Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › Graphics Cards - General › It's safe to assume that HD 7970 GHz Edition is the fastest single gpu?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's safe to assume that HD 7970 GHz Edition is the fastest single gpu? - Page 6  

post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_670_FTW_Signature_2/27.html

HD 7970 Ghz is 2% faster at 1680 x 1050 , 4% faster at 1920 x 1080 and 9% faster at 2560 x 1600 than GTX 680. GTX 680 is slower when you take the most demanding games.

That review is not with the newest drivers. This one is and you get different results there. 7970GHz is 1.7% better in all resolutions from 1050p and above wink.gif

1050p 680 is 2% faster. 1200p 680 and 7970 is equal. 1600p 7970 is 7% faster.
I`m not disagreeing that bandwidth and memory is an issue at higher resolutions either although I haven`t fully studied both GPUs. smile.gif

Like I said earlier, I won`t participate in "this review said that" "but this said this" etc. Enough from me this time. Buy whatever you want
Edited by Cloudfire777 - 2/13/13 at 12:09pm
post #52 of 59
lmao wont participate right...
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
The 3930
(26 items)
 
Junior's 3930
(22 items)
 
DATA/HTPC
(20 items)
 
  hide details  
post #53 of 59
So, if they trade blows with each other and the 7970 Ghz is cheaper, then why buy the GTX 680?

Disclaimer : I'm too poor to be a fanboy of anything, so my question is a result of seeing countless amd vs nvidia threads. smile.gif
TRON3000
(15 items)
 
 
ASUSness
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 SLACR @ 3.0 GHz Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L MSI 7950 OC BE 3GB 2X2 GB 800 mhz Corsair 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm 500GB LG super multi Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit Windows 8 pro 64 bit 
OSMonitorPower
Ubuntu 12.10 Acer 19"W 4ms AL1916W Coolermaster 500W 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-5200U Intel HD Graphics 5500 4GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 128GB SSD 
OSMonitorAudio
Windows 10 64-bit 13.3 in Full HD infinity display Waves MaxxAudio 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Intel Core i3 3217U Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 4.00GB DDR3 Windows 10 64-bit 
Monitor
14" Multitouch 1366x768 
  hide details  
TRON3000
(15 items)
 
 
ASUSness
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 SLACR @ 3.0 GHz Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L MSI 7950 OC BE 3GB 2X2 GB 800 mhz Corsair 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm 500GB LG super multi Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit Windows 8 pro 64 bit 
OSMonitorPower
Ubuntu 12.10 Acer 19"W 4ms AL1916W Coolermaster 500W 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-5200U Intel HD Graphics 5500 4GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 128GB SSD 
OSMonitorAudio
Windows 10 64-bit 13.3 in Full HD infinity display Waves MaxxAudio 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Intel Core i3 3217U Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 4.00GB DDR3 Windows 10 64-bit 
Monitor
14" Multitouch 1366x768 
  hide details  
post #54 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudfire777 View Post

That review is not with the newest drivers. This one is and you get different results there. 7970GHz is 1.7% better in all resolutions from 1050p and above wink.gif

1050p 680 is 2% faster. 1200p 680 and 7970 is equal. 1600p 7970 is 7% faster.
I`m not disagreeing that bandwidth and memory is an issue at higher resolutions either although I haven`t fully studied both GPUs. smile.gif

Like I said earlier, I won`t participate in "this review said that" "but this said this" etc. Enough from me this time. Buy whatever you want

you are wrong. the review mentioned has the same drivers 310.70 whql for nvidia and 13.1 whql for AMD. there could be some error in the performance summary in the ARES II review. also why go to a dual GPU review when TPU has a single GPU review. TPU is just one site. there are others who have reviewed 310 series beta and 12.11 beta

http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/page12.html

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/3x-gtx-680-und-3x-hd-7970-mit-i7-3970x/5/
Fragbox
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2400 DH67BL AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series XFX HD 6950 2GB 
RAMRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
Corsair Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Western Digital Caviar Green SONY DVD-RW AD-7260S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional 32 bit BENQ G2420HD Logitech K200 Seasonic VX550 psu 
CaseMouse
ANTEC 200 V2 Logitech mouse 
  hide details  
Fragbox
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2400 DH67BL AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series XFX HD 6950 2GB 
RAMRAMHard DriveOptical Drive
Corsair Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Corsair DDR3 1333 Mhz 2 GB Western Digital Caviar Green SONY DVD-RW AD-7260S 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional 32 bit BENQ G2420HD Logitech K200 Seasonic VX550 psu 
CaseMouse
ANTEC 200 V2 Logitech mouse 
  hide details  
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenpachiroks View Post

So, if they trade blows with each other and the 7970 Ghz is cheaper, then why buy the GTX 680?

Disclaimer : I'm too poor to be a fanboy of anything, so my question is a result of seeing countless amd vs nvidia threads. smile.gif
Its only a minor price difference this time so price wise its a moot point. Its $50 between a 7970GHz and a GTX 680. GTX 670 is cheaper than 7970GHz,and it overclock pretty good. Kepler is a lot cheaper than Fermi was, and Nvidia can compete very closely against AMD with price. Look at previous generation, Fermi vs VLIW, it was a complete different scenario.

But anyways, reason why people buy Nvidia:

Some people prefer the brand Nvidia. Like people pay more for iPhone than an equal performing Android phone. I think most of it is because out of habit.

Then we have the driver ghost hanging over since ages ago. I still don`t know if AMD is having driver problems or not. So that scares people off to Nvidia.

OEMs seem to prefer Nvidia over AMD and Nvidia sell more GPUs on complete systems from system builders.

Then we had the whole frame time issue for AMD cards over Nvidia, plus FPS drops compared to Nvidia.

