• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GTX 670 or 680

T

timeaisis

Junior Member
I'm upgrading my GTX 295, but I'm torn between the 670 and 680. I currently have a i7 960 @ 3.2 Ghz stock, and I feel like the 680 is a waste if I don't OC my 960. Also, I'm gaming on 1920 x 1080. Would 680 be overkill for that resolution plus the fact that my i7 isn't OC'ed?

Thanks.
 
the GTX 670 is the better bang for buck between the GTX 680 but the HD 7950 is the best bang for your buck. It can match a GTX 670 and sometimes even surpass it and it oc's pretty well.
 
Last edited:
GTX 670 will be bottlenecked by a first gen i7 @ 3.2GHz in some games. It's a good buy though if you're planning for an upgrade to Haswell as soon as it hits the market.
 
lehtv said:
GTX 670 will be bottlenecked by a first gen i7 @ 3.2GHz in some games. It's a good buy though if you're planning for an upgrade to Haswell as soon as it hits the market.
Click to expand...

Total rubbish again.

I can play Far Cry 3 on Ultra at 60 FPS on a 7970 1050mhz without a hitch in FPS. BF3 64 player is 60 FPS on Ultra preset

My CPU is at 4ghz which is a very modest overclock for this CPU.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1248842/i7-950-to-3770k Proves my point
 
Fx1 said:
Total rubbish again.

I can play Far Cry 3 on Ultra at 60 FPS on a 7970 1050mhz without a hitch in FPS. BF3 64 player is 60 FPS on Ultra preset

My CPU is at 4ghz which is a very modest overclock for this CPU.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1248842/i7-950-to-3770k Proves my point
Click to expand...

Your CPU is 4GHz. My point about bottlenecking was with reference to 3.2GHz. This invalidates everything you just posted.

In any case I speak from personal experience with an i7-920 @ 3.36Ghz. With a GTX 560 Ti as a GPU, I experienced bottlenecking in Battlefield 3, Skyrim, and these are just the ones I have confirmed. Not all the time, but some bottlenecking. I then moved to a 7950 3GB @ 1.1Ghz which is a lot faster, and the bottleneck became apparent in almost every demanding game. I know this is anecdotal evidence and not proof, but that also means you can't dismiss it as "total rubbish".
 
the best price perf is with a HD 7950 boost. at stock matches the GTX 670. an average clocking HD 7950 at 1150 mhz can easily match or exceed an average clocking GTX 680 at 1250 mhz in the majority of games. but for 160 -170 bucks lesser. the game bundle adds even more value.

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?p=AT-7950BST
http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?p=GA-795WF3G

if you prefer a nvidia card the gtx 670 is the better buy. for 380 bucks the MSI GTX 670 PE is a good option

http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=MSI-670_PE

the core i7 is enough for a high end gpu. if possible get it to 3.8 - 4.0 ghz otherwise there might be slight bottlenecks.
 
Last edited:
lehtv said:
Your CPU is 4GHz. My point about bottlenecking was with reference to 3.2GHz. This invalidates everything you just posted.

In any case I speak from personal experience with an i7-920 @ 3.36Ghz. With a GTX 560 Ti as a GPU, I experienced bottlenecking in Battlefield 3, Skyrim, and these are just the ones I have confirmed. Not all the time, but some bottlenecking. I then moved to a 7950 3GB @ 1.1Ghz which is a lot faster, and the bottleneck became apparent in almost every demanding game. I know this is anecdotal evidence and not proof, but that also means you can't dismiss it as "total rubbish".
Click to expand...

I have run the CPU at stock many times since this CPU wasnt the most stable. I had no problems playing those games at full FPS. BF3 and Skyrim i have clocked in hundreds of hours.

A 560 TI is poor GPU to be talking about a CPU bottleneck. i was running a 460 GTX SLI which in BF3 would give me 60 FPS constant on High setting preset. There is no way you can bottleneck a i7 920 or 950 with a 560 ti.

I run a 7970 at 1050mhz 24/7 now and i never see any bottlenecks in any game. I have fraps running in every game i play.

If your going to run stock clocks then you are foolish. Who even does that? Most motherboards can overclock your CPU with the push of 1 button now.

The link i posted clearly shows there is no difference between the i7 950 and the 3770k clock for clock in games. Sometimes the 3770 is worse due to the reduced cache.

i get it... i really do... people want reasons to spend money and upgrade.. i do it all the time.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I'm not sure the OP has the info he needs.

Cliffs :

670 stock and 680 stock are 5-15% apart, and they are both available in multiple memory configurations. They are very very close.

670 'vanilla' comes on a weaker PCB with less effective cooling and power delivery.
680 'vanilla' is a bit beefier, with improvements in both of those.
670FTW and other specialist 670s come with higher clocks and usually the 680PCB along with improved coolers at least as good as stock 680, sometimes better.
680OC/etc editions are even better still, but not hugely so.
670FTW is basically identical to stock 680 performance in multiple reviews. Which is why I bought one (and I love it).

1G i7 + OC will NOT cause you to lose out on any performance in current games. Newer is nice and all, but don't worry over that.

The only real question for you is 2G model or 4G model. For 1080p (or the 1920x1200 I use), 2G is enough. For 1440P and higher (or for heavy texture mods like for Skyrim), you want the 4G version, trust me.
 
Fx1 said:
There is no way you can bottleneck a i7 920 or 950 with a 560 ti.
Click to expand...

As I said, the evidence I provided is anecdotal. This means I can't say it proves anything, but it also means you can't dismiss it with certainty.

