7970 a worthy purchase?

[skipsneeky2]

I got a Corsair TX 650 so i could easily power the 7970.Just wanting to run the 7970 into the second half of 2017 where i will have in the ballpark of $350 or so saved and should easily get myself into a mid range Pascal.

Mostly focusing on GTA V as that's one major game that needs more then 2gb of vram and certainly more performance.All other games surely will benefit too but GTA V is the focus.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I'd also consider saving up a little more and trying to find an R9 290 for $180.

Yeah, 290 is the minimum, if if I "had" to buy AMD today.

950/960 level cards will continue to be overpriced until the end of this generation.

They are overpriced, on that we both agree.

Even when their prices drop, prices of used 380X/290 will also drop.

There will be more interesting cards on the market by then. That 290 will be the new 7970, slow and power hungry. Even today, my friend (he's got 290) complains about poor performance in some recent games (he's got X5650 @ 4.5 Ghz @ 1080p), I told him no Skylake upgrade will fix his lacking GPU performance, really need to save up and buy a proper GPU w/ day1 drivers support. There are not that many people who like to play games 6-12 months later. Steam GPU statistics easily proves this.

That is unfortunate, of course.

 

[crisium]

I got a Corsair TX 650 so i could easily power the 7970.Just wanting to run the 7970 into the second half of 2017 where i will have in the ballpark of $350 or so saved and should easily get myself into a mid range Pascal.

Mostly focusing on GTA V as that's one major game that needs more then 2gb of vram and certainly more performance.All other games surely will benefit too but GTA V is the focus.

The low level Maxwell GPUs are good at sipping power but cannot push the framerates of the elder Tahiti. Since you haven't expressed any efficiency concerns such as higher wattage for both idle and load, then a used Tahiti GPU still offers the best performance around that price - essentially without debate unless you find an amazing deal on a used 970 or 290. The 7970 arguably remains a fast GPU considering that each company still only has 4 modern tiers above it and it's a full 4 years old.

The only caveat is you have to go on the used market for a deal that good.

 

[RussianSensation]

Mostly focusing on GTA V as that's one major game that needs more then 2gb of vram and certainly more performance.All other games surely will benefit too but GTA V is the focus.

GameGPU - one of the few sites that retests games months after launch, with the latest drivers and patches. These graphs are as of December 31, 2015.

GTX970 = 54 fps
R9 280X (7970 OC) = 49 fps
925mhz 7970 = 43 fps

vs.

770 = 39 fps
960 4GB = 38 fps
960 2GB = 36 fps
950 2GB = 33 fps

Also, look at the minimum FPS.

There will be more interesting cards on the market by then. That 290 will be the new 7970, slow and power hungry. Even today, my friend (he's got 290) complains about poor performance in some recent games (he's got X5650 @ 4.5 Ghz @ 1080p), I told him no Skylake upgrade will fix his lacking GPU performance, really need to save up and buy a proper GPU w/ day1 drivers support. There are not that many people who like to play games 6-12 months later. Steam GPU statistics easily proves this.

That is unfortunate, of course.

Maybe, but I wouldn't consider R9 290 slow. Overclocked, the 290 and 970 OC trade blows in modern games but the price difference between them is huge once looking at used 290s. A used 290 is the perfect stop-gap since it has 64 ROPs, 4GB and overclocking headroom. It would literally take 960 SLI to match a single 290

As to the second part of your comment, to this date I have thought about it and I do not understand how people buy $40-60 US day 1 games but their GPU budget is strict or locked. Just buying 10 new launch/day 1 games then a year costs $400-600 US but the same person can only afford a $180-200 GPU? Makes 0 sense to me. I am not trying to disagree with your as you said statistics prove your case but it's ridiculous how so many consumers buy $150-200 GPUs like GTX950/960 but then buy day 1 AAA games. Considering how quickly AAA games drop in value, how so many of them come out broken and require months of patching/driver updates, how expensive all the DLC is, and how we get GOTY in 12 months that includes everything, how we cannot resell digital games, never in the entire PC history has it been more pointless to buy single player AAA games on Day 1/Week 1 at launch. Sometimes just 2-3 months post-release when the game is still being fixed, its MSRP already drops from $60 to $30 US.

