GTX680 and 7970 vram

[Bl1zz4rd]

I've been becoming rather annoyed by the lack of solid answers with reference to the vram amounts on the two top single-GPU cards available at the moment being sufficient for gaming. What is certain is that as it stands, the GTX680 is the best, despite it's smaller amount of memory.

I am not concerned about pricing, temperatures, fan noise or appearance. I merely want to have a card which will be able to sustain playing every single game that is currently out and will be released before the next generation of GPUs are launched. I want to be able to play them with ALL the settings on MAX, everything that can be enabled, enabled and with 'decent' FPS (ie. no lag.) I have been doing the same thing for ages - buying the top single-GPU card, playing everything on max for a year and then getting another, so as to keep up with the games which are released.

I have a number of questions that are unanswered, despite my reading and watching numerous reviews (both specific to each card and comparative) and scrolling through a large amount of threads related to the topic.

1. Why is it that Nvidia released the 680 with 2GB when they knew that AMD had a card out with 3GB. Providing more memory would make the cards last longer. Was it due to their knowing that without it, the card would still win, and therefore they saved on costs? I have read, on multiple sites, that the 680 is in fact what the 670 was going to be and was labelled the 680 when Nvidia saw that their expectations of the 7970 were greater than what was produced.

2. How is it that Nvidia managed to get the 680 to win, with less memory? Is it due to the fact that games don't require more than 2GB at present? Is it because of the memory clock being higher? (I have read somewhere that this may be the case.) Does the processing power counter the card having less memory?

3.Do games at present require more than 2GB of vram? I know this relates to the above question, but it's distinct. Will there be games throughout the next year that do? The next Metro, Crysis 3 and Max Payne 3 are all games that I suspect of doing so.

4. Is there a way to tell, genuinely, how much memory a game uses? I have seen opinions amounting to 'a game uses whatever is available, so if the card has 3GB, the usage results will be close to this.' If that is true, how is the actual usage determined?

I can already see this thread being filled with people saying 'blahblah, games don't require more than 1GB of ram, i still have a card-x and it runs everything on max' and 'if you want to run multiple monitors, you need more than 2GB, otherwise not nonsensenonsense.' There will probably be a lot of biased opinions, due to certain people liking one of the two brands more. Hopefully, there won't be much of that though, and the thread can be a logical, fact-motivated discussion, rather than a harsh debate.

I am accustomed to building PCs and keep up-to-date with the latest hardware developments. I say this so that people don't suspect me of being a complete noob, with a lack of understanding, and decide to explain things using simple terms.

I am gaming with a 27" 1080p LCD and would like (if possible with a single card) to get above 60fps in all games. If not, I may consider getting another. No other components in my system will result in the card's performance decreasing. For the sake of equality, I will be buying a stock card, using a reference PCB design and cooler. If it turns out that the 2GB 680 will last until the next generation of cards, then I'll get it, as I like the new technology that Nvidia has included, such as FXAA, adaptive V-sync and the proven-to-make-a-difference-in-visuals PhysX. I don't care that only a few games use PhysX, if the option is available, I'd like to be able to make use of it. Better graphics are better. Aah, circular logic.

 

[davemaster84]

30 FPS On bf3? Their pc's most be broken for sure, if yopu want I can upload multiplayer videos with ultra at 1080p around 60 to 80 fps. Besides what's wrong with the low power requirement? I'm actually happy I don't have to buy a 1200 PSU to make a SLI in the future or having to get an aftermarket cooler like gelid icy to avoid my card from getting close to temp threshold.

Sorry to say this but I think you've overlocked at the facts and you're sustaining your opinion in nothing but suppositions, first as I said before I was able to run games that are supposed to use near 2gb vram with a gtx460 sli (1gb) and I never saw frame drops or something (bfbc2) . Tahiti has been beated by kepler in most benchmarks in stock vs stock comparisons.

Will nvidia be good for the future? No one can predict what's going to happen but I don't think nvidia will release it's flagship been aware that in 6months will be experiencing serious hardware issues, and as I said before if we think about "the future" then amd fx processors have clearly beaten intel's i5, i7 just that we are not aware now (yeah sure) . Games could tsart using up to 6 cores, maybe 8 but they might be just take a good use from 4, noone knows.

