GTX 680 vs 7970 GHZ

[PGSR]

Ok guys iam sure you heard millions of these rather irritating questions, but iam deciding to invest on a high end GPU with for my new build, iam niether an AMD or Nvidia Fanboy and only interested in the best deal i can get. Forgive me for my lack of knowledge, iam really not that much of an expert on this (which is why i joined)

My system:

Antec 900 case
Cooler master gx 550w PSU
8gb DDR3 corsair vengeance 1600mhz ram
Asus p8z77 v lx mboard
500gb hard drive
Intel i5 3570k

The 7970 are quite a bit cheaper, the XFX 7970 can be had for 300 gpb and comes with bio shock infinite and crysis 3 (stock clocked) or the overclocked (not ghz) version for 330. I want to ask is there that much of a difference between the OC 7970 and a Ghz 7970, even though the latter is overclocked, its said to have some minor component upgrades. Alternatively there is the MSI 7970 ghz version.

The cheapest GTX 680 i came across was a EVGA stock reference design for 350 gbp, none reference cards are substantially more expensive, palit gtx 680 costs around 380, gigabyte 680 costs around 385 (overclocked).

I was looking at some benchmarks of crysis 3 and assassins creeds 3, it appeared both gtx 670 and 680 were faster than the 7970 ghz. This could probably be due to driver issues perhaps? Is it true that the gtx 680 performs better at more demanding games? Which of the two (7970 and 680) are more future proof?

Thanks

 

[PGSR]

i didnt mean GTX 680 performs better at more demanding games, but so far on Assassins creed 3 and Crysis 3 they have a considerable higher frame rate from what i saw. Of course this could maybe change after new drivers.

From what i read, they both tie, but most of the reviews i read are from last year, so i want to see which of the two are currently the better and would be more future proof (i know there is no such thing but oh well)

 

[cookybiscuit]

With new drivers the Ghz 7970 kicks the crap out of the 680 as far as speed in concerned, its also considerably cheaper, so you can get a 7970 with a decent cooler, compared to a reference 680.

But, you pay for it in noise and power consumption. If all you are after is speed, then totally ignore anything Nvidia has to offer. As an Nvidia user, the tech crap like adaptive vsync and Physx are pretty worthless, with adaptive vsync theres nothing stopping you just setting a global FPS cap in Afterburner, and Physx is nothing to buy a card over considering its been used in maybe 25 games.

 

[PGSR]

Thanks for adding the extra dimensions of power consumption, physx etc. Iam not hugely persuaded by PhysX as only few games utilize them well although the lower consumption of the GTX 680 also makes it prospective. But i genuinely have not reached a consciousnesses between the two.

Can you look at this benchmark? http://i.imgur.com/gHRrx5k.png
It appears the 7970 is behind, perhaps before the latest drivers?

Also, for the 7970, is there much difference between a OVerclocked (say XFX) and a Ghz version?

Thanks

 

[CaptainTom]

Thanks for adding the extra dimensions of power consumption, physx etc. Iam not hugely persuaded by PhysX as only few games utilize them well although the lower consumption of the GTX 680 also makes it prospective. But i genuinely have not reached a consciousnesses between the two.

Can you look at this benchmark? http://i.imgur.com/gHRrx5k.png
It appears the 7970 is behind, perhaps before the latest drivers?

Also, for the 7970, is there much difference between a OVerclocked (say XFX) and a Ghz version?

Thanks

That bench is pretty biased considering AMD is known for AA and NVidia is known to lagat it. They haven't turned almost any on. I have played Crysis 3, and believe me you want MSAA x4 in that game...

When both cards are overclocked a $375 7970 beats a $470 680 by 10%. Then a GHz edition beats by a sound 15%+. Get the 7970!


Three last things:

-7970's are only as loud as the one you buy. Any dual fan one is quiet!
-7970's use barely any more energy than a 680 unless heavily overclocked. So don't kid yourself, it doesn't even use as much energy as a GTX 580.
-The 7970 GHz is just a 7970 with the best parts possible and a slightly stronger bios. They can overclock 5-10% more than a standard 7970 usually.

 

[PGSR]

I think iam inclining towards the 7970 now

Here are some choices with there respective price (GBP)

GV-R797OC-3GD 311gbp

Asus direct CU II (925 clock speed) but beefy heatsink. 320gbp

XFX 7970 DD (925 stock clock) 300 gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite

XFX 7970 DD Overclocked (1000mhz) 330gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock

Sapphire vapor X 3gb ghz ed (350gpb with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite)

 

[4745454b]

No driver info in that graph so no idea what driver they are using. Check the site to see.

