|
|
| Page 2 of 3 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:40 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:41 Post subject: |
|
|
and i don't see myself getting anything higher then 1920x1080.
so right now, the choice for me is, between a 680 and a 7970.
http://www.chip.de/artikel/Nvidia-vs.-AMD-Geforce-GTX-680-gegen-Radeon-HD-7970_55183703.html
| Quote: | | Nach unserem Test steht klar fest: Die Geforce GTX 680 ist die derzeit schnellste Single-GPU-Grafikkarte. In den Benchmarks auf unserem Testsystem liegt die Karte in den meisten Fällen bis zu 10 Prozent über der Radeon HD 7970. Gerade in der aktuell wichtigsten Auflösung von 1.920 x 1.080 Pixel (der nativen Auflösung der meisten 23- und 24-Zoll-TFTs) steigt der Abstand sogar noch stärker auf bis zu 20 Prozent. |
| Quote: | | After our test, it is quite clear: The GTX 680 is the fastest single-GPU graphics card. In the benchmarks on our test system, the card is in most cases up to 10 percent over the Radeon HD 7970th Especially in the currently most important resolution of 1,920 x 1,080 pixels (the native resolution of most 23 - and 24-inch LCDs), the distance increases even more at up to 20 percent. |
they seem to have done quite extensive testing
and unless anyone can show me something different, i'm going for the GTX 680.
Last edited by Sin317 on Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:43 Post subject: |
|
|
I suggest getting 680, just to satisfy Intel_NVIDIA.
 Spoiler: | I would still get 7970, incredible deal with new never settle bundle, also costs 100€ less |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 12:49 Post subject: |
|
|
just to make clear, i am not a nvidia fanboy, nor a ati fanboy and don't care about such petty things.
I am pro intel, but mostly because of how sucky amd has become, rofl.
And the 680 seems to be 10-20% above the 7970 in the 1920 resolutions, so i rather go for that one.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 13:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Why don't you just get both, test for yourself and then send one back within those 2 "refund without questions asked" weeks? Unless you don't have those over there?
Proud member of Frustrated Association of International Losers Failing Against the Gifted and Superior (F.A.I.L.F.A.G.S)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 13:24 Post subject: |
|
|
| Intel_NVIDIA wrote: | | unlike breezer or you i never made absurd claims that nvidia is 10 or 20% faster. |
No, you haven't nor did I imply that you did (nor have I claimed that a 7970 is 20% faster than a 680 for example). But you have made other claims without backing it up.
You know your stuff, don't get me wrong, but in this case there is just no better choice based on performance. I don't believe you're as oblivious as Slizza either, you at least see the value in AMD even if you prefer Nvidia yourself.
And as for your sample: no, you most certainly do not have an average sample, yours is well above average. If you check all the overclocking reviews that were done when the 680 was released, most sites got to somewhere between 1225 and 1250 w/ Boost (so I'm still a good 60-90 MHz behind that, but my memory sucks balls so 0 gain on that front). Mine is well below average and in fact, I'm convinced that my chip is right on the breaking point where they would've disabled a cluster and made it a 670 (which would've probably resulted in similar results to you). But yours most certainly is above average 
I will also be replacing my 680 once it's clear who's doing what and when. Not satisfied with this thing at all, so I'm hoping Nvidia do more than just "Titan" and that AMD still do a refresh now rather than at the end of the year. At least then I'll have some choices to make again 
You mean you don't see the 7950 being well ahead?
No, you wouldn't. In fact, up until December, I would've recommended the 660 Ti, because they are THAT close and the 660 Ti dropped in price. However, with the latest drivers the 7950 has climbed up to its rightful place next to the 670 in the heavier games (TR's test suite is crap btw, what the fuck at that selection of games :S the others are all on old drivers). At least, that's how it was when looked at the first bunch of benchmarks of the GCN drivers.
As for this whole discussion, based on the new drivers, to give Sin a solid answer:
- 660 Ti matches a 7950 at best, but loses out quite substantially in Crysis or Metro for example due to its bandwidth limitation. Here in NL the two are roughly the same price right now, so I would pick the 7950 out of these two, purely because it never loses out to the other one. Even with the old drivers, the two would've been perfectly matches and therefor there would've been no "better" choice.
- 7950 is tied with a 670 for the most part, except for games that tend to run better on Nvidia. Total War, SC2, Source engine, Skyrim all run much better on the 670. Price has to be the decider here.
- 7970 is literally tied with the 680 at 1080p. Some games (Crysis, Metro) run better on the 7970, some (Skyrim, BF3) on the 680. In everything else they're each other's direct peer, so overall I rate them equal. Given that a 7970 is 100 EUR cheaper for Sin, that gives it quite an edge. All in all, you can get a heavily factory overclocked 7970 for the price of a regular 680, at which point that difference in games that favour the 680 has shrunk to almost nothing.
So fuck all the Nvidia versus AMD, in the end it comes down to price. And as it stands, AMD have the better value with the 7970 against the 680. As for the 7950, depends on price.
So Sin, based on your posts in the thread so far:
- 660 Ti is cheaper than 7950, right? 660 Ti has an edge there then, because you can get a factory OC card and creep up to 670/7950 levels for less money.
- 7950 vs 670: I assume the 7950 is cheaper? That would be my choice then, if equal, the 670.
- 7970 vs 680: 7970 100 EUR cheaper? No-brainer. Heck, get a factory OC 7970, still spend less than on a 680 and match or beat its performance across the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Not to mention you get Crysis 3, Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite. What can go wrong?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 14:27 Post subject: |
|
|
At its current price point and with the bundle, there's just no way a 680 can beat its value unless it was 40% faster
I may sound negative about my 680 btw, but overall it performs really well obviously. It's just that I got unlucky and I use two monitors (and occasionally I plug in a third one  ), something Nvidia has never been able to deal with very well. And in fact, I originally did order a 7970 for that reason, but the shop I ordered from underestimated the amount of orders they were going to get for those so I was put in a backorder queue. I could've waited a month or so or get the 680 straight away instead because they overestimated that (and I only paid 400 because of a fuckup in their system  ).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 16:41 Post subject: |
|
|
and when comparing benchmarks please use benchmarks that use newest drivers, Sin i stand by my suggestion to buy a 7950. as you said you dont even have a 1080p screen now , save money by buying 7950 and invest it in a new monitor.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 16:51 Post subject: |
|
|
but then wouldn't it be better to get a 660ti, since they are cheaper then the 7950 here ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 17:40 Post subject: |
|
|
your money sin , cant go wrong with either card.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 16th Feb 2013 20:45 Post subject: |
|
|
No point in deciding now if you're not gonna buy it for another month, a lot can happen to prices in that time (and most likely will)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 21:05 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:00 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | You're a bit butthurt because you got a shit card. |
Not on its own, it's more that even though this is supposed to be the very top -single GPU- Nvidia card, it still fails miserably at dealing with multiple monitors. Usually, overclocking gets rid of most of those issues, since it avoids most of the longer frametimes. Unfortunately, even the 2D/multi-monitor idle clocks aren't enough to keep Windows from lagging and that just extends into games
I'm just really disappointed in the drivers. Where you say you won't go ATI because of the drivers (which is horseshit, for the record, just ask Breezer after his hardcore Nvidia supporting), I'm very annoyed that after half a decade, Nvidia still can't deal with just two monitors properly. That and the fact that I'm still rolling back on some drivers and skipping an entire version, something I haven't had to do on AMD with my 5870 or 6950. Last time I did that with them was in fact half a decade ago.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:07 Post subject: |
|
|
There is nothing wrong with AMD drivers (after never settle), some bugs there and there, which exists on Nvidia aswell. Not to mention this "horrible" latency issue, which can be seen only with 10k dollars high speed camera and in diagrams (every nvidia guy bashing AMD because of this, its funny since you cant see it). I have always favored Nvidia, also i like PhysX, but overall after i made my swap from 670 to a 7970... Could not be anymore satisfied, for my usage its much better (1440p really needs extra VRAM). Also how many times it needs to be mentioned that 7970 is cheaper?. Next card will be from Nvidia or AMD, depends whatever is faster (Titan is coming, but i want to see first what AMD brings up, since this 7970 runs everything).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:13 Post subject: |
|
|
hm about physx, IF i go with ati, i can still use my 560ti for physx , right ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| Sin317 wrote: | | hm about physx, IF i go with ati, i can still use my 560ti for physx , right ? |
nope that was disabled a long time ago. the only way it works is using ancient drivers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sin317
Banned
Posts: 24321
Location: Geneva
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:16 Post subject: |
|
|
so, no physx with ati cards , or how does that work now ?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sausje
Banned
Posts: 17716
Location: Limboland, Netherlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | You're a bit butthurt because you got a shit card. |
Not on its own, it's more that even though this is supposed to be the very top -single GPU- Nvidia card, it still fails miserably at dealing with multiple monitors. Usually, overclocking gets rid of most of those issues, since it avoids most of the longer frametimes. Unfortunately, even the 2D/multi-monitor idle clocks aren't enough to keep Windows from lagging and that just extends into games
I'm just really disappointed in the drivers. Where you say you won't go ATI because of the drivers (which is horseshit, for the record, just ask Breezer after his hardcore Nvidia supporting), I'm very annoyed that after half a decade, Nvidia still can't deal with just two monitors properly. That and the fact that I'm still rolling back on some drivers and skipping an entire version, something I haven't had to do on AMD with my 5870 or 6950. Last time I did that with them was in fact half a decade ago. |
I run a second display as well and I don't personally see these issues that you describe. It drives it without any issue while running the latest games full tilt.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| Breezer_ wrote: | | There is nothing wrong with AMD drivers (after never settle), some bugs there and there, which exists on Nvidia aswell. Not to mention this "horrible" latency issue, which can be seen only with 10k dollars high speed camera and in diagrams (every nvidia guy bashing AMD because of this, its funny since you cant see it). I have always favored Nvidia, also i like PhysX, but overall after i made my swap from 670 to a 7970... Could not be anymore satisfied, for my usage its much better (1440p really needs extra VRAM). Also how many times it needs to be mentioned that 7970 is cheaper?. Next card will be from Nvidia or AMD, depends whatever is faster (Titan is coming, but i want to see first what AMD brings up, since this 7970 runs everything). |
7970 is faster but not to the point that it will allow you to run higher settings in almost every current game on the market. Further, it's using a decent amount more power to do so.
And I don't see the VRAM issue. Every review site (And HardOCP in particular did a review just to test the fact) has shown that the 2GB on the GTX 680 is enough even for BF3 and MP3 at the highest settings. It's known at this point that the memory management scheme nvidia uses is superior to ATI's scheme, and situations where 2GB shouldn't have been enough shows that there is little impact. Further, in only but surround situations do the 4GB GTX680's make themselves of use. The 4GB kepler cards bench slower then the 2GB cards. So unless you are running higher then 1440p it's worthless as it is, and while next-gen games will surely make use of more VRAM; You'll be upgraded off the 680/7970 by then anyways to run them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 23:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | I run a second display as well and I don't personally see these issues that you describe. It drives it without any issue while running the latest games full tilt. |
don't bother, talking to breezer and werelds is like talking to a brick wall. from their perspective if you argue against ati you are nvidia fanboy, but when they argue against nvidia they are non biased voice of reason!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 23:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, we can argue all week long about what's lacking in each card, but in the end there is still 100€ to account for when choosing between 7970 and 680. Honestly, I don't know why the 680 is still priced that high in comparison.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sun, 17th Feb 2013 23:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Mchart wrote: | | I run a second display as well and I don't personally see these issues that you describe. It drives it without any issue while running the latest games full tilt. |
No, it doesn't. You may not notice it, but when you have two monitors connected, it will microstutter unless the secondary monitor is blanked out. Which the drivers do...most of the time, doesn't always work. Yet, I personally like that secondary monitor to have TS on so I can see who is speaking or joining etc. without stupid overlays or annoying TTS messages (or to have the MSI AB monitor up on when benchmarking for example)
If you also take this, you see the difference in usage already; wish I'd known MSI AB added frametimes, I would've made a screenshot of that (I still will, once I have time to fiddle with things again). Seriously, just keep AB running and look at your frametimes when both of your monitors are on and not blanked out.
Same goes for in Windows, randomly everything will slow down for 30 seconds or so when you have a window on the secondary display and then move stuff around on the primary for example. It will run at 15 FPS, or at least feel that way because it's microstuttering like a bitch at that point. Nvidia has always done that, their display management is just really fucking terrible. The fact that Surround is still nothing more than a software hack and can't be activated with just two monitors proves that as well.
| Mchart wrote: | | And I don't see the VRAM issue. Every review site (And HardOCP in particular did a review just to test the fact) has shown that the 2GB on the GTX 680 is enough even for BF3 and MP3 at the highest settings. It's known at this point that the memory management scheme nvidia uses is superior to ATI's scheme, and situations where 2GB shouldn't have been enough shows that there is little impact. |
Oh? I must've missed that article. Even so, it would still be wrong, because what BF3 will do is use more of that VRAM for caching purposes. So will things run fine with 2GB? Yes. Will more benefit it? Yes. Do you NEED more above 1080p? Yes. BF3 for me uses 1.8-1.9 GB at 1080p already.
| Intel_NVIDIA wrote: | | Mchart wrote: | | I run a second display as well and I don't personally see these issues that you describe. It drives it without any issue while running the latest games full tilt. |
don't bother, talking to breezer and werelds is like talking to a brick wall. from their perspective if you argue against ati you are nvidia fanboy, but when they argue against nvidia they are non biased voice of reason! |
How the fuck does that have anything to do with this? I have a fucking Nvidia card and I see these issues myself. And these are not new, they were there with my 8800 GTS-640, with my first 9800 GTX+, with my second 9800 GTX+ and with my GTX 460 1GB. All four of those cards however, unlike my GTX 680, were good samples (and my G80 was a brilliant sample in fact, until the underfill issue cropped up). Nvidia's multi display management is shit, always has been shit and most likely will always be shit. I'm also not the only one with these issues and they are in fact known issues.
I'm also not calling him a fanboy at all, you're the one throwing that bullshit around again like a fucking 12 year old child. I'm merely pointing out that I do have legitimate issues with Nvidia, which I can reproduce and which I do find ridiculous at this price point. Mchart has his reasons to prefer Nvidia, so be it. Now, you have issues with a brand that you don't use and haven't used in many years, so you have no right to speak. Stop trolling.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
Friend has 670 which doesnt overclock from stock even by 10mhz 
