[TechSpot] The Best Gaming Graphics Cards: 1920x1200 & 2560x1600 - Page 18

Lol, that last graph that you posted shows that the 680 and 7970GE are essentially tied at 1080p. Maybe now you can stop going on and on in every thread about how superior the 680 is because it has now been pretty well established that they are very even.

GK110 will put the next AMD flagship where it belongs, around the $350.00 price range.

I will have 2 of gk110 as soon as they release. No question...

Well, I wouldn't call myself a fanboy (unlike some people), and you have also handpicked the reviews too. We have no reason to get emotional over such trivial matters, and I could really care less who performs better than the other because I don't have either card. I'll pull up every english review website that reviewed the 7970 GHz with BF3 in it.

Anandtech: You already have the benches posted. It's in favor of the 680.

Techpowerup:

1200p
7970=72.3
680=71.8
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

1600p
7970=47
680=44
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

5760x1080
7970=32.8
680= 29.5
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

Hexus

1080p
7970=51.1
680=57.8
NV/ arguably unnoticeable difference

1600p
7970=36.7
680=39.1
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

PC Perspective

1080p
7970=45/116/69
680= 49/120/72
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

1600p
7970=28/70/43.7
680= 27/67/42.7
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

5760x1080p
7970=33/60/42.8
680= 31/56/40.8
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

Guru3d

1200p
7970=52
680=57
NV/ arguably unnoticeable difference

Tom's Hardware (x/x=4xAA/0xAA)

1080p
7970= 78.66/108.37
680= 78.40/109.46
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

1600p
7970=48.22/69.73
680= 44.86/64.02
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

[H]ard OCP= you already have the benches posted. Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference.

HardwareHeaven

1080p
7970=69/112/49
680= 69/90/44--GTX 680 Phantom
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

5760x1080p
7970=28/36/33
680= 27/35/31
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

Hardware Canucks= You already have it posted. It is in favor of the gtx 680

Techreport

1600p
7970=41
680=40 (680 AMP=44)
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

Legit Reviews

1080p
7970= 73.1
680= 75
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference

1600p
7970= 48.7
680= 46.9
Within margin of error/ unnoticeable difference


Hmmm. It seems like the 680 and the 7970 are very close in performance when it comes to BF3. I rest my case.

EDIT: I don't need a 7970/680 to know how they perform. That's what the internet is for...I don't game enough to really justify my purchase of those cards either. A 5770 is all I need for what I do.
Edited by airisom2 - 7/16/12 at 8:42am

Same here...The GTX 680 is really a mid-range card. I was upset intially, but I traded my 7970's for it anyway because of the better BF3 performance (the only game I actively play). GK110 (the true 580 successor ) will be faster than ANYTHING AMD has coming later on this year (It will take a dual HD 8970 or 8950 to beat it)... Hopefully Nvidia doesn't price this thing in the $700.00 range, becuase it's going to be an absolute BEAST!

What's extremely annoying about the wait for GK110 is that once the damn thing finally comes out, we'll need to wait even longer for half-decent PCB's that allow increasing voltage. Because looking at the GTX600 series in general, the reference PCB's sure as hell don't allow much. I will be finally be moving onto watercooling and I'm not sticking a waterblock on a rubbish PCB.

Main reason I went with 7970's for my water-cooled system. No point in water-cooling the 680's with locked voltage....

Is there any of this chip ever being released for mainstream graphics? I hear this being thrown around a lot, and I have not seen one shred of evidence that this chip will be released for anything other than Tesla cards.

This is complete speculation, and quite frankly a PR stunt started by either NV themselves, or obsessed fanboys. You are telling me after all the trouble they had getting this mid-range chip out to consumers, they secretly held on to a massive cache of GK110's that were too good to put in desktop graphics cards? Pass whatever it is your smoking to me when your finished.

I will admit the GK110 COULD have been put into the GeForce lineup, if NV wanted to wait till late 2012 to release it, but then AMD would have had at least a 9 month reign as top dog.

Fact is, this is the closest this graphics wars have been in quite some time, and many people can't stomach the fact that AMD gained more ground this generation, and has actually pulled ahead at higher (>1200p) resolutions in most titles.

I found NV's offerings half-baked this generation (even though I was looking forward to going EVGA again). Starved memory bandwidth effectively making 4GB cards useless, and still charging record breaking prices for them? Also, the build quality of the reference 670 leaves a lot to be desired. Thanks to the aforementioned, and NV's "kiss my a$$ consumer!" attitude, I wound up getting my current card after the most recent price drop.

GK100 was originally planned to be the flagship but they couldn't get it right so they went ahead and made GK104 the flagship. AFAIK GK110 is the revision of GK100 and will almost certainly be made into a GeForce card. All this midrange stuff is kinda silly though because the 7970 and 680 are both the highest performing GPU's on the planet right now which makes them high end by default.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/22989/3
Also evidence for GK110 coming out as a GeForce card is the fact that that is exactly how NV deals with their high end dies. Release the best least leakiest low voltage dies as Tesla cards and the ones that aren't as high binned as GeForce cards. Guarantees the maximum profit for NV. This has been the case for years and years, there's absolutely no reason to believe that they would change it now.