I to am looking at buying a new card. I have three monitors and want to run all three and my TV off of one card. So yes, I'm looking for a big card. So far I am leaning towards the 7950/7970. If you look at performance and the two games that come with it, the GTX cards just don't compete. I do feel overall you'll be fine with either 7950/70 or GTX670/680. But considering the cheaper price and better games I'm going AMD this time. (got a GTX460 in my PC right now.)

-7970's use barely any more energy than a 680 unless heavily overclocked. So don't kid yourself, it doesn't even use as much energy as a GTX 580.

Depends on what you mean by barely. When looking at rated TDP I think the 7970 is almost 50W higher compared to the 680. In any case the 680 will use less power.

 

[jk47]

I am a biased Nvidia user, but mostly just because AMD didn't meet my expectations in the past.

7970 does seem like a good choice for a single card. One warning though, if you want the option to SLI/CF your card in the future, be wary of AMD. Their multi-gpu support is comparatively poor for games, whereas for major releases nvidia seems to have SLI support drivers out same-day or even beforehand

 

[CaptainTom]

No driver info in that graph so no idea what driver they are using. Check the site to see.

I to am looking at buying a new card. I have three monitors and want to run all three and my TV off of one card. So yes, I'm looking for a big card. So far I am leaning towards the 7950/7970. If you look at performance and the two games that come with it, the GTX cards just don't compete. I do feel overall you'll be fine with either 7950/70 or GTX670/680. But considering the cheaper price and better games I'm going AMD this time. (got a GTX460 in my PC right now.)

-7970's use barely any more energy than a 680 unless heavily overclocked. So don't kid yourself, it doesn't even use as much energy as a GTX 580.

Depends on what you mean by barely. When looking at rated TDP I think the 7970 is almost 50W higher compared to the 680. In any case the 680 will use less power.

TDP doesn't mean much. I have measured the amount of energy my 7970 uses and the results are as follows:

-160w at stock
-165w at a 10% performance increase
-225w at a 20% performance increase (Around a 6950)
-250w at a 30% performance increase

When undervolted at stock clocks I have gotten it to as little as 115w (Around a 7850!). The 7970 really doesn't use more power then a 680 unless you want it to.

 

[CaptainTom]

I am a biased Nvidia user, but mostly just because AMD didn't meet my expectations in the past.

7970 does seem like a good choice for a single card. One warning though, if you want the option to SLI/CF your card in the future, be wary of AMD. Their multi-gpu support is comparatively poor for games, whereas for major releases nvidia seems to have SLI support drivers out same-day or even beforehand

Really? Because when I had 6950 crossfire it worked in every game even though I was using one in a x1 slot. Nvidia doesn't even "Support" SLI below x8.

 

[CaptainTom]

I think iam inclining towards the 7970 now

Here are some choices with there respective price (GBP)

GV-R797OC-3GD 311gbp

Asus direct CU II (925 clock speed) but beefy heatsink. 320gbp

XFX 7970 DD (925 stock clock) 300 gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite

XFX 7970 DD Overclocked (1000mhz) 330gbp with crysis 3 and bioshock

Sapphire vapor X 3gb ghz ed (350gpb with crysis 3 and bioshock infinite)

Go with SAPPHIRE. They are crazy reliable, overclock the most, and are usually cheapest. Get a $380 7970 OC or a $470 7970 GHz. One is cheap and powerful, while the other is the strongest single GPU made with a crazy effective cooler.

 

[Murissokah]

Another vote for the 7970, and that's from a GTX 680 owner. For the price difference, AMD takes the cake.

Really? Because when I had 6950 crossfire it worked in every game even though I was using one in a x1 slot. Nvidia doesn't even "Support" SLI below x8.

On that note, I have to second our friend on CrossfireX woes. I had lots of issues on a dual 6870 (x8/x8) setup. Will avoid it like the plague in the future.

 

[bystander]

If you are looking at a single card, then I'd say they are both worth considering, though I might look at the GTX 670 as an option. If you plan to go CF or SLI, atm, there is no doubt in my mind that the GTX 670 option would be best.

While FPS limiters can help with their micro-stutter issue, it does not remove tearing. That is what adaptive-vsync does, when your FPS are good, and allows tearing to keep FPS up when FPS are not good.

You may want to look at these, as they test in new ways that are revealing weaknesses in AMD's cards:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update/Frame-Rat
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/11

 

[avacadobread]

I may not have benchmarks to prove me but from user experience I can always recommend the 7970 over the GTX 680. It is cheaper for a very good HIS model (very good fan, overclocking) than a run of the mill 680.

 

[hero1]

I may not have benchmarks to prove me but from user experience I can always recommend the 7970 over the GTX 680. It is cheaper for a very good HIS model (very good fan, overclocking) than a run of the mill 680.

No offense but you need to clarify what a run of the mill 680 you're referring to. GTX 680 is a beast on its own and can play with the best, yes we support the purchase of a card that is a champion of p/p but GTX 680 is no slouch.

 

[17seconds]

Without realizing the systemic nature of their problem, the guys in this thread below are discussing a couple of common issues that tend to generally plague AMD setups: 1) Poor driver support for new games, 2) A lack of Adaptive VSync resulting in framerates that are limited to 30 FPS with regular VSync.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394999-33-7970-crysis

 

[CaptainTom]

Without realizing the systemic nature of their problem, the guys in this thread below are discussing a couple of common issues that tend to generally plague AMD setups: 1) Poor driver support for new games, 2) A lack of Adaptive VSync resulting in framerates that are limited to 30 FPS with regular VSync.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394999-33-7970-crysis

My driver support from AMD has been far more consistently good than when I used Nvidia.

I only know of 2 games that drop the framerate to 30 while Vsync is on.

 

[CaptainTom]

If you are looking at a single card, then I'd say they are both worth considering, though I might look at the GTX 670 as an option. If you plan to go CF or SLI, atm, there is no doubt in my mind that the GTX 670 option would be best.

While FPS limiters can help with their micro-stutter issue, it does not remove tearing. That is what adaptive-vsync does, when your FPS are good, and allows tearing to keep FPS up when FPS are not good.

You may want to look at these, as they test in new ways that are revealing weaknesses in AMD's cards:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update/Frame-Rat
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/11

Then get a 7950. For $290 it is as strong as a $340 670.

 

[bystander]

Then get a 7950. For $290 it is as strong as a $340 670.

That is up for debate. Sure, the 7950 generally has ever so slightly higher FPS than a 660ti (lower than a 670), it also has issues delivering consistent FPS. It is something being worked on, but it isn't solved:
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/11

 

[Murissokah]

If you are looking at a single card, then I'd say they are both worth considering, though I might look at the GTX 670 as an option. If you plan to go CF or SLI, atm, there is no doubt in my mind that the GTX 670 option would be best.

While FPS limiters can help with their micro-stutter issue, it does not remove tearing. That is what adaptive-vsync does, when your FPS are good, and allows tearing to keep FPS up when FPS are not good.

You may want to look at these, as they test in new ways that are revealing weaknesses in AMD's cards:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-TITAN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update/Frame-Rat
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/11

To anyone wondering about crossfire performance, please read this aticle:

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

It translates my experience with crossfire quite perfectly.

 

[hero1]

Without realizing the systemic nature of their problem, the guys in this thread below are discussing a couple of common issues that tend to generally plague AMD setups: 1) Poor driver support for new games, 2) A lack of Adaptive VSync resulting in framerates that are limited to 30 FPS with regular VSync.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/394999-33-7970-crysis

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.

 

[bystander]

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.

I know what you mean, but it may also depend on what you consider an issue too. There has been a lot of articles written lately about AMD's micro-stutter issue. Many people consider that a driver issue.

 

[CaptainTom]

That is up for debate. Sure, the 7950 generally has ever so slightly higher FPS than a 660ti (lower than a 670), it also has issues delivering consistent FPS. It is something being worked on, but it isn't solved:
http://techreport.com/review/23981/radeon-hd-7950-vs-geforce-gtx-660-ti-revisited/11

There isn't much to debate. Recent benchmarks have consistently shown that an overclocked 7950 beats an overclocked 670.

Then add to it the fact that it costs at least $50 less and comes with an extra GB of RAM (Crysis 3 already uses 2.2 GB oftentimes) and it is just sad that we are even considering a 7950 beating a 670.


Heck, recent TH benchmarks show the 7870 LE (A $240 card) trading blows with the 670.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/message.php?config=tomshardwareus.inc&cat=33&post=396029&numrep=2972021&ref=19&page=1&p=1&subcat=208&sondage=0&owntopic=0&new=0#formulaire

 

[bystander]

There isn't much to debate. Recent benchmarks have consistently shown that an overclocked 7950 beats an overclocked 670.

Then add to it the fact that it costs at least $50 less and comes with an extra GB of RAM (Crysis 3 already uses 2.2 GB oftentimes) and it is just sad that we are even considering a 7950 beating a 670.


Heck, recent TH benchmarks show the 7870 LE (A $240 card) trading blows with the 670.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/message.php?config=tomshardwareus.inc&cat=33&post=396029&numrep=2972021&ref=19&page=1&p=1&subcat=208&sondage=0&owntopic=0&new=0#formulaire

You clearly didn't read the article I linked to you.

 

[CaptainTom]

You clearly didn't read the article I linked to you.

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