Deciding on upgrade from EVGA GTX460 GTX680 ATI 7970 or wait?

[DPOverLord]

After deciding what the bottleneck is in my system I realized it is the GPU. I O/C my i7-930 to 4.2 GHZ and still Skyrim slows down in high graphics intense scenes in the open territories.

So this leads me to upgrading my GPU. What do you think is the best upgrade for my EVGA GTX460. Currently it's O/C to a core clock of 825MHZ and a memory clock of 1980mhz.

I am using 2 23" Samsung monitors and do not plan on using eyefinity since I I cannot fit a third monitor on my desk. If I could play a game on dual monitors I would be all for it (using HDMI, and mini HDMI), but I just do not see how I am unable to do that.

So.... I am looking for the best solution for a single card upgrade to get the best bang for my buck. I do not think buying another $160 GTX460 would make sense, so what do you guys think?

Thanks ahead of time!
__________________

 

[Axon]

Well, the 680 is generally the better card, though some deep digging shows that the 7970 can pull ahead when it is aggressively overclocked and set to a very high resolution. Further, since AMD recently dropped the 7970 price, it is now a much more appealing option than it previously was at $550 or more per card. In particular, I think the XFX Double D cooler looks pretty sick. But that's up to you.

There's also the issue of the 680 being sold out across the board the second it comes in.

 

[Ferzerp]

If your budget is in the $500 range, there is little reason to wait. The price isn't going to drop more any time soon.

Either card will be good. The 680 is a little faster and costs a little more. If OC is your thing, they seem to consistently hit 1200Mhz (with few reports of "golden" cards beyond the 1900Mhz stunt, and a hardocp review that seemed to have one auto boosting to 1200 in one review, but then only hitting 1228 in the OC review, so still not sure what went on there). The 7970 is a little slower for a little less money. The OC range is around 1100-1300Mhz it seems. If you're in the mid to low end, the 680 will be faster still. If you get a good 7970 it will be as fast or slightly faster than a 680. All in all, at the current prices, both are good cards, but if you go 7970, make sure you get one that has had the price adjusted down to the $470 range and not the pre-decreased $550 range.

 

[Jaydip]

Actually buying another gtx 460 makes perfect sense unless u don't want to run SLI.I myself dislike dual gpu setups.As the other members pointed out both are pretty good cards on their own right but for little more i would grab the 680 myself.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

If you want a good oc, both 7970 or 680 are very good. But if you don't want to overclock much then go for 680. Especially fr skyrim anyway 680 is a bit better. Either of the two cards once overclocked trade blows with 6970 cf or 570 sli, or at most 5-15% slower mostly, where it counts, that is. So 460 sli won't even come close

 

[railven]

You can't go wrong with either card, and if you have a specific preference let that decide for you.

As someone who upgraded from a GTX 460 to a GTX 680, I can tell you without a doubt the increase is more that noticeable, your temps will stay cool if not cooler, and believe it or not - it's quieter.

I also own an HD 7970, and my board with an ASIC rating of 69% hits AMD Overdrive settings max (1150/1575?) no issues, stays quiet (under 30% fan load, with temps below 65c).

 

[notty22]

Which does the OP really want to do? Spend 160 or 500 dollars? He mentions both, that leaves every gpu from both companies as options.
There are videos of sli gtx 460's-768 supposedly running well.
Skyrim Ultra Settings HD Textures GTX 460 SLi - YouTube


same guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...tion_830747&src_vid=G9O-CZmBeqA&v=BmRLRrxylGg

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Regardless of any video, skyrim won't run good with 768mb or even 1.5gb at ultra with mods with 2 monitors or single 1080p. Even single 1080p will need at least 1 gig minimum at the very least

 

[Jaydip]

Regardless of any video, skyrim won't run good with 768mb or even 1.5gb at ultra with mods with 2 monitors or single 1080p. Even single 1080p will need at least 1 gig minimum at the very least

Entirely untrue sorry.Check HardOcp's review where a 580 is faster than 7970 in skyrim.Check this
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review/6

 

[railven]

Entirely untrue sorry.Check HardOcp's review where a 580 is faster than 7970 in skyrim.Check this
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/22/nvidia_kepler_gpu_geforce_gtx_680_video_card_review/6

The 580 scored worse in the higher resolution test. Unless you meant the 680, which has more than what he was referring to in terms of VRAM.

 

[Jaydip]

He said it is unfit even at 1080P.Please check again.

