The GeForce GTX 770 Review: Calling In A Hit On Radeon HD 7970?

[Aleppi]

too bad i bought the 670 right before the 700 series. 🙁 well at least i can always buy another one

 

[renz496]

I hope they can work on reducing the power consumption of these cards. It seems like they have not done much on that front. I am disappointed by the fact that there seem to be no accessories that can help use the case as a heat sink and thus help with the TDP. We have all these metal holding the pc together it does nothing.

All they did was overclock the GTX 680, so of course power consumption increased. That's unavoidable.

the official TDP of GTX770 is higher than GTX680 but in techpoweup review they mention that the power consumption actually slightly better than GTX680.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/25.html

Gaming power consumption is slightly below the GTX 680, which is reasonable and as expected. Non-gaming power consumption has been advanced further by adding a new clock state that runs 135 MHz GPU clock, which is a good improvement over the 300 MHz we've seen before.

 

[Sakkura]

the official TDP of GTX770 is higher than GTX680 but in techpoweup review they mention that the power consumption actually slightly better than GTX680.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/25.html

Gaming power consumption is slightly below the GTX 680, which is reasonable and as expected. Non-gaming power consumption has been advanced further by adding a new clock state that runs 135 MHz GPU clock, which is a good improvement over the 300 MHz we've seen before.

That's odd. Very different from what Chris Angelini found, and not what the TDPs would suggest (the 770 has a 230W TDP, the 680 a 195W TDP). It also seems weird that the exact same GPU at higher clocks would consume less power. I suppose Techpowerup may have gotten a cherry-picked sample.

 

[orca_sweets]

I hate to point this out, but they basically said this thing is pointless overclock right? Well most 7950 after a little tweaking and match the performance of a maxed 7970. So where do these new cards sit after both the 7900s and the 770 are overclocked to the max? I am willing to bet money that they perform the same, and I can get a 7950 off ebay for $200 these days. Sounds like a win win to me.

 

[Sakkura]

The 7950 doesn't quite catch up to the GTX 770, there is a pretty large gap at stock. But the 7970 definitely does, and should even jump into the lead in the majority of games.

Of course, overclocking is variable, so you never know just how far you'll be able to get with one particular card.

 

[renz496]

the official TDP of GTX770 is higher than GTX680 but in techpoweup review they mention that the power consumption actually slightly better than GTX680.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_770/25.html

Gaming power consumption is slightly below the GTX 680, which is reasonable and as expected. Non-gaming power consumption has been advanced further by adding a new clock state that runs 135 MHz GPU clock, which is a good improvement over the 300 MHz we've seen before.

That's odd. Very different from what Chris Angelini found, and not what the TDPs would suggest (the 770 has a 230W TDP, the 680 a 195W TDP). It also seems weird that the exact same GPU at higher clocks would consume less power. I suppose Techpowerup may have gotten a cherry-picked sample.

maybe they got lucky? if they got cherry picked card nvidia must doing the same to other reviewer. or it could be program used to test the power consumption? in this case TPU using Crysis 2 to stress the card.

 

[somebodyspecial]

The 7950 doesn't quite catch up to the GTX 770, there is a pretty large gap at stock. But the 7970 definitely does, and should even jump into the lead in the majority of games.

Of course, overclocking is variable, so you never know just how far you'll be able to get with one particular card.

1920x1080 (since 98.75% of us use 1920x1200 or less according to steam)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_770/6.html
7970ghz vs. 770 win or lose?
Assassins creed loss
Battlefield 3 loss
Bioshock Infinite loss
Borderlands 2 loss (huge loss, loses to 670 even)
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 loss (HUGE to 770, again to 670 also)
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger loss (HUGE, 183vs152)
Crysis TIE (63.6 vs. 63.5, but loss by same .1 to ref-so tie)
Crysis 3 loss (win at 2560 but at under 20fps both…lol)
Diablo 3 loss (big loss)
Far cry 3 loss (big loss)
Grid 2 win (big win)
Hitman Absolution win (big win)
Metro Last Light loss
Sleeping Dogs loss
Starcraft 2 loss (HUGE LOSS 49fps vs. 82!, 770 even beat Titan…LOL)
Skyrim loss (again 770 TIES TITAN)
Tomb Raider win
World of Warcraft loss (HUGE >20%)

14 losses for 7970ghz, ONLY 3 wins. Many on 770's wins are HUGE. What benchmarks are you showing 7970ghz winning besides the listed ones? Much of the same happens at 2560x1600, though many of them are under 30fps anyway so not playable (crysis 3 etc teens already at avg, metro ~35 avg so 20's or lower min). I can find other games elsewhere as wins for 770 also (batman AC at hardocp etc).

ZOTAC tested is ref clocked as they state in the review. Overclocking shouldn't change much as both gain about 150-200mhz. Nevermind that both will chew through watts & heat at these clocks. Also 770 comes with memory that can hit 8ghz as Anandtech shows etc. So you may get more or at least the same since 7970ghz are stuck with older mem and not refreshed.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6994/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-review/5
Total War Shogun 2 loss
Civilization 5 loss
I don’t count Dirt Showdown or Crysis Warhead neither of which is played at all and reviews of showdown at metacritic are terrible. Warhead shows ZERO people on servers (google it, not sure why they even bother at anandtech) and showdown doesn’t even register 100K sales at vgchartz. But they are both wins for AMD…again though, who freaking cares, nobody plays.


Two more games added (just adding different ones)
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_gaming_review,11.html
MOH Warfighter tie (1920x1200 tested not 1080, but same thing bandwidth wise)
Metro 2033 Last Refuge LOSS
Note even Ryan Smith (who loves AMD...LOL) says 770 wins by 8% avg overall.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/5516/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-2gb-video-card-review/index6.html
Phantasy Star Online 2 Loss
Lost Planet 2 LOSS (HUGE)
Just Cause 2 win
F1 2012 loss
Nexuiz win (but 30/38fps AVG, so not even playable anyway+54 metacritic )
Sniper Elite v2 loss

I think that's 21 wins for 770, and what 5 for 7970ghz?. GAME OVER. I consider anything over 10% BIG, ~20% HUGE. So many of NV's are very good. Might want to edit your post, or prove otherwise? I don't count synthetic crap either (3dmark etc). ONLY GAMES, not that I'm saying one wins over the other in synthetics, just that I don't even look at them. They mean nothing.
2560x1440 & up means nothing without 2 cards (and a lot are under 30fps single). So don't waste time quoting those to me either. Steampowered hardware survey says 1.25% use above 1920x1200, and a portion of those are using 2 cards, again making that topic pointless to me no matter who wins. If I can't play 30fps min who cares?

