Wtf does this have to do about the article this is a round up of gaming videocards!
I think your on the wrong site bro.
Go cheerlead for NV elsewhere!
The Best Graphics Cards: Full AMD and Nvidia GPU Comparison with Latest Drivers
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Wtf does this have to do about the article this is a round up of gaming videocards!
I think your on the wrong site bro.
Go cheerlead for NV elsewhere!
Amet Jassil
Posts: 9 +1
Great article!
To quote Mugatu: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
How come that you use the top card from AMD and not the top card from Nvidia?
Nvidia made a GTX 690 card some time ago, please re-do the test with both of the top cards, or take the AMD top card away to make test fair!
In what way does comparing a $1000 GTX 690 to a $450 7970 GHz Edition card make it a fair test? If the article was titled "finding the world's fastest single graphics card" then yeah you might have a point.
At $1000 we would only consider including the GTX 690 if we were going to compare it to a similar priced AMD setup, such as dual 7970's for $800. But that is not the point of this article.
Hypothetically if we were to include the GTX 690 it would not appear on the final page as a recommended buy.
It was a great article Steve thank you for taking your time to do it.
I never noticed how many butthurt Nvidia trolls are on this site.
OMG it not fair that's an overclocked card, OMG it doesn't have cuda, OMG where is the 690 card.
I think you guys should go to a pro nv site for your information since no one cares about your tears!
Maybe you guys should write up your own reviews and created your own site so you can pun a green spin on your benchmarks really sad.....
AMD did make a 7990 that would still be on top of the gtx 690 so it dont matter.How come that you use the top card from AMD and not the top card from Nvidia?
Nvidia made a GTX 690 card some time ago
G
Guest
I would have liked to see the GTX 670 and 680 4gb cards, as well as the HD 7970 GHz 6gb card, especially at higher resolutions.
G
Guest
Great article and a nice round out of the final lifecycle of current AMD/NV cards for the year.
While there is a lot of butthurt/gloating from both camps smeared all through this thread I'll lay my 2c down on thr GTX690, since I don't have a price point when I do my builds, I built my last machine with one. It's a very elegant solution and a niche piece of technology that was fun to build a machine around such a well build card.
Would I do it again? No. For all the technology gusto that card has, working with SLI profiles feels like a total crutch to the whole package. Game engines are exceeding the ability of single GPU solutions easily at 1440p and up resolutions unless your willing to retard the settings in teh game. SLI(Xfire) feels cumbersome trying to hen peck tweaks here and there to get decent dual GPU performance from combined (or sli separate) cards.
I believe software/drivers need an evolutionary improvement in how they work with DirectX and game engines to smartly adjust to scaling and performance, till then it just feels like using a sledge hammer to do dental work.
While there is a lot of butthurt/gloating from both camps smeared all through this thread I'll lay my 2c down on thr GTX690, since I don't have a price point when I do my builds, I built my last machine with one. It's a very elegant solution and a niche piece of technology that was fun to build a machine around such a well build card.
Would I do it again? No. For all the technology gusto that card has, working with SLI profiles feels like a total crutch to the whole package. Game engines are exceeding the ability of single GPU solutions easily at 1440p and up resolutions unless your willing to retard the settings in teh game. SLI(Xfire) feels cumbersome trying to hen peck tweaks here and there to get decent dual GPU performance from combined (or sli separate) cards.
I believe software/drivers need an evolutionary improvement in how they work with DirectX and game engines to smartly adjust to scaling and performance, till then it just feels like using a sledge hammer to do dental work.
amstech
Posts: 2,661 +1,824
@ Blue Falcon.
I think the point your missing is that this GPU battle between Keplar and Southern Islands didn't start when AMD slashed thier prices then shortly after released new drivers that made an astounding difference. Originally they slashed thier prices because a 670 handled a 7970 at 1200p and matched it a 1600p for months. This GPU battle specifically, started Q1/Q2 of this year (when they all released) and at that time and for several months after, the GTX 680 did hold a lead and matched the GHz Edition overall. This is when many people bought thier GPU's. Thats nice that 6 months later they release drivers that take the single GPU crown. Your still getting a bang for your buck GPU with more driver issues and less features. GTX's cost more because you get more.
I do agree with you about Keplar, look at its performance and its only 256bit. Lets not talk like these large bandwidth GPU's are new, my 8800GTX was 384bit, my GTX 280 was 512bit. I would like to see the GTX 780 512bit, in 4GB and 8GB frame buffer as options.
I think the point your missing is that this GPU battle between Keplar and Southern Islands didn't start when AMD slashed thier prices then shortly after released new drivers that made an astounding difference. Originally they slashed thier prices because a 670 handled a 7970 at 1200p and matched it a 1600p for months. This GPU battle specifically, started Q1/Q2 of this year (when they all released) and at that time and for several months after, the GTX 680 did hold a lead and matched the GHz Edition overall. This is when many people bought thier GPU's. Thats nice that 6 months later they release drivers that take the single GPU crown. Your still getting a bang for your buck GPU with more driver issues and less features. GTX's cost more because you get more.
I do agree with you about Keplar, look at its performance and its only 256bit. Lets not talk like these large bandwidth GPU's are new, my 8800GTX was 384bit, my GTX 280 was 512bit. I would like to see the GTX 780 512bit, in 4GB and 8GB frame buffer as options.
Footlong
Posts: 153 +82
That's a way to look like a fan boy.
100% bias fanboy.
And future post from him will be ignored.
If he wants see his pretty little card on the top he should create his own reviews.
Nothing I said was Pro Nvidia or Pro AMD, everything I said is factual and non-arguable. Period.
Does it come across biased? Perhaps. Not my intention.This particular GPU battle has been very close and competitive.
Umm.
Your the one that has to deal with it steve will not be adding your card to the graphs anytime soon.
You posted a complain about an NV card that was not in the review ????
so what was your intention???
1. The AVG at the bottom of every graph means average, also when discussing the results we mentioned it was the average frame rate dozens of times.
2. Not really sure how it is “kinda useless” but yes we benchmark in the single player portion of the game just like every other review out there. The reason for that is simple, you cannot accurately benchmark the multiplayer aspect of the game.
3. That is the point of including CPU and GPU performance in our game articles. Most games are not CPU dependent at all so I am not sure what nightmare you are speaking of.
I have tested these higher frame buffer cards and at resolutions equal to or less than 2560x1600 they make zero difference. Where they do make a difference you need more than two of them for playable performance. In short including a 4GB GTX 680 for example would have been a complete waste of time and we would have just doubled up on GTX 680 results.
G
Guest
Actually, I have a comment.
As a business owner and someone looking to buy some new cards, I found this review to be off-putting on the inventory used for the tests, alone.
Hard and many other reviews, when they do a real review, compare like cards, compare like product and from that like-basis, create a logical hypothesis and then come to a grounded conclusion.
Unfortunately, you didn't review like-product.
You chose, as your flagship, a 15% OC'd 7970 and then, regardless of price-point, pitted it against a stock 680...Only to raise it's "hand" in victory.
Shall we start racing Ferraris against Smart Cars and calling it fair game?
What I find worse about this is the attitude portrayed by the staff...A 690 is a retail product, regardless of it's price point, there isn't one reviewed which, from the standpoint of a legitimate test, is a big deal...
The OC'd MSI Lightning 680 was available at the time of these tests and the fact that it wasn't used...Is either incredibly biased or incredibly ignorant.
Your tests show the OC'd 7970 beating the 680 by 10% on average...It's interesting that the stock MSI lightning OC is @15%...Wonder who would've won head to head in a real challenge.
What respect I had for TS actually just vanished...Enjoy racing those Ferraris.
As a business owner and someone looking to buy some new cards, I found this review to be off-putting on the inventory used for the tests, alone.
Hard and many other reviews, when they do a real review, compare like cards, compare like product and from that like-basis, create a logical hypothesis and then come to a grounded conclusion.
Unfortunately, you didn't review like-product.
You chose, as your flagship, a 15% OC'd 7970 and then, regardless of price-point, pitted it against a stock 680...Only to raise it's "hand" in victory.
Shall we start racing Ferraris against Smart Cars and calling it fair game?
What I find worse about this is the attitude portrayed by the staff...A 690 is a retail product, regardless of it's price point, there isn't one reviewed which, from the standpoint of a legitimate test, is a big deal...
The OC'd MSI Lightning 680 was available at the time of these tests and the fact that it wasn't used...Is either incredibly biased or incredibly ignorant.
Your tests show the OC'd 7970 beating the 680 by 10% on average...It's interesting that the stock MSI lightning OC is @15%...Wonder who would've won head to head in a real challenge.
What respect I had for TS actually just vanished...Enjoy racing those Ferraris.
G
Guest
Techspot is one top bench site ...everyone can express their opinion as guest even if you are not a regular member of the site....this bench site is not like stomp of Intel /amd / nvi fan base...the site is for everyone to see and comment their opinions...hence truly unbiased and I love this site very much....thanks to all staff members of tech spot(y)
spot(y)
G
Guest
Yes,similarly person jerking more money on hyped nvidia
G
Guest
Nvi--take more money give lesser product....by how--brainwashed marketing
give less specs(680-7970:3.54 b trans vs 4.3 b trans,256 vs 384-bit,1536 vs 2048 shaders)
but still our product are good how how how????-brainwashed marketing
that's nvi for u
txaa --oh nvi's new feature but but but what-----a blurry mess w.r.t radeon pro smaa
how many more would I go-on on nvi---will take pages....
give less specs(680-7970:3.54 b trans vs 4.3 b trans,256 vs 384-bit,1536 vs 2048 shaders)
but still our product are good how how how????-brainwashed marketing
that's nvi for u
txaa --oh nvi's new feature but but but what-----a blurry mess w.r.t radeon pro smaa
how many more would I go-on on nvi---will take pages....
G
Guest
I couldn't agree more. The boosted GTX 670 beats even the 680 making it a far better card than AMD's 7950 with boost. Not to mention Physx support, which as far as I remember AMD has no support to.
G
Guest
My apologies for being another 'Guest' poster since this will likely become confusing due to the number of us. Refer to me as Guest10011011 if need be.
To the people making comments about the 680 boosted variants being offered in the market we need to keep in mind that these are -not- reference boards and, as such, should have better performance than the reference board.
If you want to compare non-reference cards to something then you need to compare them to other non-reference cards.
In other words, this article is comparing the base graphic cards to base graphic cards as designated by the companies producing them.
That means a -base- 7970 is deemed to be of better value than a -base- 680.
Individual implementations of these cards will vary and there will definitely be some 680 cards that are faster than some 7970s. But, as a whole, the 7970s (note, this is NOT the overclocked variant) are still, for the most part, a better value than the 680s.
To the people making comments about the 680 boosted variants being offered in the market we need to keep in mind that these are -not- reference boards and, as such, should have better performance than the reference board.
If you want to compare non-reference cards to something then you need to compare them to other non-reference cards.
In other words, this article is comparing the base graphic cards to base graphic cards as designated by the companies producing them.
That means a -base- 7970 is deemed to be of better value than a -base- 680.
Individual implementations of these cards will vary and there will definitely be some 680 cards that are faster than some 7970s. But, as a whole, the 7970s (note, this is NOT the overclocked variant) are still, for the most part, a better value than the 680s.
G
Guest
Overall Nice article
However I just obtained an XFX 6870 for my FIL for $120 after rebate. Given the class etc etc.. it is hands down the $/value winner IMO. (esp for the gaming he does. I'm still happily running a 1st gen reference XFX 6950 mod'd to 6970 here)
However I just obtained an XFX 6870 for my FIL for $120 after rebate. Given the class etc etc.. it is hands down the $/value winner IMO. (esp for the gaming he does. I'm still happily running a 1st gen reference XFX 6950 mod'd to 6970 here)
G
Guest
Amazing, when AMD pulls ahead in something, the Nvidia fans go crazy over it... Something just had to be wrong with the testing methods!
When Nvidia is on top, you hear no such arguments.
When Nvidia is on top, you hear no such arguments.
G
Guest
Amazing article. I'd have like to see the hd6850 there, but I can guess it'd be a bit below the 6870. I always thought the gtx680 was the king of the hill, but now I see things have changed with new drivers.
Dou you guys thinks it'll be worthwhile moving from 12.6 to those new 12.11 catalyst drivers. My card is a hd6850.
Thanks!!
Dou you guys thinks it'll be worthwhile moving from 12.6 to those new 12.11 catalyst drivers. My card is a hd6850.
Thanks!!
G
Guest
These nvi troll boys always speaks rash with no research....they say boosted 670....WTH!!!
gtx 670 is already a boosted card 915-980 MHz on launch date.....
but hd 7950 does not get the boost on launch day and released for fixed clock for 800 mhz in launch day due to technical reasons....
later amd fixed it through bios update the boost clock from 800-925 MHz....
hence it's called 7950 boost as amd fixed it later for ref 7950 non-boost card ....
therefore,both 7950 and 670 supports boost and comparisons are fair and square.......
gtx 670 is already a boosted card 915-980 MHz on launch date.....
but hd 7950 does not get the boost on launch day and released for fixed clock for 800 mhz in launch day due to technical reasons....
later amd fixed it through bios update the boost clock from 800-925 MHz....
hence it's called 7950 boost as amd fixed it later for ref 7950 non-boost card ....
therefore,both 7950 and 670 supports boost and comparisons are fair and square.......
G
Guest
Hardly 5-6 games (arkham city,asylum,borderlands 1,2,mirror's edge) uses physx....it's simply non-existent (nvi shrewd marketing ploy).......if for that someone can sprout way more hard earned cash to nvi (eg -ref 7970 vs ref 680:379$ vs 479$),,,,,then leave it to them to make nvi make more money for this blind fan boys
G
Guest
Now a days heavyweight games are starting to use lots of v-ram for high texture usage and other ultra graphical details......eg- graphically intense games as sleeping dogs uses 1919 mb of vram @ 1080p maxed.....absolution 1606 MB @ 1080p maxed.....war fighter uses 1455 MB vram @ 1080p maxed
....these games and future types oncoming are bandwidth hungry games.....on that gtx 680 and 670 with 2 GB 256 bit are showing their crippling side-effect from now-on,,,,,these side effects are--low relative fps and micro stuttering....
....these games and future types oncoming are bandwidth hungry games.....on that gtx 680 and 670 with 2 GB 256 bit are showing their crippling side-effect from now-on,,,,,these side effects are--low relative fps and micro stuttering....
Similar threads
