A fair amount of people do as a result of issues like this. It may not be so severe everyone is annoyed by it, but it is something many people do find distracting, while others would see a difference in a side by side comparison, but would not have complained about it.

 

[CaptainTom]

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

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

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

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

So yeah I do feel I am right since all of your "facts" are really opinions I don't agree with, whereas my facts are FACTS.

 

[17seconds]

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

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

Luckily, no one actually wants to convince the committed fan of anything contrary to their hard-set beliefs. It's the non-committed inquisitor who comes to the forums seeking guidance who should pay attention and heed advice, particularly when it's advice accompanied by evidence, rather than pre-supposition and hearsay.

 

[smeezekitty]

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

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

But realistically, perfect hardware does not exist.