Also cheapest ghz edition on newegg is $434 vs. $400 for 770. No brainer to take 770. Overclocked 770's (1137/1189mhz etc) are available for $399 at newegg. Again OOBE better on 770. There is a rebate of 30 currently on that 7970ghz though but nothing else below $434.

 

[Sakkura]

14 losses for 7970ghz, ONLY 3 wins. Many on 770's wins are HUGE. What benchmarks are you showing 7970ghz winning besides the listed ones? Much of the same happens at 2560x1600, though many of them are under 30fps anyway so not playable (crysis 3 etc teens already at avg, metro ~35 avg so 20's or lower min). I can find other games elsewhere as wins for 770 also (batman AC at hardocp etc).

The 7970 overclocks MUCH better than the GTX 770, that's the point. So overclocked performance will favor the 7970 if anything.

 

[somebodyspecial]

14 losses for 7970ghz, ONLY 3 wins. Many on 770's wins are HUGE. What benchmarks are you showing 7970ghz winning besides the listed ones? Much of the same happens at 2560x1600, though many of them are under 30fps anyway so not playable (crysis 3 etc teens already at avg, metro ~35 avg so 20's or lower min). I can find other games elsewhere as wins for 770 also (batman AC at hardocp etc).

The 7970 overclocks MUCH better than the GTX 770, that's the point. So overclocked performance will favor the 7970 if anything.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/30/xfx_double_d_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/3#.UeNBHm0piX8
They hit 1210 and 6.86ghz mem. They compared it to a 670 again hitting 1280.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/24/sapphire_vaporx_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_review/3#.UeNEeG0piX8
Sapphire card couldn't even hit 1200 (1185mhz). Vapor-X cooling system too!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_gaming_review,23.html
guru3d hits 1280 for 770 also and 7.71ghz mem.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/inno3d_geforce_gtx_770_ichill_herculez_x3_review,23.html
770=1306 for herculez card 7.9ghz for mem.
Most 770's will hit ~1280-1300 (see anandtech article too, also 1280 770), 7970ghz will hit ~1200, but memory gets to 8ghz on 770 (it's newer and has faster ram), while 7970 tops at ~7ghz for memory.

Considering ghz editions are 1050 out of the box (first listed on newegg at 434 is), and 770's are 1046, who do you think wins the Overclocking race here? It won't favor 7970. Do the math. At those rates the watts are awful on 7970 also and noisy. You get about 240-260 roughly on 770 (heck all NV 660TI+ cards) and ~150-200 on 7970ghz. First, they are already far behind in most games (check the long list I gave from multiple sites), and 2nd you can get more free mhz on 770. You can't catch them without hitting above 1300 and that won't happen out of the box (be lucky to see 1200+). Past 1200mhz on 7970 (all versions) your volts and watts go through the roof. At 20% ov & 1186mhz they pulled 399watts at hardocp. Guru on the other hand only needs 6% (set it for 106%) extra volts to get to 1306 on 770. I call that impressive & Less heat/power/noise.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_lightning_review,25.html
MSI lightning card hits 1309mhz & 7806mhz mem At 9% voltage. So it takes less to get higher on 770. The 7970ghz will lose the OC race out of the box and maxed. You'll have to change fans or do something funky to hit above 1200. 770 meanwhile gives up 1300 easily.

How many more do you need? 770 will overclock better & 770 will win out of the box if nothing is done. Sorry, maybe AMD does better in Nov. This race is over. I blame this on consoles wasted R&D. But it ends the same here no matter what I think. NV won this round.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_msi_gaming_review,24.html
760's hit 1280 also. No surprise.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-27.html
Toms hit 1306,1280, 1293 on their three GTX 770's. Point me to 7970ghz reviews consistently hitting 1300, otherwise, you have no point, or at least it's incorrect

 

[ingtar33]

14 losses for 7970ghz, ONLY 3 wins. Many on 770's wins are HUGE. What benchmarks are you showing 7970ghz winning besides the listed ones? Much of the same happens at 2560x1600, though many of them are under 30fps anyway so not playable (crysis 3 etc teens already at avg, metro ~35 avg so 20's or lower min). I can find other games elsewhere as wins for 770 also (batman AC at hardocp etc).

The 7970 overclocks MUCH better than the GTX 770, that's the point. So overclocked performance will favor the 7970 if anything.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/30/xfx_double_d_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/3#.UeNBHm0piX8
They hit 1210 and 6.86ghz mem. They compared it to a 670 again hitting 1280.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/24/sapphire_vaporx_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_review/3#.UeNEeG0piX8
Sapphire card couldn't even hit 1200 (1185mhz). Vapor-X cooling system too!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_gaming_review,23.html
guru3d hits 1280 for 770 also and 7.71ghz mem.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/inno3d_geforce_gtx_770_ichill_herculez_x3_review,23.html
770=1306 for herculez card 7.9ghz for mem.
Most 770's will hit ~1280-1300 (see anandtech article too, also 1280 770), 7970ghz will hit ~1200, but memory gets to 8ghz on 770 (it's newer and has faster ram), while 7970 tops at ~7ghz for memory.

Considering ghz editions are 1050 out of the box (first listed on newegg at 434 is), and 770's are 1046, who do you think wins the Overclocking race here? It won't favor 7970. Do the math. At those rates the watts are awful on 7970 also and noisy. You get about 240-260 roughly on 770 (heck all NV 660TI+ cards) and ~150-200 on 7970ghz. First, they are already far behind in most games (check the long list I gave from multiple sites), and 2nd you can get more free mhz on 770. You can't catch them without hitting above 1300 and that won't happen out of the box (be lucky to see 1200+). Past 1200mhz on 7970 (all versions) your volts and watts go through the roof. At 20% ov & 1186mhz they pulled 399watts at hardocp. Guru on the other hand only needs 6% (set it for 106%) extra volts to get to 1306 on 770. I call that impressive & Less heat/power/noise.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_lightning_review,25.html
MSI lightning card hits 1309mhz & 7806mhz mem At 9% voltage. So it takes less to get higher on 770. The 7970ghz will lose the OC race out of the box and maxed. You'll have to change fans or do something funky to hit above 1200. 770 meanwhile gives up 1300 easily.