Now if we continue on this anecdotal path, did you ever go to Markarth during your hundreds of hours of gameplay? I verified the CPU bottleneck by lowering resolution from 1080p to 1600x900 - there was absolutely no change in framerate. Most of the time framerates were GPU limited but there were situations like Markarth where it was not the case.
The link i posted clearly shows there is no difference between the i7 950 and the 3770k clock for clock in games.
Click to expand...

The link you posted is irrelevant to the discussion of whether a 3.2GHz first gen i7 is a bottle neck. The 4.2Ghz i7 is a good 30% faster. Regardless, the link is relevant only to a limited number of games, and those games are only tested in the limited benchmark scenario which may or may not be representative of actual gameplay. And the average framerates can conceal differences in minimum framerates i.e. framerate stability. Anecdotal evidence: in Max Payne 3, I saw very little increase in averages by upgrading to 3770K @4.2, but I created framerate over time data which showed improved framerate stability.

i get it... i really do... people want reasons to spend money and upgrade..
Click to expand...

I upgraded my CPU because I had real reason to. Almost none of the games I played ran the way I wanted with the i7-920 @ 3.36 (couldn't clock it higher than that), and the 3770K fixed that. Mostly. Planetside 2 is still bottlenecked even at 4.7GHz, that's just cos it's poorly optimized.
 
Last edited:
Actually even O.C.ed the 7950 doesn't even beat the 660ti in some titles. Heck even my gtx 660ti non to out performs my o.c.ed 7950 in some titles. Point is as stated in other threads it all depends on the title of the game. To just make a general statement that the 7950 is the best card isn't completely accurate. Good example.... In W.o.W. my 7950 o.c.ed with a 1175 mhz core and vram at 1500 mhz has a minimum fps of 32 and an average of 42 fps on max settings at 1080p. My non o.c.ed 660ti non n ti has a minimum fps of 42 and an average of 58 fps on same settings. Some games 7950 gets better fps, but the 7950 frame times are not near as consistent as the 660 in all titles. I kind ofbwish I just had 670....

Point is one brands card doesn't simply just trump the other. I am not a fanboy as I have cards from both companys. Just with my personal experience and the games i play I wish I'd got 670 instead of the 7950. My 7950 is a great O.C.er and I'snoring trade it for a 670 ftw if i had the chance comparing the 660 to the 7950
 
lehtv said:
As I said, the evidence I provided is anecdotal. This means I can't say it proves anything, but it also means you can't dismiss it with certainty.

Now if we continue on this anecdotal path, did you ever go to Markarth during your hundreds of hours of gameplay? I verified the CPU bottleneck by lowering resolution from 1080p to 1600x900 - there was absolutely no change in framerate. Most of the time framerates were GPU limited but there were situations like Markarth where it was not the case.


The link you posted is irrelevant to the discussion of whether a 3.2GHz first gen i7 is a bottle neck. The 4.2Ghz i7 is a good 30% faster. Regardless, the link is relevant only to a limited number of games, and those games are only tested in the limited benchmark scenario which may or may not be representative of actual gameplay. And the average framerates can conceal differences in minimum framerates i.e. framerate stability. Anecdotal evidence: in Max Payne 3, I saw very little increase in averages by upgrading to 3770K @4.2, but I created framerate over time data which showed improved framerate stability.



I upgraded my CPU because I had real reason to. Almost none of the games I played ran the way I wanted with the i7-920 @ 3.36 (couldn't clock it higher than that), and the 3770K fixed that. Mostly. Planetside 2 is still bottlenecked even at 4.7GHz, that's just cos it's poorly optimized.
Click to expand...

You realise that there are turbo modes also on stock i7 CPU's which means it wont be running at 3.2ghz in Skyrim.

Also once upon a time Skyrim had really bad issues with FPS. Drivers and updates have fixed those issues now and the FPS seems stable. Those were not CPU bottlenecks. Mostly likely bad engine code or bugs.

The Skyrim engine runs on an Xbox 360. This is proof that you dont need huge amounts of CPU power to run the game.

Also why couldnt you clock a 920 any higher than 3.36ghz? my friends 920 runs at 4.2ghz which is higher than i can get my 950 to go.
 
Fx1 said:
You realise that there are turbo modes also on stock i7 CPU's which means it wont be running at 3.2ghz in Skyrim
Click to expand...

As if 3.2 vs 3.36ghz makes a noticeable difference one way or the other

The Skyrim engine runs on an Xbox 360. This is proof that you dont need huge amounts of CPU power to run the game.
Click to expand...

Sure but does it run at constant 60 fps?
Also why couldnt you clock a 920 any higher than 3.36ghz? my friends 920 runs at 4.2ghz which is higher than i can get my 950 to go.
Click to expand...

I think I was mobo limited, I had a low end Asus P6T SE.
 
lehtv said:
As if 3.2 vs 3.36ghz makes a noticeable difference one way or the other



Sure but does it run at constant 60 fps?


I think I was mobo limited, I had a low end Asus P6T SE.
Click to expand...

the bottlenecks could have come anywhere with a low end PC. HDD being a big one. i have always run Raptor raids or SSD's.

Sounds to me like the CPU was probably the better part of your PC and the rest of the system just wasnt good enough. It must have been a pretty poor motherboard if it could only clock to 3.3ghz
 
timeaisis said:
I think I'm going to with the 670 FTW, and if I experience bottlenecks, I'll just have to OC my CPU.

Thanks, guys.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your new card! 🙂

re CPU performance: a 960 @ 3.2GHz is already pretty fast, but I would definitely overclock to ~4GHz. Free performance 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top