I guess I don't get the logic of spending $400+ on software annually but then buying a low- to lower-end GPU.

 

[crisium]

I think the whole AMD unplayable Day 1 is nonsense (at least with single GPUs). I've had no problems with Day 1 Battlefront, Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, and new Tomb Raider which are the latest games I have gotten Day 1. AMD performance for FO4 has improved since Day 1, hopefully new TR also improves, but there are just as many examples of Day 1 AMD being faster than Nvidia from the start and usually Nvidia does not catch up.

Even with Day 1 benchmarks a 7970 will virtually always be ahead of a 960 anyway, so that's not a winning argument to make for the 960. You might try to sell a 960 on efficiency and features... not on performance compared to a 7970!

 

[tweakboy]

Take down res if it becomes a problem with performance captainsssssss
. gl

 

[Magic Carpet]

@RussianSensation

Look, I am more like you than my friend when it comes to this. Yeah, it defies logic completely. But that's what we have here. I'll make sure his next GPU will be the "gaming one". He should of added another hundred and gotten the GTX 970 instead, but oh well.

By slow I meant, in comparison to how fast next-gen is going to be, not the 950/960s (but they are at least nice for HTPC purposes). The new GPUs should be coming sometime this year, I assume. That will further devalue 7970 and make 290 the new King of the perf per $. Somewhat slow and power hungry in comparison to the new stuff, would that make you feel any better? Anyway, enough of this.

@crisium

My friend wasn't as fortunate as you, apparently. Congratulations.

@OP

If power/heat/noise/features/size/age is of no concern to you. By any means.

 

[crisium]

My friend wasn't as fortunate as you, apparently. Congratulations.

Even today, my friend (he's got 290) complains about poor performance in some recent games (he's got X5650 @ 4.5 Ghz @ 1080p), I told him no Skylake upgrade will fix his lacking GPU performance, really need to save up and buy a proper GPU w/ day1 drivers support.

Are you really saying your friend would complain any less if he had a 970? 290 vs 970 is a wash on average, even on day 1. Unless he is getting AMD specific visual glitches or crashes, naturally. You can find numerous day 1 benchmarks with the 970 and 290 trading blows. I'm not sure if you are serious right now. The solution to dissatisfaction with 290 performance is to buy a more expensive GPU, period. Invoking day 1 fallacies is irrelevant. Likewise as it relates to 7970 vs 960 it makes even less sense because in the full year of the 960's existence there is a microscopic minority of games where it is faster day 1.

 

[Silverforce11]

@Magic Carpet

Most review sites that bench Tomb Raider used the pre-release build. That game got a day-0 patch, ~1GB in size. AMD performance boosted heaps.

Compare that to benches that use the release build on Steam:

Same on PCPER and OC3D.net, basically the non Fury X AMD GPUs are out performing their NV counterpart.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Performance-Results/Adding-GTX-970-and-R9-390

390 ~= 980 in performance. Despite having no "Game Ready" drivers.

One thing about next gen: Price.

Don't expect 14nm to be cheap.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Are you really saying your friend would complain any less if he had a 970? 290 vs 970 is a wash on average, even on day 1. Unless he is getting AMD specific visual glitches or crashes, naturally. You can find numerous day 1 benchmarks with the 970 and 290 trading blows. I'm not sure if you are serious right now.

I'd say, 970 has been more consistent with day 1 performance throughout the games in the last 24 months. I believe, he would of had less issues with it.

@Silverforce11

Thanks for the new data.

 

[Stuka87]

I'd say, 970 has been more consistent with day 1 performance throughout the games in the last 24 months. I believe, he would of had less issues with it.