 

[railven]

He said it is unfit even at 1080P.Please check again.

You're right, and the GTX 580 has 1.5GBs, so I don't see where his claim is untrue with your support material?

 

[Jaydip]

Ok lets see
"Regardless of any video, skyrim won't run good with 768mb or even 1.5gb at ultra with mods with 2 monitors or single 1080p. Even single 1080p will need at least 1 gig minimum at the very least"
I said 580 is fine to run ultra at 1080P.
"The 580 scored worse in the higher resolution test. Unless you meant the 680, which has more than what he was referring to in terms of VRAM."
Please check,580 has higher IQ enforced.

 

[railven]

Ok lets see
"Regardless of any video, skyrim won't run good with 768mb or even 1.5gb at ultra with mods with 2 monitors or single 1080p. Even single 1080p will need at least 1 gig minimum at the very least"
I said 580 is fine to run ultra at 1080P.
"The 580 scored worse in the higher resolution test. Unless you meant the 680, which has more than what he was referring to in terms of VRAM."
Please check,580 has higher IQ enforced.

At this point you aren't even reading what you responded too. See where he said 1 GB minimum - his clarification?

All I said was that your post didn't support that, and it doesn't. The GTX 580 has 1.5GBs of RAM. To support your argument you'd have to use a card with 1GB or less.

 

[Jaydip]

Please read the quote again
"Regardless of any video, skyrim won't run good with 1.5gb at ultra with single 1080p."

Does that make sense to u now?

 

[railven]

Please read the quote again
"Regardless of any video, skyrim won't run good with 1.5gb at ultra with single 1080p."

Does that make sense to u now?

Keep reading. He adds a clarification. Which I agree with.

 

[Jaydip]

Yeah i know but that doesn't make the first statement right.

 

[Axon]

My GTX 460s in SLI run Skyrim quite well.

 

[railven]

Yeah i know but that doesn't make the first statement right.

I read it as him ammending his first statement with the clarification.

Why I said, what I said, which I still agree with. Skyrim is a memory hog - especially when you add them mods (or them HD paks.)

 

[notty22]

Like almost every thread in this forum lately, eventually we get the memory drama brought in. Like 5970's weren't playing games with 1gb buffer on 2560x1600 monitors a year and a half ago. We are going to need 4 or 6gb at 1080p if this myth keeps growing.

 

[Axon]

Like almost every thread in this forum lately, eventually we get the memory drama brought in. Like 5970's weren't playing games with 1gb buffer on 2560x1600 monitors a year and a half ago. We are going to need 4 or 6gb at 1080p if this myth keeps growing.

Truth my brotha, truth. Even Warcraft I needed at least 4GB of RAM to properly buffer at 800x600!!1!! It's getting nearly as insane as "bottlenecking"

 

[railven]

Like almost every thread in this forum lately, eventually we get the memory drama brought in. Like 5970's weren't playing games with 1gb buffer on 2560x1600 monitors a year and a half ago. We are going to need 4 or 6gb at 1080p if this myth keeps growing.

Skyrim with the HD pak and some mods crunches memory. A GTX 460 1GB couldn't handle it, we had to remove some of the mods. The GTX 680 2GB doesn't have that issue. Same resolution.

I think the difference here is that mods can make this game unplayable with 1GB or less.

 

[Jaydip]

I read it as him ammending his first statement with the clarification.

Why I said, what I said, which I still agree with. Skyrim is a memory hog - especially when you add them mods (or them HD paks.)

Well lets move on then.I intended to prove that even @ 2560*1600 580 still rocks in ultra.

 

[Grooveriding]

Skyrim with the HD pak and some mods crunches memory. A GTX 460 1GB couldn't handle it, we had to remove some of the mods. The GTX 680 2GB doesn't have that issue. Same resolution.

I think the difference here is that mods can make this game unplayable with 1GB or less.

I was hitting a VRAM wall with mods @ 1600P on 1.5GB 480s. No issues with the 680s though. 2GB is enough for anything at 1600P and 1.5GB should be fine short of fringe stuff like Skyrim modded out the wazoo.

 

[railven]

Well lets move on then.I intended to prove that even @ 2560*1600 580 still rocks in ultra.

I wouldn't argue against that. Skyrim definitely runs better on nVidia hardware (GTX 460 1GB was whipping my HD 5870 2GB - badly.)

I don't think a GTX 460 1GB can run that rez though. Least not with some decent mods.