• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

7970 or gtx670?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Multimonitor with FXAA on 2GB is definitely fine unless you have hi-rez texture mods up the wazoo or something.

Multimonitor with MSAA, though, is iffy. at 5760x1200 you already run into memory issues at BF3 with 2x MSAA and 2GB, according to HardOCP. (Some people have been running around the boards proclaiming 2GB as enough for 5760x1200 based on the HardOCP review, but they didn't actually read the review and how they said they were forced into FXAA because MSAA was proving too much for 2GB VRAM to handle.) And you can forget about 4x MSAA. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/4 The 7970 had suttering issues with MSAA but that could be due to CF/driver issues, and in any case the point is that 2GB VRAM might not be enough with 2x MSAA or higher, on some games at 5760x1200.

On the other hand if you are running 3x2560x1440 (a resolution I may step up to in the near future) you will need more than 2GB VRAM if you want any breathing room for present and future games; that resolution is equal to 5.3 1080p panels!

Personally I favor MSAA over FXAA but if you don't, or you don't care about ANY AA, then 2GB is enough for now.
 
Last edited:

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,544
8
81
On the other hand if you are running 3x2560x1440 (a resolution I may step up to in the near future) you will need more than 2GB VRAM if you want any breathing room for present and future games; that resolution is equal to 5.3 1080p panels!

Personally I favor MSAA over FXAA but if you don't, or you don't care about ANY AA, then 2GB is enough for now.
Speaking from experience 2GB is fine for 2560x1440, I don't like and don't care about multi-monitor set-ups. For 7680x1440 you will need at least 3x7970 or even 4.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
Speaking from experience 2GB is fine for 2560x1440, I don't like and don't care about multi-monitor set-ups. For 7680x1440 you will need at least 3x7970 or even 4.
I said 3x2560x1440, not 2560x1440. I think you saw that but am not sure, so just checking. :)

I don't like or care about multi-GPU and with older games a single 7970 can probably handle 3x2560x1440. Would not want to try that with something like BF3 maxed out, though, obviously. :) Though a single 7970 oc'd can actually handle even BF3 at very high settings at reasonable framerates at 5760x1200 in single-player, believe it or not: http://techreport.com/articles.x/22922/5 (chart = non oc'd)
 

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,544
8
81
I don't like or care about multi-GPU and with older games a single 7970 can probably handle 3x2560x1440. Would not want to try that with something like BF3 maxed out, though, obviously. :) Though a single 7970 oc'd can actually handle even BF3 at very high settings at reasonable framerates at 5760x1200 in single-player, believe it or not: http://techreport.com/articles.x/22922/5 (chart = non oc'd)
30fps is not even remotely playable to me, I wouldn't even consider GTX690 to be enough at that resolution with its 44fps. And this test is at a much lower resolution than 7680x1440. For playable experience with 3x2560monitors in modern games you need at least 3 high-end cards. (3x7970,3x680 4GB)
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
30fps is not even remotely playable to me, I wouldn't even consider GTX690 to be enough at that resolution with its 44fps. And this test is at a much lower resolution than 7680x1440. For playable experience with 3x2560monitors in modern games you need at least 3 high-end cards. (3x7970,3x680 4GB)
Are we on the same wavelength here? I said for single player 5760x1200, non-oc'd results. Not 7680x1440. It's like I'm talking about potatoes and you start talking about tomatoes. If you don't think 30fps + whatever you can get in overclock is enough that's fine and your opinion, but as for the rest, I am not talking about tomatoes.
 

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
474
126
Multimonitor with FXAA on 2GB is definitely fine unless you have hi-rez texture mods up the wazoo or something.

Multimonitor with MSAA, though, is iffy. at 5760x1200 you already run into memory issues at BF3 with 2x MSAA and 2GB, according to HardOCP. (Some people have been running around the boards proclaiming 2GB as enough for 5760x1200 based on the HardOCP review, but they didn't actually read the review and how they said they were forced into FXAA because MSAA was proving too much for 2GB VRAM to handle.) And you can forget about 4x MSAA. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/4 The 7970 had suttering issues with MSAA but that could be due to CF/driver issues, and in any case the point is that 2GB VRAM might not be enough with 2x MSAA or higher, on some games at 5760x1200.

On the other hand if you are running 3x2560x1440 (a resolution I may step up to in the near future) you will need more than 2GB VRAM if you want any breathing room for present and future games; that resolution is equal to 5.3 1080p panels!