@Silverforce11

Thanks for the new data.

How can the 970 be more consistent over the last 24 months when it hasn't even been out for 24 months?

 

[Magic Carpet]

How can the 970 be more consistent over the last 24 months when it hasn't even been out for 24 months?

Well, since it was released, just rounded it up.

 

[tential]

As to the second part of your comment, to this date I have thought about it and I do not understand how people buy $40-60 US day 1 games but their GPU budget is strict or locked. Just buying 10 new launch/day 1 games then a year costs $400-600 US but the same person can only afford a $180-200 GPU? Makes 0 sense to me. I am not trying to disagree with your as you said statistics prove your case but it's ridiculous how so many consumers buy $150-200 GPUs like GTX950/960 but then buy day 1 AAA games. Considering how quickly AAA games drop in value, how so many of them come out broken and require months of patching/driver updates, how expensive all the DLC is, and how we get GOTY in 12 months that includes everything, how we cannot resell digital games, never in the entire PC history has it been more pointless to buy single player AAA games on Day 1/Week 1 at launch. Sometimes just 2-3 months post-release when the game is still being fixed, its MSRP already drops from $60 to $30 US.

I guess I don't get the logic of spending $400+ on software annually but then buying a low- to lower-end GPU.

There is no way to not sound offensive to gamers, but the reason why Russian is because most gamers are stupid. Actually, it was this sentiment that made me leave console gaming. Console gamers won't spend $600 on a new console ever 6 years..... That's mind boggling. The best part is PC gamers brag about how cheap PC gaming is (lol as if), and so if Games are so cheap, you have even MORE money for hardware.

Also, I don't buy the "Gamers don't play games on anything but close to launch date."

This is COMPLETELY false IMO. Yes, I think Gamers definitely BUY games close to launch date, and play multiplayer modes sure. But I think Gamers play games far past the day 1 first week first month of the game. Nvidia shines on exactly DAY 1. But after that.... you may be getting far less bang for your buck.

Fallout 4, Nvidia is faster at launch. Now, AMD is faster by latest beta drivers. That's a MASSIVE game just like GTA 5. The majority of my time on Fallout 4 will be spent playing while AMD is the better chip,d espite the Day 1 performance where Nvidia is faster.

So, I wouldn't fall into the Day 1/Beta testing games where NVidia is faster and just assume it's the best chip for games.

Unless you beat Nvidia Sponsored games in the FIRST week they come out consistently, Nvidia doesn't have a driver advantage.

 

[SickBeast]

I have a 280x and it runs pretty much all current games maxed out at 1080p, in many cases with VSR enabled. The only games that I have had to turn down some settings in are a couple of the newest Assassin's Creed games. They still run great though.

That being said, these cards are starting to get a little long in the tooth. The newest and most demanding games are starting to make them show their age. IMO a GTX 970 is the ideal card right now but they are much more expensive.

Actually the best option would be to wait for Pascal and/or Polaris. If you need a card right now though, it's hard to go wrong with the deal in the OP. Too bad it's OOS now.

 

[adamantine.me]

The 7970 is still a decent card, 2-3gb cards fare very well still with most games. You sure you can't get it for closer to $100? Would it still be covered under some warranty?

But yeah, there should be some price drops soon if they haven't happened already - I think a lot of people are upgrading.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Waiting a little while longer,either this card gets cheaper in a few months if Pascal drops or a used 290/970 gets affordable enough with a couple months savings.Maybe 970 performance with 4gb of ram and a 120w tdp with Pascal@$200?

Putting some funds into a memory,ssd and monitor upgrade for the moment.

 

[tweakboy]

That 1GB ram isn't going to cut it..

 

[Headfoot]

Well, since it was released, just rounded it up.

Look, this is the bottom line. The 290 and 970 are nearly indistinguishable in performance when averaged across all games, and every mutli-game review has shown this for ages. Unless you can perceive single digit framerate differences.