 

[davemaster84]

Yeah but remember that according to darksalvatore I wont get more than 30fps

 

[davemaster84]

Thanks man! I know that I was a little mean to the topic but I can't stand people telling things that are not true oe a least have some explanation behind; actually I saw 1 guy on youtube posting a 30fps bf3 with the 680 asking what was going wrong, a week after he posted again saying that it was his psu fault, he replaced it and now he runs the game between 60 to 80 as it's supposed to be. BTW I saw a picture of your rig, at those aftermarket coolers on your 480's hard to install?

 

[davemaster84]

Thanks! I was thinking on doing that when I get a 2nd 680, although I'll neeed a new processor and psu so it wont happen too soon hehe.

 

[darksalvatore]

recon-uk

actually on my overclocked msi 6950 twin frozen when i thi like 950 mhz ... i never had below 30 fps to .... but as you know i don't like OC ing ... so on stock clocks i golt like 22 fps drops on gulf of oman or any karaknd map .... even on stock clock never dropped under 30 on nonkarkand maps

well and if i get mainboard like you i think i won't have any problems with overheating .... pci slots are far enough

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

homiezheadsup, in reference to the coil whine, i'm still trying to figure out if it's a case of all the cards that will be produced having a chance of being affected or if it was just one group that came out which had some. There are people who claim that there is no noise of that kind at all with their 7970s, but it's a risk, and one I'm not too eager to take. Which warranty are you referring to? Hopefully if it does happen, the supplier will be willing to replace it, but the next few could also have the noise. It's all really rather irritating, considering the effort required to get what you should rightfully have from the start. Unnecessary stress. It's definitely something I would have found difficult to imagine unless without having first-hand experience with it. And now that that experience has been had, I'm skeptical about all other cards, and will be in the future too, which is sad. At least I can check online to see if the problem is occurring with new cards before buying one myself. I have, however, heard that the Asus direct cu2 versions don't have it. I've seen numerous people comment online about theirs and not one of them has said that it does. This must be due to how heavily customized their cards are and whatever it is they've done to them must've fixed it. I was surprised to find out that the standard 7970 from Asus has actually been replaced with the direct cu2 version. That's never happened in the past, but it saves them money in terms of production and it IS better, so there's no real reason, other than providing a 2 slot card as well, to keep supplying the standard one. It runs cooler and quieter and looks better. It's also, again surprisingly, cheaper than it's competitors (other standard cards and customized ones), never mind costing the same. That has also not happened in the past as far as what I've seen on various online stores. If i do get a 7970, it'll be one of those. They sound much more trustworthy. One shouldn't have to seek out a specific manufacturers card to avoid a problem that never should have existed, as it's caused by improper assembly. But at least there is one available.

I don't want to assume from what I read in your comment, so I'll ask you for clarification. What are your two 'deal-breaking points'?

Hah, no-ones ever made that connection before. I've never actually played a Blizzard game before, not 'cause I purposefully avoid them, but due to the fact that I'm a predominantly FPS gamer. Cod and such, for online. Offline I play usually the popular mainstream titles, mostly RPGs, with large expanses, nice graphics and intriguing story-lines. As such, I haven't seen much about the requirements for such games when there's a lot of activity within them, but what you're saying makes sense.

The point about the 680 seeming to be less that what it could've been bothers me too. I don't mind if the new cards are released next year, as, as I mentioned before, I upgrade every year because of the constant advancements and hardware being released with such small gaps between generations. I can see how it'd be a problem for you though, what with your building a PC to last a while.

Everyone who has commented in reference to the PC being too advanced for Blizzard games, nowhere in homiezheadsup's comment did I see anything about the only games being played being Blizzard games. I know of many people who build PCs to sustain them for numerous years and from what I've heard, all the bases have been covered, which is good.

darksalvatore, it's not a matter of 'need' for everyone. Some people just want to be prepared for anything they may decide to do in the future and/or like having extremely powerful PCs for no particular reason, much like myself. I upgrade every year, not because I NEED to play all the latest games on max settings, but because I LIKE having a beast PC.

I'm still not sure as to how the lower bus width and bandwidth on the 4GB versions of the 680 limit it compared to the higher levels of those aspects with 3GB 7970s.

It would be nice if someone could summarize the differences between the HUGE amounts of AA methods available. I never, until my comparing the 7970 and 680 recently, knew there were so many, and they matter as they form part of deciding which GPU to get. Nvidia seems to be talking a lot about FXAA and TXAA. I have no idea what those are and how they compare to MSAA (the only one I've used before) and other settings from both competitors.

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

Awesome. I saw one a while ago, but it didn't really help with distinguishing them. I figured someone could provide a shorter description of what they are and which they think is best. This is one of the times when I don't like the variety of things available and would rather have one good setting as opposed to many questionable ones. Does the fact that the new ones are being developed mean that MSAA will cease being relevant in games? It still seems to be the best, but that didn't seem to stop the manufacturers from creating new settings, so it might not stop them from ignoring the old ones entirely.

One thing I only began considering today is using a lesser-quality Nvidia GPU for dedicated PhysX processing and a 7970 for everything else. I'm aware of the many ways Nvidia tries to prevent this, but there is a hack. I'm not sure if it's constantly being updated though. The last comment in the official thread was in December last year, which provides possibility for there being no update to allow for the latest drivers to work, and the latest games, for instance Batman: Arkham City, which I really want to play using PhysX.

Fortunately the 'hacking' required needs to be done with the Nvidia drivers, resulting in the 7970 being safe from exploding in my face should something go awry. It's disappointing that AMD cards don't make use of the feature, so that people could avoid having to go to Nvidia if they want it or use this hack and even more disappointing that Nvidia doesn't allow their cards to be compatible with AMDs. All down to competition and higher revenue.

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

Yeah, their representation could even be fake. Show one pic with jagged edges, show another with smooth edges. 'Look at our new feature, it's amazing, it makes for better gaming.' 'Yay us.'

I'm still wondering about which aspects of the GPU memory the games that are termed 'vram intensive' require. The only 4GB 680 which has been produced has the same bandwidth as the 2GB versions, due to it having the same memory clock speed and bus width. Therefore if the games require a higher level of memory bandwidth, there's no point in adding more memory. It'd be really interesting to see what the difference in memory usage and FPS is in modded skyrim between the two cards.

 

[alrobichaud]

My 2 cents. I have two 7970's and with a resolution of 6048x1080 in ultra settings on the operation metro map in 64 player multiplayer, I only get an average of 60fps with 2xAA. There is no stuttering of any kind with my setup. I cannot max the game at this res nor can sli 680's. Both setups will get about the same fps at this resolution but the key here is that the 680's 3dsurround only has a high framerate on the center monitor and lower framerate on the peripheral monitors. I find I use the side monitors a lot and I would not want to have lower fps on those. If AMD did that I am sure the 7970's would do much better. For a single card at 1920x1080 I would definitely go with the 680 but for multi monitor I would chose the crossfire 7970's. Look at the tom's part 2 680 review. With no AA the 680 hits 15fps more on bf3 but with 2xAA the 680's loses 22fps and the 7970's only lose 10 to close the gap to 3. I bet if they cranked the level of AA to 4x the 7970's would be in the mid 40's and the 680's would be unplayable.

 

[darksalvatore]

i just checked adaptive vsync .... i got same fps with standard vsync + triple buffering .... there was not any difference we don't know what will be TXAA ..... but now radeon 7970 is again 500$ witch is a bad thing .. i fount gtx 680 evga superclocked for 5 minutes for 530$ .. and that will be better deal i think .... can't wait to buy any cad .. i still have to wait like 1 week to get enough money for it and on 10 may gtx 670 ti will be relesed and we all will see how strong it will be .... people say that it will be 20% slower then 680 .... but i think it will be only 10% slower ... 192 less cudas and 50mhz less ... won't be 20% differnece in performnace i think

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

recon-uk, that was unnecessary. The entire point of this thread is to compare two cards, and as a result the foundation of most of the comments will be 'x is better than y'. If you don't like looking at discussions like this, don't bother. But making yourself part of the thread only to say that you don't like threads like this is, well, ******* stupid.

darksalvatore, i agree, it is easy to base discussions about GPU performance around reviews. That's what their purpose is. What I find works is to merely ignore random hateful comments like that and continue talking about relevant things.