How many more do you need? 770 will overclock better & 770 will win out of the box if nothing is done. Sorry, maybe AMD does better in Nov. This race is over. I blame this on consoles wasted R&D. But it ends the same here no matter what I think. NV won this round.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_msi_gaming_review,24.html
760's hit 1280 also. No surprise.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-27.html
Toms hit 1306,1280, 1293 on their three GTX 770's. Point me to 7970ghz reviews consistently hitting 1300, otherwise, you have no point, or at least it's incorrect

you don't understand what you're talking about.

Kepler cards show very little performance gains from large overclocks.... they never have really. the 7xxx lineup however, particularly the tahiti cored ones all show tremendous increases in performance from moderate overclocks. You're talking about it as if clock for clock the gpus are equal. they clearly are not. The radeons in the 7xxx tahiti family get a lot more done then the kepler gk104 family at the same frequency. it's like comparing an intel at 3.5ghz to an amd at 3.5ghz. the intel will smoke the amd. though the amd will overclock up to 5.5ghz and the intel only up to 4.5ghz the 4.5ghz intel will still smoke the 5.5ghz amd. If anything it will OPEN the distance between it and the AMD.

Right now the 7xxx series (particularly the tahiti cores) really show a massive improvement from modest overclocks, while the keplers do not show anything similar from large overclocks. I can only assume it's because of structural bottlenecks in the kepler architecture which hold back performance even with a significant overclock.

So comparing them clock to clock is impossible. Off the top of my head (don't quote me on this one, but i recently read an article which compared the clock per clock performance of a 7970 vs a 770) i think a tahiti with a 15% overclock in clock speed will see something in the range of a 25% improvement in performance... where as a GK104 would need an almost 40% increase in clock speed to see the same 25% improvement in performance.

This is nothing new, this has been the case between the tahiti and gk104 since their release. This is why people talk about the superior overclocking of the radeon gpus. Its not just the generally unlocked voltages of the gpus themselves that gave them that title. it's the tremendous increase in performance gained by those overclocks. Look at a stock reference designed tahiti, then look at the massive jump in performance for a GE version of the same gpu. If you don't believe what i'm saying you can do the research yourself, it's right out there for you to see... you simply don't get those types of performance jumps from the GK104.

 

[bystander]

I don't think you know what you are talking about, or at least exaggerating a lot. Increasing clock rates by the same percent for either card nets very similar percentage increases. The original 7970 non Ghz edition, started with very low clocks, so 100 mhz increase was a larger percent than on a 680, but that is not the case with the Ghz edition. I've seen nothing that would suggest that increasing the 7970 clock rates by the same percent as a 680 results in hardly in difference in the percent they increase in speed.

The only real advantage the 7970 has in this regard is not all 7970's are voltage locked. This allows for higher OC's if you are willing to voltage tweak the card.

 

[somebodyspecial]

14 losses for 7970ghz, ONLY 3 wins. Many on 770's wins are HUGE. What benchmarks are you showing 7970ghz winning besides the listed ones? Much of the same happens at 2560x1600, though many of them are under 30fps anyway so not playable (crysis 3 etc teens already at avg, metro ~35 avg so 20's or lower min). I can find other games elsewhere as wins for 770 also (batman AC at hardocp etc).

The 7970 overclocks MUCH better than the GTX 770, that's the point. So overclocked performance will favor the 7970 if anything.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/10/30/xfx_double_d_hd_7970_ghz_edition_video_card_review/3#.UeNBHm0piX8
They hit 1210 and 6.86ghz mem. They compared it to a 670 again hitting 1280.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/09/24/sapphire_vaporx_radeon_hd_7970_ghz_edition_review/3#.UeNEeG0piX8
Sapphire card couldn't even hit 1200 (1185mhz). Vapor-X cooling system too!

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_gaming_review,23.html
guru3d hits 1280 for 770 also and 7.71ghz mem.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/inno3d_geforce_gtx_770_ichill_herculez_x3_review,23.html
770=1306 for herculez card 7.9ghz for mem.
Most 770's will hit ~1280-1300 (see anandtech article too, also 1280 770), 7970ghz will hit ~1200, but memory gets to 8ghz on 770 (it's newer and has faster ram), while 7970 tops at ~7ghz for memory.

Considering ghz editions are 1050 out of the box (first listed on newegg at 434 is), and 770's are 1046, who do you think wins the Overclocking race here? It won't favor 7970. Do the math. At those rates the watts are awful on 7970 also and noisy. You get about 240-260 roughly on 770 (heck all NV 660TI+ cards) and ~150-200 on 7970ghz. First, they are already far behind in most games (check the long list I gave from multiple sites), and 2nd you can get more free mhz on 770. You can't catch them without hitting above 1300 and that won't happen out of the box (be lucky to see 1200+). Past 1200mhz on 7970 (all versions) your volts and watts go through the roof. At 20% ov & 1186mhz they pulled 399watts at hardocp. Guru on the other hand only needs 6% (set it for 106%) extra volts to get to 1306 on 770. I call that impressive & Less heat/power/noise.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_770_lightning_review,25.html
MSI lightning card hits 1309mhz & 7806mhz mem At 9% voltage. So it takes less to get higher on 770. The 7970ghz will lose the OC race out of the box and maxed. You'll have to change fans or do something funky to hit above 1200. 770 meanwhile gives up 1300 easily.

How many more do you need? 770 will overclock better & 770 will win out of the box if nothing is done. Sorry, maybe AMD does better in Nov. This race is over. I blame this on consoles wasted R&D. But it ends the same here no matter what I think. NV won this round.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_760_msi_gaming_review,24.html
760's hit 1280 also. No surprise.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-27.html
Toms hit 1306,1280, 1293 on their three GTX 770's. Point me to 7970ghz reviews consistently hitting 1300, otherwise, you have no point, or at least it's incorrect

you don't understand what you're talking about.

Kepler cards show very little performance gains from large overclocks.... they never have really. the 7xxx lineup however, particularly the tahiti cored ones all show tremendous increases in performance from moderate overclocks. You're talking about it as if clock for clock the gpus are equal. they clearly are not. The radeons in the 7xxx tahiti family get a lot more done then the kepler gk104 family at the same frequency. it's like comparing an intel at 3.5ghz to an amd at 3.5ghz. the intel will smoke the amd. though the amd will overclock up to 5.5ghz and the intel only up to 4.5ghz the 4.5ghz intel will still smoke the 5.5ghz amd. If anything it will OPEN the distance between it and the AMD.

Right now the 7xxx series (particularly the tahiti cores) really show a massive improvement from modest overclocks, while the keplers do not show anything similar from large overclocks. I can only assume it's because of structural bottlenecks in the kepler architecture which hold back performance even with a significant overclock.

So comparing them clock to clock is impossible. Off the top of my head (don't quote me on this one, but i recently read an article which compared the clock per clock performance of a 7970 vs a 770) i think a tahiti with a 15% overclock in clock speed will see something in the range of a 25% improvement in performance... where as a GK104 would need an almost 40% increase in clock speed to see the same 25% improvement in performance.

This is nothing new, this has been the case between the tahiti and gk104 since their release. This is why people talk about the superior overclocking of the radeon gpus. Its not just the generally unlocked voltages of the gpus themselves that gave them that title. it's the tremendous increase in performance gained by those overclocks. Look at a stock reference designed tahiti, then look at the massive jump in performance for a GE version of the same gpu. If you don't believe what i'm saying you can do the research yourself, it's right out there for you to see... you simply don't get those types of performance jumps from the GK104.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/59265-his-hd-7970-iceq-x-hd-7950-iceq-x-review-14.html
They hit an amazing 1322 on 7970ghz but with an extra push on volts. Normal OC is in there too. Neither hit 20% over the ref. 16% above ref on the huge OC and 12% for the regular OC (I think this card is one of the best built for OCing-iceq x2 HIS card). I see nobody else hitting 1300 but even if they do, there is no 25% you're saying and NV gets the same ~20% over ref as shown (I'm being generous to 7970ghz here as it only got 16% as shown). Sorry, NV wins this round. Provide some links to data or drop this. Again, if you're behind by 10-20% in most things, and both get 20% from the OC, you have gained nothing. Both are just another 20% faster, and leaving the loser still the loser since he gained nothing over the other guy. Get it? Don't forget OC's on memory on the 770 get to 8ghz, where 680 maxed around 7ghz. Doesn't help in everything but it matters at times. 7970's are not being re-made with faster memory. Maybe we'll see a refresh, but it won't change much anyway if it happens. Just pointing out how the 770 has a bit of help over 680.

Also I don't think I'd advise people to do what you're saying. Take the OC OOBE and forget it. They are already pushing them. To push a 7970ghz to the bleeding edge to try to catch 770 is probably going to lead to a short card life. I'd prefer quiet, cool and faster out of the box. Apparently toms too, as they called it putting a hit on radeon 7970ghz for a reason and 770 is now their fav card. They both make great cards, but NV wins this round. Market share shows the same (65%NV) despite AMD tossing tons of free games at us, most of us realize once those are played we have to put up with the hardware & drivers for 3-5yrs (well, maybe rich people upgrade yearly...LOL). I don't want to lose in 21 out of 26(?) games I showed for that many years, and AMD has had a VERY bad driver history since taking on consoles and laying off 1/3 of their engineers. IT shows. Reviews comment. Still waiting for July31 drivers. Enduro still has issues according to notebookcheck.com even after working directly with AMD in March. I'll even take a loss here and there if it means my drivers are rock solid for every new game. Read hardocp's year long driver review for AMD/NV. AMD sucked for a year according to them and nothing got really good until never settle in Nov. AMD had better get things right for volcanic. They can't afford another gen with bad press all year having problem after problem.
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/03/04/2012_amd_nvidia_driver_performance_summary_review/
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/02/18/2012_amd_video_card_driver_performance_review/

That's not good stuff being written right? That hurts even when fixed most already have formed their opinion of your cards. You shouldn't have (basically) beta drivers running your cards for initial reviews. They should have delayed 3 months or something to avoid some issues and bad press. That press hurt all year+ and still isn't done (july31 maybe?, but enduro still needs help unless this driver fixes it all).

Dang forum - Hacked off the first 1/2 of my post.
Not rewriting it all (can't believe I forgot to do it in word first, bit by the infamous toms website again)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_Lightning/29.html
Main point discussed above (which is missing since it hacked it off):
9.4% faster than itself which is 770oc'ed already. Note that over the REF design it gets over 19%. I think maybe you're talking 7950 which could hit 7970ghz scores via heavy overclocks (not the 7950B that anandtech showed is the left over dies from 7970's and won't OC as far, I mean original 7950). I chose the best case I could find for 7970 above at 1322 and it only got 16% over ref. Same for avg and min fps. These numbers are not going to magically change for you. Sorry. I had more links showing the gains for NV, but one is enough anyway.

Also although I did it anyway, it's not my job to do your homework to prove your point. I gave links, gave scores, games etc in both posts. You have proven nothing, just rhetoric. 7970ghz loses no matter how you slice it and it costs more too. Maybe next gen this will change. But his one is over as AMD has no refresh AFAIK. Don't make comments without links and data that back up your point. I see no proof and couldn't find any again looking for your side of the story either. I stand by what I said. 21 losses won't change OC or not vs. 5 wins (and 2 ties, I gave 28games total from the links). 770 DID put a hit out on radeon 7970ghz edition. And 7970ghz got assassinated 😉 It may be just an overclocked 680 but that just proves you were holding back to begin with as you are still not OVER 7970ghz power levels. Basically they just met their power to topple them in perf (actually they still are lower watts). Either way you look at the refresh it's a win for 770.

Toms - you guys really need to fix the fricken website BS!

 

[mapesdhs]

If I had to choose between a 770 and a 7970, I'd prefer a 770, but only if it had
4GB RAM. For me that's the one advantage the 7970 does have: much better
base RAM. I really don't know why the 770 only has 2GB by default, it seems
too low these days IMO.

My only other gripe with AMD cards is the drivers. I've always had more problems
with AMD drivers than NVIDIA. That's not to say NVIDIA doesn't mess up sometimes
(the 320.18 release was a real pain, I rolled back to 314.22), but just general issues
seem to be less with NVIDIA. Cost-wise the two cards are on a par here in the UK:
cheapest 1GHz 7970 is about 312 UKP, cheapest decent 770 is a 1137MHz MSI at
324 UKP, though I wouldn't buy one with only 2GB which rules out the 770 for me
anyway (cheapest 4GB version is more like 367 UKP; for that kind of money I'd rather
buy two used 3GB 580s which can beat a 780... oh wait, that's what I did do! 😀)

Ian.