Probably more but that is what I can remember just off the bat
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post

you are wrong. the review mentioned has the same drivers 310.70 whql for nvidia and 13.1 whql for AMD. there could be some error in the performance summary in the ARES II review. also why go to a dual GPU review when TPU has a single GPU review. TPU is just one site. there are others who have reviewed 310 series beta and 12.11 beta

http://www.techspot.com/review/603-best-graphics-cards/page12.html

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/3x-gtx-680-und-3x-hd-7970-mit-i7-3970x/5/

Would you give it a rest already?

"Why go to a dual GPU review"
Why does it matter? The scores from previous reviews are there as well.

"Error in the performance summary"
Yes of course its an error with the one I posted, but not on yours... rolleyes.gif

And stop throwing specific pages of reviews at me. I`ve already said I`m not participating in that game
Edited by Cloudfire777 - 2/13/13 at 12:36pm
post #56 of 59
Quote:
But anyways, reason why people buy Nvidia:

Lightboost.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudfire777 View Post

Its only a minor price difference this time so price wise its a moot point. Its $50 between a 7970GHz and a GTX 680. GTX 670 is cheaper than 7970GHz,and it overclock pretty good. Kepler is a lot cheaper than Fermi was, and Nvidia can compete very closely against AMD with price. Look at previous generation, Fermi vs VLIW, it was a complete different scenario.

But anyways, reason why people buy Nvidia:

Some people prefer the brand Nvidia. Like people pay more for iPhone than an equal performing Android phone. I think most of it is because out of habit.

Then we have the driver ghost hanging over since ages ago. I still don`t know if AMD is having driver problems or not. So that scares people off to Nvidia.

OEMs seem to prefer Nvidia over AMD and Nvidia sell more GPUs on complete systems from system builders.

Then we had the whole frame time issue for AMD cards over Nvidia, plus FPS drops compared to Nvidia.

Thank you very much for your reply. Yeah, it really is different from the fermi days. Much closer now.

On a personal note. To me, 50$ is a very very big deal (But then again, I wouldn't be buying a flagship GPU if 50$ is a big deal). Right now, I couldn't dream of owning anything that expensive. This used to limit me to casually skimming reviews. But I've been reading so much more after OCNs "win your ultimate rig" contest. smile.gif I'm sure its done that for many people. I've chosen the 680 in my ultimate rig mainly cause of 3D vision, the AMD fps drops, and a tiny bit because of the driver ghost.
TRON3000
(15 items)
 
 
ASUSness
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 SLACR @ 3.0 GHz Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L MSI 7950 OC BE 3GB 2X2 GB 800 mhz Corsair 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm 500GB LG super multi Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit Windows 8 pro 64 bit 
OSMonitorPower
Ubuntu 12.10 Acer 19"W 4ms AL1916W Coolermaster 500W 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-5200U Intel HD Graphics 5500 4GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 128GB SSD 
OSMonitorAudio
Windows 10 64-bit 13.3 in Full HD infinity display Waves MaxxAudio 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Intel Core i3 3217U Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 4.00GB DDR3 Windows 10 64-bit 
Monitor
14" Multitouch 1366x768 
  hide details  
TRON3000
(15 items)
 
 
ASUSness
(5 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 SLACR @ 3.0 GHz Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L MSI 7950 OC BE 3GB 2X2 GB 800 mhz Corsair 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm 500GB LG super multi Windows 8.1 Pro 64 bit Windows 8 pro 64 bit 
OSMonitorPower
Ubuntu 12.10 Acer 19"W 4ms AL1916W Coolermaster 500W 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-5200U Intel HD Graphics 5500 4GB DDR3L 1600 MHz 128GB SSD 
OSMonitorAudio
Windows 10 64-bit 13.3 in Full HD infinity display Waves MaxxAudio 
CPUGraphicsRAMOS
Intel Core i3 3217U Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 4.00GB DDR3 Windows 10 64-bit 
Monitor
14" Multitouch 1366x768 
  hide details  
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudfire777 View Post

Considering that the 7970GHz use almost 45W more than GTX 680 (209W vs 166W) to be only 2% faster in average, thats pretty dissappointing don`t you think? wink.gif
The topic is about which card is the fastest and it is clearly the HD 7970 GHz Edition even you admit it. Like seriously, power consumption is nothing when you can spend some more bucks to get enough power supply. Also 2% faster in average is a very old statement. Now, HD 7970 GHz Edition is far more better because of the drivers updates. wink.gif
APU
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
a10-5800k asus hd 7660d kingston 8gb 
OSPowerCase
windows 7 750w corsair 350d 
  hide details  
APU
(7 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
a10-5800k asus hd 7660d kingston 8gb 
OSPowerCase
windows 7 750w corsair 350d 
  hide details  
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodon View Post

The topic is about which card is the fastest and it is clearly the HD 7970 GHz Edition even you admit it. Like seriously, power consumption is nothing when you can spend some more bucks to get enough power supply. Also 2% faster in average is a very old statement. Now, HD 7970 GHz Edition is far more better because of the drivers updates. wink.gif

in this thread.
trolls.
More Fans
(9 items)
 
x100e (RIP)
(7 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Athlon Neo MV-40 ATI Radeon HD3200 4GB Patriot DDR2 OCZ Vertex 3 Slim 120GB 
OSMonitorMouse
Crunchbang LG Green Screen Trackpoint 
  hide details  
More Fans
(9 items)
 
x100e (RIP)
(7 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Athlon Neo MV-40 ATI Radeon HD3200 4GB Patriot DDR2 OCZ Vertex 3 Slim 120GB 
OSMonitorMouse
Crunchbang LG Green Screen Trackpoint 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Graphics Cards - General
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › Graphics Cards - General › It's safe to assume that HD 7970 GHz Edition is the fastest single gpu?