Adaptive V-sync isn't supposed to provide better FPS, but rather prevent screen-tearing as a result of FPS changes during gameplay. Because of that, I'm not surprised you didn't see any difference.

BigMack70, I hadn't looked at the situation from that perspective. I suppose it is nice for people to have choice, but I've always enjoyed Nvidia having an undoubtedly more powerful single-GPU card as their flagship. It made deciding easier, as every aspect was better than the AMD cards.

The fact that there are positive and negative consequences to buying both Nvidia and AMD doesn't negate the need for deliberation when deciding what to buy. Conversely, it CREATES the need for such consideration. One has to prioritize features in order to choose properly, as opposed to making a quick decision for the sake of getting it over with. It's even more important to spend time doing this in this instance, as the two GPUs being discussed are the most expensive at present. For many people, mistakes are terrible. I need to have more information before I decide. I'd hate to regret buying something afterwards and have to change.

The idea of using the aforementioned hack is very appealing, as it would enable me to have the higher memory aspects of the 7970 with Physx simultaneously. If that was possible on one card, I'd probably be running two of them already and raping everything that comes my way.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Let's behave!

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

That's exactly what I've been requesting the entire time.

I don't think a thread should be closed, resulting in other people not being able to use it, because of the unnecessary comments of one person.

Again, I want this thread to consist of a discussion, not an argument. From now on, I think those who are intent on using it properly should just ignore the comments of those who aren't and continue as though they don't exist.

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

BigMack70, whaaaaaat? How is that possible? Can you provide a link to the page from whence that image comes? I've always thought that the only way to enable PhysX was by having an Nvidia card. It's an Nvidia-owned feature.

Perhaps it's just a typographical error or the PhysX setting doesn't apply to the AMD cards.

I'm willing to play Arkham City at 48 FPS (will actually be more, considering I play games at 1920x1080) so as to enable PhysX. It looks AMAZING in that game.

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

BigMack70, shot for the links. Wow, I'm surprised people haven't pushed Nvidia to stop doing that, especially considering how long it's been happening. Is there any way to counter it?

Any idea what the baseline CPU required to run PhysX with decent frame-rates is?

Enabling PhysX on neither of the cards would create a genuinely even test of the cards. This review, like all the others I've read, didn't enable it. It doesn't include the 680, as it was produced prior to the 680's release, but it's still relevant and compares the 7970 to the 580 and it's predecessor, the 6970, the only other two cards available at present which I'm interested in seeing compared to the 7970.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1361/pg10/amd-radeon-hd-7970-graphics-card-review-batman-arkham-city.html

Is there no chance of AMD creating a competitive feature? They've had a long time to do it, it's strange they haven't.

I've seen some comments in reference to what happened with PhysX a while back, when it was beginning to be implemented. Names mentioned were 'Havok', 'Intel' and the two GPU companies. Nvidia bought the producers of PhysX and began using it exclusively for their cards. Sometime after that they disabled AMD primary cards working with Nvidia dedicated PhysX cards alongside, through drivers updates.

 

[alrobichaud]

Back to the question of VRAM. So this what gpuz and msi afterburner show for dedicated vram usage while playing bf3. This is at 6048 x 1080 ultra settings with 2xAA . I am a bit confused as to why both programs show my max usage at 3.5GB.

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

alrobichaud, lol, now that is strange.

Be happy your GPUs are giving you an extra half a GB of memory.

A 7970 Crossfire configuration is a relatively new concept, so perhaps the utilities aren't able to give correct results for memory (and perhaps other things that have yet to be noticed) and need updates in order to work properly.

 

[alrobichaud]

That is strange. Anyway, I had alt+tab out of the game because I noticed that my custom fan profile was not working and my temps were hitting the high 60's which is not normal. GPU 2 has an average of 98 % while gpu 1 still hovers around 80 but that only appears to be in bf3 so far. I do admit that SLI is supposed to be better but on other games I do hit high 90's on both cards. I would like to see some sli gtx 680 results to compare to. I tried 4xAA this time and for some strange reason it shows as 4GB usuage on both cards in afterburner and gpuz.

 

[Bl1zz4rd]

alrobichaud, try setting everything to max and see how high it goes. Why were you using 2x AA initially? Were you just testing different setting combinations to see what the memory usage results would be? You should definitely run the game on max with two 7970s.

BigMack70, nice to get a descriptive answer. I think I'll just get a 7970 and use my CPU for PhysX. I'm much more partial to getting one now that I know that's possible. Hopefully the FPS is what, or close to what was in the review you linked, as that is acceptable.

If I ever need more GPU performance for games before the next generation is released, I can get another. By then, no game should not work with a 7970 Crossfire configuration and the drivers will have improved, increasing performance. At least I know I won't be limited by memory.

 

[Guest]

You know it really comes down to features on what to choose simple fact is the performance itself isnt enough to choose one over the other.If the gtx 680 had come out first before the 7970 i would have gotten that im sure.Ive seen both cards in action and the difference other then features from both cards are practically even.My friend has a gtx 680 and we traded for a day and i wasnt anymore impressed with one over the other to be honest.I would probably give gtx 680 sli the edge over 7970 crossfire though i seem to have a hard time getting xfire to work properly.If you are a single card user though its even about as even as you can get.

 

[darksalvatore]

PhysX ? well it's not a bad thig but on reviews i expect from gtx 680 better .. i mean they said that gtx 680 will have a lot faster performance with PhysX then old generations but is it really so ?
and one more thing .... i don't know maybe PhysX will be used in crysis 3 or BF3 ... but now i play only few games ... Skyrim , Bf3 and sometimes Crysis 2 .... no one of them use PhysX ....

and about vram .... as i said ..gtx maybe beats 7970 inc cf.... but when future comes and games will take like 2.5 or 3gb vram .... then gtx 680 willl fail .... so you have to get 4gb version or take 7970 i think

 

[Guest]

PhysX ? well it's not a bad thig but on reviews i expect from gtx 680 better .. i mean they said that gtx 680 will have a lot faster performance with PhysX then old generations but is it really so ?
and one more thing .... i don't know maybe PhysX will be used in crysis 3 or BF3 ... but now i play only few games ... Skyrim , Bf3 and sometimes Crysis 2 .... no one of them use PhysX ....

and about vram .... as i said ..gtx maybe beats 7970 inc cf.... but when future comes and games will take like 2.5 or 3gb vram .... then gtx 680 willl fail .... so you have to get 4gb version or take 7970 i think

I feel bad for you i remember when building my pc before i even had the money i was doing hundreds of hours of research before i had the money and i must have changed my mind 100 times lol.I remember going back and forth on the gtx 580 3gb classidied card and the 7970.Even know i liked the build of the gtx 580 card better i just couldnt get over the 20-30% performance difference so i went with the faster card.You might even change your mind a few times.I lost alot of sleep over this i mean were talking alot of money in hopes you make the right decision.It should be an easy decision for you though since you dont overclock i would either get the 7970 overclocked version or a straight gtx 680..

 

[darksalvatore]

recon-uk

i haven't said anything bad to you and my english is not you problem ... i said that it was half-joke .... but if you are so sensitive .. go watch twilight or some girl movies and cry don't post here ^^ this forum is for real men )))

 

[davemaster84]

Guys it's so easy to understand. If you search the web you'll find thousands of topics about people who owns a ps3 flaming at xbox 360 owners and backwards most of the time with stupid arguments. Keplers is better than 7x series just because it was released after I bet in 6 months when amd releases the 8x cards they will be better than kepler and we'll have a topic like this but with 680 owners claimming there's not so much difference etc. I think this topic should be closed (again) because people who turn to Tom's hardware seeking advice will be confused and probably will end thinking that the 7970 and the 680 have a lot of issues that are actually fake. So guys get over it, you AMD fans will never acept nvidia and we'll never accept AMD so lets just keep it that way.

 

[boju]

^^ except Nvidia have better drivers =]

uhoh what have i done ^_^