Personally I favor MSAA over FXAA but if you don't, or you don't care about ANY AA, then 2GB is enough for now.
All valid points. No doubt the single 7970 could handle 3 1920 x 1080 monitors well. I was a little worried that the GTX 680s 2G Vram limit might be pushing it. I had an XFX 6970 XXX (slight overclock) with 2G Vram and it powered the 3 24" 1920s for a 5760x1080 overall resolution. In fact I could up the settings but the fps just couldn't stay up with it. However, with the GTX 680 it has been smooth as silk on the game I play the most with the 3 monitor setup ---Rise of Flight. I can crank textures up and it shows @80% use of memory but the fps and gameplay are smooth and responsive. The XFX6970 struggled with BF3 on anything but moderate and lower settings. The GTX 680 handles high settings very well. Ultra is playable but a slight loss is noticeable. I think SLI would be fine for even BF3.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
All valid points. No doubt the single 7970 could handle 3 1920 x 1080 monitors well. I was a little worried that the GTX 680s 2G Vram limit might be pushing it. I had an XFX 6970 XXX (slight overclock) with 2G Vram and it powered the 3 24" 1920s for a 5760x1080 overall resolution. In fact I could up the settings but the fps just couldn't stay up with it. However, with the GTX 680 it has been smooth as silk on the game I play the most with the 3 monitor setup ---Rise of Flight. I can crank textures up and it shows @80% use of memory but the fps and gameplay are smooth and responsive. The XFX6970 struggled with BF3 on anything but moderate and lower settings. The GTX 680 handles high settings very well. Ultra is playable but a slight loss is noticeable. I think SLI would be fine for even BF3.
Regarding 5760x1080:
I think you are ok for now in ALL games and for at least the next 12 months, as long as you don't jack up MSAA too high or install ultrahigh-rez mods or something. And even if you do, many games are still okay; e.g., I get insane frames/sec even with everything maxed out to 8x MSAA on some older games/console ports. But NV itself knows that 2GB VRAM is a little on the lower side for multimonitor; that's why they are issuing the 4GB edition soon in order to handle the games of tomorrow.
 

giskarded

Junior Member
May 10, 2012
10
0
0
Regarding 5760x1080:
I think you are ok for now in ALL games and for at least the next 12 months, as long as you don't jack up MSAA too high or install ultrahigh-rez mods or something. And even if you do, many games are still okay; e.g., I get insane frames/sec even with everything maxed out to 8x MSAA on some older games/console ports. But NV itself knows that 2GB VRAM is a little on the lower side for multimonitor; that's why they are issuing the 4GB edition soon in order to handle the games of tomorrow.

The prices on some of the AMD cards are dropping.
If you already own one of these cards and for a change need to sell one and buy another. It is a loss at best.

If you are looking to buy a new one. You should wait for some prices to settle before deciding.

At 400, choice between 7950 and 670, I would pick the game and res you want and purchase the best suited card. In my case that is the 670.

At 500, the GTX 680 is not a good value for money, nor is it readily available.

The 7970 needs to be <=450 (higher end cards not reference) to be a good value for money.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
The prices on some of the AMD cards are dropping.
If you already own one of these cards and for a change need to sell one and buy another. It is a loss at best.

If you are looking to buy a new one. You should wait for some prices to settle before deciding.

At 400, choice between 7950 and 670, I would pick the game and res you want and purchase the best suited card. In my case that is the 670.

At 500, the GTX 680 is not a good value for money, nor is it readily available.

The 7970 needs to be <=450 (higher end cards not reference) to be a good value for money.
I need my card for things other than gaming, so anything less than BigK is a no-go for me.

Even if I only needed it for gaming, I would not switch. I had a special discount and got the 7970 for about $410 plus free miniDP->DVI (which I needed). I could get a gtx670 for about $370 if I wanted to, but it's not worth the hassle to me.

And like I said, I need it for things other than gaming anyway, so gtx670 and 680 are not suitable for my purposes.

For single-monitor people who only need it for gaming, though, the gtx 670 is the best value among the top-performing GPUs right now. For multi-monitor gamers at 5760x1080 and higher, I think it would be prudent to wait for the 4GB edition first.
 

mple

Senior member
Oct 10, 2011
278
0
71
I need my card for things other than gaming, so anything less than BigK is a no-go for me.

Even if I only needed it for gaming, I would not switch. I had a special discount and got the 7970 for about $410 plus free miniDP->DVI (which I needed). I could get a gtx670 for about $370 if I wanted to, but it's not worth the hassle to me.

And like I said, I need it for things other than gaming anyway, so gtx670 and 680 are not suitable for my purposes.

For single-monitor people who only need it for gaming, though, the gtx 670 is the best value among the top-performing GPUs right now. For multi-monitor gamers at 5760x1080 and higher, I think it would be prudent to wait for the 4GB edition first.
At 5760x1080, you might need two 4GB cards :eek:
 

Quantos

Senior member
Dec 23, 2011
386
0
76
I bought a Sapphire 7970 a few weeks ago. The card itself it very nice, but good grief the drivers are awful. In the past weeks, with different drivers and setup combinations, it was nothing but constant BSODs, failure to wake up from standby or monitor standby, random reboots, etc.

I just RMAed the thing, and I'm ordering an ASUS 670 TOP. That thing looks pretty boss, and it's cheaper! ^_^
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
I bought a Sapphire 7970 a few weeks ago. The card itself it very nice, but good grief the drivers are awful. In the past weeks, with different drivers and setup combinations, it was nothing but constant BSODs, failure to wake up from standby or monitor standby, random reboots, etc.