If he was unhappy with the 290 based on performance, he would not be any happier with the 970. That's 100% "grass is greener" symptom. The data does not agree whatsoever. If he's running a reference 290 and doesn't like the noise, thats a separate issue.

If a 290 is not performant enough to keep him happy, he needs to move up in total performance substantially. I'd say no less than a 980 Ti or wait to FinFET.

 

[2is]

I have a used ASUS DCII 7970 I paid $110 for. Worth every penny for the backup rig.

I have the same card in my 2nd gaming PC, great card and aging a whole lot better then my 2gb 680s that were in my main machine which have been retired. It's a great 1080p card that can run any game out there well at respectable settings.

 

[Silverforce11]

I have the same card in my 2nd gaming PC, great card and aging a whole lot better then my 2gb 680s that were in my main machine which have been retired. It's a great 1080p card that can run any game out there well at respectable settings.

People have noticed the 280X powering on for awhile... it's time to recognize the 7950 & 7970 are some of the best GPUs, ever. Up there with the venerable 9700 and 8800GT!

Anyone remember the days back then, when some folks here were claiming how the 680 is better or god-forbid more future proof due to "NV has better driver support"...

And they disregarded or dismiss the possibility the 7970 will last longer due to console GCN-effect and the extra vram.

The future's here awhile ago (since Maxwell's launch) and it turns out the 7970 is the better GPU.

More closer to recent times, last year custom R290 (as fast as R290X or 390!) was ~$180-220 vs the $330 970 and I said then the R290 is going to outlive the 970 a year later and it has. These days modern games have the R290X/390 clearly superior than the 970. Even without the DX12 era!

It would be interesting Polaris vs Pascal, whether we will see a repeat of that. My guess, as long as AMD has their GPU architecture in consoles, they will benefit with engines optimized for it, especially so in the DX12 era.

 

[Magic Carpet]

People have noticed the 280X powering on for awhile... it's time to recognize the 7950 & 7970 are some of the best GPUs, ever. Up there with the venerable 9700 and 8800GT!

9700 Pro was and still is in a class of its own, untouchable. Consider today, tech has slowed down so much, it's unbelievable.

 

[skipsneeky2]

9700 Pro was and still is in a class of its own, untouchable. Consider today, tech has slowed down so much, it's unbelievable.

HD2000 is just a hair bit slower then the 9700 pro according to this lol

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

I need to bench my wifes G1820 IGP,i guess its supposed to be faster then HD2000 and HD3000 but no where near HD4600?

 

[Denithor]

Personal thought, 7970 makes a great stop-gap card to tide you over until the next gen cards drop. Three months ago I set up a buddy with one from eBay for $135, he's so happy with performance (coming from 7850 2GB) that he's not even sure will bother with new card when the smaller nodes hit. He games at 1440p, thinking about 4K, I told him will need a newer card for 4K, doubt the 3GB buffer will be sufficient for that in many games.

 

[cbrunny]

Depending on the game, 3Gb can already be a limiting factor. JC3 uses more then 3GB maxed out at 1080p. I've run into that problem in a few other games too. Otherwise, I'm surprised at the length of time my two 7970s have given me strong performance, especially considering the games I have been playing lately don't even have crossfire support yet (JC3 & FO4).

 

[2is]

Depending on the game, 3Gb can already be a limiting factor. JC3 uses more then 3GB maxed out at 1080p. I've run into that problem in a few other games too. Otherwise, I'm surprised at the length of time my two 7970s have given me strong performance, especially considering the games I have been playing lately don't even have crossfire support yet (JC3 & FO4).

Having played JC3 on a 2GB GTX 680, 3GB HD 7970 and a 6GB GTX 980Ti, I can say with confidence that 3GB isn't much of a limiting factor on the 7970 @ 1080p. While it can use up 3GB vram, performance does not tank. The same cannot be said for the 2GB 680 which was a stutter fest at the same settings.