PS. Can I just add btw though, the MSI 580 Lightning is huge!! Stuff guns and
suchlike, Americans should carry one of these things for self-defense. 😀 Clobber
a robber round the noggin with one of these and they'd be out cold, hehe. I placed
it on top of my old GTX 460 and though neither card actually moved, if they had I'm
sure the 580 would have kicked the crap out of the 460... :}

 

[somebodyspecial]

If I had to choose between a 770 and a 7970, I'd prefer a 770, but only if it had
4GB RAM. For me that's the one advantage the 7970 does have: much better
base RAM. I really don't know why the 770 only has 2GB by default, it seems
too low these days IMO.

My only other gripe with AMD cards is the drivers. I've always had more problems
with AMD drivers than NVIDIA. That's not to say NVIDIA doesn't mess up sometimes
(the 320.18 release was a real pain, I rolled back to 314.22), but just general issues
seem to be less with NVIDIA. Cost-wise the two cards are on a par here in the UK:
cheapest 1GHz 7970 is about 312 UKP, cheapest decent 770 is a 1137MHz MSI at
324 UKP, though I wouldn't buy one with only 2GB which rules out the 770 for me
anyway (cheapest 4GB version is more like 367 UKP; for that kind of money I'd rather
buy two used 3GB 580s which can beat a 780... oh wait, that's what I did do! 😀)

Ian.

PS. Can I just add btw though, the MSI 580 Lightning is huge!! Stuff guns and
suchlike, Americans should carry one of these things for self-defense. 😀 Clobber
a robber round the noggin with one of these and they'd be out cold, hehe. I placed
it on top of my old GTX 460 and though neither card actually moved, if they had I'm
sure the 580 would have kicked the crap out of the 460... :}

I will note that my comments about drivers are mostly for others who are affected. My Radeon5850 (heck all cards I've had over 20yrs) has had no issues with drivers but I'm always a single card guy (refuse to stutter...LOL).

I sold hundreds of both for 8yrs in pc business (there were other cards way back then, kyro, voodoo etc), and have had a few dozen myself between them and more across my whole family's pc sets. I've only had one card die (radeon lost 3d...desktop 2d worked fine..LOL), and nary a driver issue, and one card had the heatsink literally fly off inside the case while testing/burning in users pc (loud pop, ding, ding ding...lol). Thankfully inside damage on the flying mini heatsink run a muck inside. The worst I had was 20pcks of Matrox which had 3-4 that failed out of the box with hardware issues per pack. I guess I expected better from matrox mils. I've never had a doa vid card besides the matrox 20pcks and some of them worked just looked like crap on 21 crt I used for testing back then

I can't find a game that shows a difference at 2GB vs anything above unless you push so high (1440p etc) so that your card is under 30fps with details maxed anyway. I believe you use your cards for pro stuff (other than gaming) if memory serves from your previous posts, so I see that point. They keep saying we'll need 3GB etc but I haven't seen a game take advantage yet and be above 30fps still min. You always need 2 cards by then which makes it moot for me as a gamer so far.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/palit_geforce_gtx_680_4gb_jetstream_review,26.html
4GB comment:
"The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference."

I haven't seen a test show anything different yet. I'm not saying it won't matter at some point, but again I think we'll be running two cards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707386/msi-gtx-770-lightning-2gb-gigabyte-gtx-770-4gb.html
I'm not always in agreement with bigmack70, but here I am for sure so far:
"There has been no benchmark or review which has shown any advantage to a 4GB card over a 2GB one, even at ridiculous triple screen resolutions with SLI.

Get the 2GB card. "

Just last month. Again if you do pro stuff (video/photo/cad/models stuff etc) this is different. I'd pony up for more I'd guess (and probably a REAL pro card anyway if making money on it). Zotac 4GB is $439 on newegg right now and the cheapest 7970ghz I could get is 435 (but it has a rebate for who knows how long at $30). I guess I'd take the zotac if I was worried with 4GB. Since they mostly aim at mid for games I suspect we'll need the next gen before stuff starts coming that saturates even 3GB. Maxwell should handle 1440p (volcanic I'd guess too) much more easily and I doubt any will come with less than 3GB. Currently you basically have to be pushing 5670x1080 or something to push into the extra mem, and you are not running 30fps min then in most cases it's teens or less...LOL.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/01/14/asus_geforce_gtx_670_directcu_ii_4gb_sli_review/9#.UePOl20piX-
4GB 670 vs 2GB. Also too slow to play when it's an issue.

"Right Capacity, Wrong Performance

That header explains the situation we experienced most. There were some advantages of being able to enable higher MSAA settings at 5760x1200, especially in the case of Hitman. However, while we were technically able to enable these settings, or complete a run-through, the performance wasn't fast enough out of the GeForce GTX 670 GPUs to actually allow that high of a setting to be playable. It's like putting beefy off-road tires on a Yugo, sure the capacity is there to go off-road, but the Yugo lacks the performance to get us over the terrain."

Jan2013 article. I haven't seen a later one with different results. You need more than one card to push these resolutions, so memory as of yet, isn't an issue in games.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Also from the hardocp link above...This is an even better quote. They say you need 3gpus to push that 5760 or bust (with the 670 that is).

"The Bottom Line

We've given the ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II 4GB video cards plenty of opportunities to prove to us why we would need 4GB of VRAM on these. Unfortunately, these have come short of proving this. We tried pushing a single ASUS GTX 670 4GB to the max on a 30" display, at more than playable settings, and also at 1080p. We saw no advantages with a single card. Then we put two together in SLI and tried to push them to the max at 5760x1200. What we found was that higher settings were possible to enable, but the performance wasn't there to allow them to be playable. Simply, the performance of GTX 670 isn't enough to utilize the capacity of 4GB of VRAM."
"To make the 4GB of VRAM on the GTX 670 work for you, you are going to need at least three of them for 3-way SLI, to give you the performance to back up the VRAM."
"As it stands, if you want two good GeForce GTX 670 based video cards, stick with the 2GB models, and save some cash."

Again non gaming stuff could be a whole other story for some. I'm purely speaking gaming above.

 

[orca_sweets]

The 7950 doesn't quite catch up to the GTX 770, there is a pretty large gap at stock. But the 7970 definitely does, and should even jump into the lead in the majority of games.

Of course, overclocking is variable, so you never know just how far you'll be able to get with one particular card.

Yes overclocking is varying, but doing some digging you can find that the 7950 will consistently hit at least 1150 on the core, and 1450 at least on the memory (Though the performance increase from memory is minimal). I give you this. Note this is a non boost 7950 right at the heels of a 770 in these benchmarks. Buy the cheapest 7950, which is sapphires dual x in most cases, spend $20 on two nice 120mm fans, and overclock the piss out of it. Granted there is a littler work involved and some zip ties, but the thermal ceiling isn't an issue after doing what I just told you. 61c max temps on heaven extreme preset for over an hour. I feel that overclocking is something that everyone should know. It is so easy and requires so little knowledge that I am disappointed in anyone who doesn't at least try it. There are so many safe guards on cards these days that you would have to go out of your way to damage it. These cards will last over 5 years heavily overclocked as long as you keep them cool.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/855?vs=829

 

[mapesdhs]

somebodyspecial writes:
> ... has had no issues with drivers but I'm always a single card guy ...

In benchmarking numerous GPUs this past year (I have about 40 now), I've
definitely had the most problems when changing between different AMD cards.
Note that I have different OS setups for NVIDIA vs. AMD for each mbd
(separate SSDs), so it's not related to changing drivers from AMD to
NVIDIA or vice-versa. Rather, it's when changing from, say, a 5850 to a
4870. By contrast, for example, switching between an 8800GT and a GTX 580
is a much smoother process. Likewise, I find setting up and shutting down
SLI to be easier and more reliable than CF, especially 3-way/4-way. And
as you say there's the stutter issue which really was very obvious when
testing FC2 on 5850 CF.


> ... (refuse to stutter...LOL).

I've never been able to afford the latest top-end card when they've come out,
so I've repeatedly gone for a couple of older cards SLI: same or better
performance for lower cost, and being NVIDIA I don't have problems with
stutter (I really hope AMD can fix those issues, we need the competition).


> I can't find a game that shows a difference at 2GB vs anything above
> unless you push so high (1440p etc) ...

I was going to be more specific but assumed you already knew - yes indeed
if I was playing modern titles that warranted the performance it would
be at 1440p (though the monitor I have is on the wrong desk atm) but the one
game I'd want to play on that kind of setup is heavily modded Skyrim, and
that really does benefit from more than 2GB. Read the Skyrim pics thread,
there are numerous posts about the issue (one user has a system with four
Titans; his enormous mod setup results in as much as 4.8GB VRAM used).

As for other games, you're right that 2GB is just about sufficient for a
single HD display, but for this class of hw the current vogue in PC
gaming does seem to be more towards 1440p, often with multiple screens.
That needs more than 2GB. You're right about the 670 of course, but then
that's a card which is as you say too low down the performance scale to
warrant 4GB in multiscreen (I basically ignored the 600 series, waste of
time IMO), but it'll still help for single-screen 1440 with modded games
like Skyrim (have to say I rarely play PC games unmodded; part of the
reason why I like the PC platform is the ability to improve on standard
visuals). Also, choosing a card with 2GB because it has just about enough
RAM for the games of today doesn't exactly provide one with much in the
way of future proofing.


> ... Again if you do pro stuff (video/photo/cad/models stuff etc) ...

Most pro tasks are best done with a pro card, with additional 580s for CUDA
if such is sensible. Only a very few pro tasks run any better on a gamer card,
and there are dozens of other factors which mean gamer cards are often a poor
choice for pro users, from viewport accuracy, geometry precision and AA line
performance to customer support, reliability, ECC, etc.


> ... I believe you use your cards for pro stuff (other than gaming) if
> memory serves from your previous posts,

I have different systems for each, and I do benchmark research with both,
plus some of my pro systems are not PCs (I have numerous SGIs, up to a
36-CPU Onyx3800 IR4). The right tool for the right job. ;D My 'pro'
3930K PC has a Quadro 4K and three 580s (mostly doing AE research atm),
though I'll be card-swapping to test other configs. My P55-based gaming
PC has two 580s (was two 560Tis until recently). There's also a dual-XEON
Dell T7500, but the 3930K smokes it.

I have a whole bunch of other PC setups for gamer benchmarking research,
but they're 'open' (ie. not in cases), eg. 2700K, 2500K, XEON X58, i5
670, i5 760, i7 870, 990X, various Athlon IIs, Ph2 965, Q6600, QX9650,
and so on. Often I mix & match parts to see what happens, eg. XEON + gamer
card (E5540 does surprisingly well), consumer chip + pro card (oc'd i3 550
is excellent for ProE).


Btw, re your comment about disliking stutter, I have a similar quirk when
it comes to gaming: I don't like playing on medium detail. 😀 Atm I'm
not playing sufficiently recent games to warrant the power of the latest
cards, which is why I keep obtaining a couple of older models so I can
max out the detail of older games (FC2, Crysis2, Oblivion, Stalker, etc.)
without busting the bank, and still have a high frame rate. I'd still
like to get a 7970 and maybe a 770 or 780 though for my benchmarking
research, but not yet (they're too new). I have a stack of other games
still sealed, which shall remain so lest I be tempted before finishing
those currently in progress, but I'm certainly looking forward to CoD WaW
with max detail settings and max AA/AF. 8)

Ian.

 

[somebodyspecial]

somebodyspecial writes:
> ... has had no issues with drivers but I'm always a single card guy ...
> ... (refuse to stutter...LOL).

I've never been able to afford the latest top-end card when they've come out,
so I've repeatedly gone for a couple of older cards SLI: same or better
performance for lower cost, and being NVIDIA I don't have problems with
stutter (I really hope AMD can fix those issues, we need the competition).

> I can't find a game that shows a difference at 2GB vs anything above
> unless you push so high (1440p etc) ...

I was going to be more specific but assumed you already knew - yes indeed
if I was playing modern titles that warranted the performance it would
be at 1440p (though the monitor I have is on the wrong desk atm) but the one
game I'd want to play on that kind of setup is heavily modded Skyrim, and
that really does benefit from more than 2GB. Read the Skyrim pics thread,
there are numerous posts about the issue (one user has a system with four
Titans; his enormous mod setup results in as much as 4.8GB VRAM used).

As for other games, you're right that 2GB is just about sufficient for a
single HD display, but for this class of hw the current vogue in PC
gaming does seem to be more towards 1440p, often with multiple screens.
That needs more than 2GB. You're right about the 670 of course, but then
that's a card which is as you say too low down the performance scale to
warrant 4GB in multiscreen (I basically ignored the 600 series, waste of
time IMO), but it'll still help for single-screen 1440 with modded games
like Skyrim (have to say I rarely play PC games unmodded; part of the
reason why I like the PC platform is the ability to improve on standard
visuals). Also, choosing a card with 2GB because it has just about enough
RAM for the games of today doesn't exactly provide one with much in the
way of future proofing.


> ... Again if you do pro stuff (video/photo/cad/models stuff etc) ...

Most pro tasks are best done with a pro card
> ... I believe you use your cards for pro stuff (other than gaming) if
> memory serves from your previous posts,

Btw, re your comment about disliking stutter, I have a similar quirk when
it comes to gaming: I don't like playing on medium detail. 😀 Atm I'm
not playing sufficiently recent games to warrant the power of the latest
cards, which is why I keep obtaining a couple of older models so I can
max out the detail of older games (FC2, Crysis2, Oblivion, Stalker, etc.)
without busting the bank, and still have a high frame rate. I'd still
like to get a 7970 and maybe a 770 or 780 though for my benchmarking
research, but not yet (they're too new). I have a stack of other games
still sealed, which shall remain so lest I be tempted before finishing
those currently in progress, but I'm certainly looking forward to CoD WaW
with max detail settings and max AA/AF. 8)

Ian.

We appear to be very similar in our approaches to game playing You take the two card route and I wait until one can do the same job roughly (we are after the same thing though). I don't play games that require me to set to medium because of my card, and prefer to pass until my card does max. It's not like there's a shortage of fun games to play in the meantime (assuming a person has a job, game play time is fairly short...ROFL).

Also I prefer to wait for a game to get DONE before playing (ultimate, goty, platinum etc editions all patched up, dlc's in there etc-I refuse to pay piecemeal for dlc junk that should be in the game from day 1 at $50-60). Skyrim just hit legendary edition which I have been waiting on I was under the impression maxed out with mods you'd hit below 30fps at anything over 1920x1200 in skyrim on 680 or less (at some points during play- which is against my religion...LOL) thus again making memory pointless and usually ending up needing 2 cards or more. This of course solves the mem problem if there is one much like your titan guy and hardocp found (3 670's to solve a gpu issue long before mem was a problem). I was aware of the pig skyrim becomes modded but again thought it tanked fps anyway at that point. I'm hoping maxwell allows me to play skyrim modded to death along with all the other recent games I want to play. I'm planning a 27 or 30in 1600p (1440p if forced) monitor and want at least my 1920x1200 for worst case scenarios (dell 24) in games that are pigs and in ones that aren't I'll play on the larger future monitor (likely black friday monitor). I do the same now with my 24 and a 1680x1050 22in.

I assumed the tanking fps because of posts like this (hence just waiting on maxwell for skyrim):
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/391669-33-benchtest-skyrim-extremly-modded
"I havent tested the bandwhich yet, with the gtx 680 4gb, i get playable but not good frames. 25-35. But i want to set higer quality settings and for that i need sli"

And he's not even setting it as high as he wants but has some mods noted in his first post about the crashing with 4GB. A 680 hitting 25fps not even maxed on details according to him is unacceptable for me (that's "medium" if not maxed right?) Gog keeps me busy enough to wait for a game to be completely playable on my hardware 😉 In another post he says he doesn't even get 5fps at 5760x1080 on the 680...LOL. At medium crap settings. OUCH. He's buying 2 titans of course (or already has them now). Again this sort of proves hardocp's statements saying you need more gpu power before memory is the issue usually (the 25fps and 5fps is a gpu issue not mem issues). Sure you can run it up, but you end up tanking fun/fps in the process. But even if I'm wrong here, this is a single game that has been modded beyond any other I've ever seen, which at the very least makes it the exception not the rule Not that I won't be buying a 4GB or more maxwell, I will. Just that I don't see the need for the most part today (apart from skyrim). Awesome pics in the skyrim thread BTW. My skyrim bookmarks are all ready to go...Just waiting on the right card now and I'd really like it to be the first game fired up on a 27 or 30in

I future proof myself with an sli mboard just in case. I can always stick in a 2nd card then as they cheapen up. I believe in modding out my games also, but usually find fps/gpu is my issue even at 1920x1200. I can overclock the crap out of my hardware to fix it at times but usually end up driving myself out of my room with heat doing so.

Always use a pro card for a pro job Agreed! I used to set up pro-e/solidworks and we were always pushing ECC cards. Some people just don't seem understand why workstation cards exist.

I used to see tons of cards when I had my PC business (8yrs) but now that I don't I pretty much buy every 2-3 refreshes at $300-400 (I seem to aim for die shrinks now). I really miss having trays of cpus to test for the best OC'er in the bunch with the least volts/heat 🙁 No argument these days with SLI, but I have an Arizona heat issue also 😉 Yet another reason I'm looking forward to the coming shrink. I'm hoping to smash titan for $400 while lowering my room temp But that may be a dream for now...ROFL. It could happen with 20nm though and rumors of both sides doubling resources. The 770 isn't too bad already so 20nm should do this. I hope Sell some of those test machines and you can probably afford a top card 😉

 

[mapesdhs]

somebodyspecial writes:
> We appear to be very similar in our approaches to game playing You take the
> two card route and I wait until one can do the same job roughly ...

😀 If I was 20 years younger with more money and a lot more spare time, I'd be
buying the latest & greatest in a heartbeat. :}

Atm I'm playing FC2, yet I haven't actually touched the game since mid June, no
time due to work stuff.


> ... It's not like there's a shortage of fun games to play in the meantime (assuming
> a person has a job, game play time is fairly short...ROFL).

Indeed, I don't have the time for that much gaming anyways, so I have a plethora of
older games to play which of course will keep me going until such time as today's games
are then playable maxed-out on some future GPU config.

My gf & family members kept buying me games for bday/xmas, and I picked up a few
aswell (how can you go wrong with Crysis for just 2 UKP??), so although I'm currently
playing Oblivion IV, Stalker SHOC, Crysis2/Warhead and FC2, I have the following still
sealed in their boxes, all of which will also run maxed-out on my current 580 SLI PC I
expect: CoD4: Modern Warfare, Knights of the Nine and Shivering Isles (for Oblivion),
CoD: World At War, Red Faction: Guerilla, Call of Juarez, Stalker COP and Borderlands.
By the time I've finished all that lot, a Titan will probably cost $100 used. 😀


> Also I prefer to wait for a game to get DONE before playing (ultimate, goty,

Indeed, that's another reason why maybe I find playing older games somewhat
more enjoyable than early players might have experienced, eg. installing Crysis
or whatever and putting on the latest patch straight away, avoiding all the bugs,
plus the stable mods to make it look great.


> ... I refuse to pay piecemeal for dlc junk that should be in the game from day 1 at $50-60). ...

Yeah, that sort of thing puts me off too. Skyrim is the only game which makes me
willing to put up with these DLC ideas, but I've no time for it atm.


> ... But even if I'm wrong here, this is a single game that has been modded beyond any other
> I've ever seen, which at the very least makes it the exception not the rule ...

Having read through the entire pics thread (don't ask), one mistake I think a lot of
modders make is not realising there's an awful lot they can do to improve performance,
eg. texture optimisers, uGrid settings, etc. I can't be specific as I don't have the game,
but it's clear that modding the game up the wazoo without doing all the tweaks will
indeed turn it into a GPU killer.


> ... Awesome pics in the skyrim thread BTW. ...

Yup! Just for the heck of it, a while ago I gathered some together in a single 104MB zip - enjoy! 8)

Lots of new posts since then of course, but they show what can be done, and an
excellent example of the advantages of the PC platform.


> ... but usually end up driving myself out of my room with heat doing so.

I live in Scotland, so normally I have the advantage of lower ambient air temps. 😀
Staying cool in this part of the world is usually easy (though winter 2010 was nuts,
dropped to -14C where I live).


> Always use a pro card for a pro job Agreed! I used to set up pro-e/solidworks
> and we were always pushing ECC cards. Some people just don't seem understand
> why workstation cards exist.

In the Viewperf 11 suite, only Ensight shows any strength on a gamer card, but even
then there are other factors of course. The tests I've done can show an order of
magnitude performance difference between gamer vs. pro, especially for ProE, TCVis,
SNX, etc. If you're interested, I discussed this more here.


> ... but I have an Arizona heat issue also 😉 ...

I was wondering where you were. 😀

Hey, there's a thing though, isn't it fairly usual for most homes to have aircon?
I remember in Dallas, the Days Inn I stayed at had an air con which could make
the room amazingly cool, even though at the time it was 45C outside (this was
late 1995, heatwave). I bet it's expensive though.


> ... Sell some of those test machines and you can probably afford a top card 😉

Indeed! I have half a dozen builds I need to sort out to sell off: two XEON E5540s
(both on strangely sought after Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R mbds), i5 2500K, i5 760,
two i3 550s. Meanwhile, I'm hunting for a CPU to put on a spare Maximus IV Extreme
I obtained, preferably a 2600K or 2700K. Never enough hours in the day...

Ian.

 

[RandomSauce22]

For those who are looking for a good GPU for a first build or a major upgrade, this is great. You get performance better than that of a GTX 680, but at a lower price. However, for GTX 6xx or HD 7xxx owners, this is worthless.

 

[In3rt1a]

I really like this card... But AMD has better bundle deals/prices... Ended up getting the 7970 for $300 at newegg.

 

[somebodyspecial]

somebodyspecial writes:
> We appear to be very similar in our approaches to game playing You take the
> two card route and I wait until one can do the same job roughly ...

> ... but I have an Arizona heat issue also 😉 ...

I was wondering where you were. 😀

Hey, there's a thing though, isn't it fairly usual for most homes to have aircon?
I remember in Dallas, the Days Inn I stayed at had an air con which could make
the room amazingly cool, even though at the time it was 45C outside (this was
late 1995, heatwave). I bet it's expensive though.

Ian.

Must have missed this post...

Yes everyone has air here (thank god or I think you'd shrivel up an die). But yes the problem is the price. We avg about $240-270 in the 3 hot months and that isn't as being as cool as I want really. I think another degree or two would shove that bill to $300-350 but I could be wrong. That degree or two keeps the air running a LOT more though when we've dropped it so clearly it's fighting much harder to do it when outside is 102-115 basically the whole month. Next year I'll be going to an avg plan to bring it down (the electric company allows you to take the yr avg and pay that monthly). The winter months can actually be quite low ($80-100) so overall I think I wouldn't mind the avg which would allow less pain and cooler summer. There's no difference of course in price, it just seems nicer paying an avg than the sticker shock you get in the summer.

June was REALLY hot this year (more like July...Worse than July so far by a lot). I hope this was an anomaly I'd hate to see another month or two added to what I call "summer" here. BBQ was out of the question in June. But I love this over Oregon weather with maybe a month or two of BBQ time there, vs 9-10 months here! I love that! I specifically moved here to BBQ...LOL. Well and IT jobs are easy to get here also 😉 This place is full of banks, trading places (schwab etc), and everything else that runs on tech.

 

[fanchiuho]

I really like this card... But AMD has better bundle deals/prices... Ended up getting the 7970 for $300 at newegg.

Same here for the bundle, except mine was just a 7950.
Deducting the value of those games from the price of a 7970GHz would actually make 7970GHz very competitive against a 770, even if the performance is just a little bit behind.
(I bet those who aren't after 780s or Titans are still budget conscious right?
😉)

 

[In3rt1a]

I really like this card... But AMD has better bundle deals/prices... Ended up getting the 7970 for $300 at newegg.

Same here for the bundle, except mine was just a 7950.
Deducting the value of those games from the price of a 7970GHz would actually make 7970GHz very competitive against a 770, even if the performance is just a little bit behind.
(I bet those who aren't after 780s or Titans are still budget conscious right?
😉)

You know it man 😛

 

[shirley Santa Rosa]

yeah, no one is going to be making money (eg making a profit, no matter how you compute that... even just on electricity costs alone) using GPUs for Bitcoin mining.

I dont care if you use the gnarliest AMD setup available with the most energy efficient and low cost rig you can manage.


very very soon, the reward is going to drop again.

and once the next batch of ASICs are shipped.... be they the ones offered by butterfly, bitsyncom, and proprietary systems....


the ASIC miners are going to steal well over 80% of the computing power, and their combined power will rapidly drop the reward.

THEN, a bunch of people churning out 100s of blocks per month are going to SELL THEIR BITCOINS.

that is going to cause the market to CRASH, when a fuckload of sellers enter the market.

There simply arent enough people buying drugs on silk road to support all of the multi-million dollar ASIC startups that will soon start dumping the bitcoins they have received for solving blocks.