I just RMAed the thing, and I'm ordering an ASUS 670 TOP. That thing looks pretty boss, and it's cheaper! ^_^
People were having problems with P67 and Z68 as well, Z77 solved that.
 

tboo

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2000
7,627
1
81
I bought a Sapphire 7970 a few weeks ago. The card itself it very nice, but good grief the drivers are awful. In the past weeks, with different drivers and setup combinations, it was nothing but constant BSODs, failure to wake up from standby or monitor standby, random reboots, etc.

I just RMAed the thing, and I'm ordering an ASUS 670 TOP. That thing looks pretty boss, and it's cheaper! ^_^
Ive been running a 7970 for quite some time now on my Z68 board and I have yet to have a problem.
 

chloros

Member
Feb 1, 2011
95
0
0
Games of the future will make the 7970 lead compared to these cards. But you would anyway buy the 8970 by mid 2013, so the gap may or may not come in H1 2013 for too many games. But if you wish to use this for >1 year, like 1.5 years or so, 7970 eyes closed. Even compared to 680 OC in that case.

If you want to change the card soon, get 680 over 7970 of course, assuming you won't do water tho.
ROFL.....you got a serious case of the fanbois.
 

Dark Shroud

Golden Member
Mar 26, 2010
1,576
0
0
ROFL.....you got a serious case of the fanbois.
What was the point of even posting? The 7970 has more memory & memory bandwidth. For games like Skyrim with HD packs and mods the VRAM gets hit hard. Not to mention more than a few of us do game higher than 1080p.

Throw into the mix that all 7970s OC to 1.1Gigs and there isn't much of a comparison. Get a model with a good cooler and you're doing 1.2+ easy.
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
What was the point of even posting? The 7970 has more memory & memory bandwidth. For games like Skyrim with HD packs and mods the VRAM gets hit hard. Not to mention more than a few of us do game higher than 1080p.

Throw into the mix that all 7970s OC to 1.1Gigs and there isn't much of a comparison. Get a model with a good cooler and you're doing 1.2+ easy.
Exactly, but noobs don't understand this :)
 

theeze

Junior Member
May 14, 2012
1
0
0
This argument is useless, people who own the 7970 will say the 7970 is better due to OC and the 3GB of VRAM and vice versa with Nvidia. No one is going to give an unbiased answer as we've spent or about to invest on a expensive graphics card.

For one, yes that 3GB can do wonder for multi-monitors higher than 2, and even handle more textures, but it does not automatically make it a killer...There's one thing AMD/Ati still lack that they haven't been able to successfully mimic, Drivers. I've owned just as many amd cards as nvidia, even at low fps nvidia seemed smoother. 8500,9800 pro, x1950 and a 4850 on the amd side.

Some will debate on the build, but if someone tells you they've ran it on the same build, then there is a problem. The Asus Top version of the 670 surpasses the 680 in benchies or equals it. The only thing stopping me from getting a 7970 are the drivers.

I know none cares about Linux, but that's another example. Why would I load a 7970 on that when it would perform that of a 4850. If you're going single or dual monitor you're fine with 2gb...I have my pc on a single 31 inch...I'd be fine with a 2gb...3 seems excessive if you're running single or dual monitors with texture packs.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
So at the settings they used at 2560x1600, at the "max overclocks" they used, and looking at the averages:

BF3 - tie at 63.4fps
Arkham City - 7970 barely edges 680
Skyrim - 680 edges 7970
Deus Ex - 7970 easily beats 680

Minimums are all over the place and hard to compare due to HardOCP's testing methodology, which is not reproducible.

With better binning that's apparently occurring to launch the "GHZ Edition" 7970s, a GHZ Edition 7970's power usage may go down to something less objectionable at load, overvolted and oc'd (compared to 6xx). A 7970 already has a slightly lower idle wattage than a 680. But CF sucks, and no answer yet for NV's list of exclusives including PhysX, CUDA, NV Surround without adapters, GPU Boost, and AVsync. On the other hand the 7970 has +1 GB VRAM.
 
Last edited:

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
Overclocks aren't guaranteed

I think it boils down to...if you're using water cooling the 7970 is awesome.. possibly worth it with a good aftermarket cooler......you can OC really high and have no hardware imposed voltage limitations, you can probably get 1300+ easy with a water block. Conversely....water cooling for the 680 is near worthless at the moment unless a card with voltage control is released. The only candidate so far is the EVGA classified 680 which is poised to have a slightly ridiculous 650-700$ price tag, it is the only 680 announced that will have voltage control. BUT you need to spend even more to change voltage, you need EV bot lol....so 750$ for a classified and 100$+ for water blocks...ugh... Air cooling == Water cooling for the 680 for speed.

Otherwise for the other 95% of the population.....the 670 is much better for the money.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY