GTX 670 Sli vs GTX 680 Sli vs Radeon 7970 CrossFireX

iiLeGiT101

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2013
10
0
0
I'm going to be building a gaming PC soon and so far here are my chosen parts:
i7-3770k
Corsair H100i
Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H Mobo
16GB (2x8GB) Corsair Vengeance RAM
1TB Western Digital Caviar Black HDD
128GB Samsung 840 Series SSD
Cooler Master 1000W Modular PSU
Cooler Master Storm Stryker Case (White)
ACER GD235HZbid 120hz monitor

I'm having trouble between the GTX 670 Sli , GTX 680 Sli or the Radeon 7970. I can currently afford two GTX 670s and two Radeon 7970s but for two GTX 680s I will have to get one first and save up for the second one. I know the 7970s Crossfire will most likely outperform the 670s and 680s but I heard people dislike doing CrossFireX because of issues with drivers and it's a much easier and smoother process with SLI. What should I do? Helppppp meeeeee lol
 

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,400
2,436
146
What games played? I assume the ACER monitor runs 1080p @ 120Hz.
 

iiLeGiT101

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2013
10
0
0
What games played? I assume the ACER monitor runs 1080p @ 120Hz.

You are correct about the monitor. I will be playing a lot of games, Battlefield 3, Crysis 3, Assassins' Creed 3, Far Cry 3, Batman Arkham City, Batman Arkham Asylum, etc.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
All of those card combos are going to give similar performance. Cooler Master wouldn't be my choice for PSU, though. Which model exactly is it you're wanting?
 

r3awak3n

Member
Mar 10, 2013
72
0
0
www.goldisthenewblack.com
The Nvidia cards will give you better performance in BF3 and Crysis but the AMD cards are the fastest. The GTX 670 SLI would be the cheapest but for a little bit more you could get the 7970s. It really depends if you want to spend the extra because SLI 670 should play everything maxed out at 1080 no problem.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
The Nvidia cards will give you better performance in BF3 and Crysis but the AMD cards are the fastest. The GTX 670 SLI would be the cheapest but for a little bit more you could get the 7970s. It really depends if you want to spend the extra because SLI 670 should play everything maxed out at 1080 no problem.

Not really. The 7970's are slightly ahead of the 680's in those 2 games. Of course, I'm sure that can change if you change settings a bit. Overall though, there's not much difference, except the price.
bf3_1920_1200.gif

1362959270a9V2nme9e6_5_3_l.gif
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
Cm doesn't make crap 1000w psus. They make crap psus only in the lower price bracket. Nothing wrong with your psu. I would go with 670 sli as I would never do cf. actually I would have got a single Titan instead or a single 7970 ghz matrix. But if 2 cards is a just then 670 sli.
 

iiLeGiT101

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2013
10
0
0
All of those card combos are going to give similar performance. Cooler Master wouldn't be my choice for PSU, though. Which model exactly is it you're wanting?

Just go to my build so you can see everything: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Jkcp


______________

To everyone else, I said I can afford the 7970s and the 670s just not the 680s yet. My problem is, a lot of people complain about drivers when you crossfire AMD cards which worries me because this will be my first computer and I will be so lost when it comes to fixing these issues. In raw performance it's obvious the 7970s win but I'm still having a hard time choosing.. Right now I am leaning towards the 7970s.
 

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,438
107
106
Since you're talking double card, I would suggest the NVidia solution. If you were talking single card, AMD would be what you want. CFX will bench higher, but there are plenty of reviewers out there who make note that despite the numbers being spit out by benchmarks, CFX is just off in many cases and the less attractive (per benchmarks) SLI actually ends up working better.

That's not to say SLI is perfect, but you're less likely to have a benchmark showing you're getting a high framerate, but the game still not be smooth.
 

parvadomus

Senior member
Dec 11, 2012
685
14
81
Ferzerp, so crossfire is off LOL, if you want to believe the pcper garbage, go and do it.
There are some stuttering problems, but crossfire works. There are also sli stuttering problems with nvidia.
All these will be fixed by drivers, just like recent single card fixes AMD did.
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
I would just buy a Titan or stick to the single fastest card I can afford unless Titan sli is an option.
 

MeldarthX

Golden Member
May 8, 2010
1,026
0
76
SLI and Crossfire both have their own issues with microstutter - not scaling in certain games....

Both work also well - so those say otherwise meh -

Look at prices - which will give you best bang for your buck; do you need to sli or crossfire right now? If so.....I'd go 7970s overall fastest......best bang for buck with the game bundles..

If you don't need to; then gets more interesting; 7970 GE over all the fastest card out of the three.....but in the middle for prices :) if you don't want the games that come with it then sell them off and its cheaper :)

670s are a nice card also; when overclocked will reach 7970 GE and 680 stock level and sometimes a little higher.....making it a good buy

680 just imo is not a good buy right now; its priced too high compaired to the 7970 GE.......and itsn't usually as fast as the 7970 GE specially when both are overclocked.....
 

Fx1

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2012
1,215
5
81
2x 7970 can beat a Titan by 50 FPS LOL

You can save £300 which is 1/3 almost and get 50 FPS more than a Titan.

Sooo.. whats the point in titan exactly
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
Just go to my build so you can see everything: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Jkcp


______________

To everyone else, I said I can afford the 7970s and the 670s just not the 680s yet. My problem is, a lot of people complain about drivers when you crossfire AMD cards which worries me because this will be my first computer and I will be so lost when it comes to fixing these issues. In raw performance it's obvious the 7970s win but I'm still having a hard time choosing.. Right now I am leaning towards the 7970s.

I can't find a review on it that states the OEM, but it looks like an Enhance built unit, which is actually a pretty good OEM. If you can get it for the $175 (less $25 rebate) that's a really solid deal. Although, if it's $195 (Less rebate), which is what Newegg shows it at, then I think it's a bit high for the caliber PSU it is and only being semi modular. The Seasonic X-1050 for $205 (less $20 rebate) would be better if you don't have that $25 promo discount going on that the page you linked to is showing. Fully modular and superior across the board electrically.

In reality you only need a good 850w unit (and that gives you plenty of headroom). If you want to save a bit. the Seasonic X-850 is $140 after $20 rebate and is a top performing PSU.

Again, if you can actually get that unit for ~$150, it's an excellent value.
 

Solomutt

Junior Member
May 18, 2012
11
0
0
I'd go 7970GE. Personally prefer Sapphire Vapor-X, but Aus has a good card as well. Dual card solutions aren't really needed for 1080p - at all. By the time you will -need- 2 for 1080, the next-gen cards will be out.

To the poster dogging the Titan- I'm a huge AMD fan, but I honestly feel that the 6GB of RAM on that card is very forward-looking. I tire of the "x" amount is all you need" crowd. Those guys either buy a new card ( with moe VRAM) every year, or ignore the fact that textures take up memory. I see them go on about AA and resolution as the driving force for vid RAM. That's BS. Now that we have GPU power ramping up, higher quality (larger) textures are going to be more and more common. These textures take up VRAM. I remember when it was "256MB is plenty".... I bought 512. Then 512, and 1GB were plenty. I always bought the next jump more. Now people can STILL be found saying 2GB is plenty. One word: Skyrim. A single phrase: multi monitors with MSAA.

Look at the texture and shader units. Find the break point where cost per unit, and cost per clock is best. The choose the highest memory card from that series.

My examples: Radeon 4870 (4850 was behind in clock AND mem speeds by a good bit), 5850, 6950, and now 7950. Keep in mind that I have four(4) machines I do video card upgrades to (3 kids), so price/performance and overclocking are my focus.

Anything 2 GB is not forward-looking, and is obsolete on day 1, IMO. This is especially true when considering dual card solutions. You do NOT add the memory together in SLI/CF. Texture memory is duplicated on each card. The real advantage is for dual is that you get actual use out of the dual frame buffer memory usage. This has the caveat that enough resolution and AA can quickly deplete the PER CARD memory.

On the Titan thing: AMD does have a 6GB card that is a single GPU also, and it is much less expensive. The downside to it is that it pushes no extra frames above a 3 GB card in current games. It is a tad slower (just measurable, not visibly, IIRC) due to the large VRAM buffer being a little slower.


TL;DR - Get a 3GB single or dual card solution that has as much power as you feel is worth the money.
 
Last edited:

Fx1

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2012
1,215
5
81
I'd go 7970GE. Personally prefer Sapphire Vapor-X, but Aus has a good card as well. Dual card solutions aren't really needed for 1080p - at all. By the time you will -need- 2 for 1080, the next-gen cards will be out.

To the poster dogging the Titan- I'm a huge AMD fan, but I honestly feel that the 6GB of RAM on that card is very forward-looking. I tire of the "x" amount is all you need" crowd. Those guys either buy a new card ( with moe VRAM) every year, or ignore the fact that textures take up memory. I see them go on about AA and resolution as the driving force for vid RAM. That's BS. Now that we have GPU power ramping up, higher quality (larger) textures are going to be more and more common. These textures take up VRAM. I remember when it was "256MB is plenty".... I bought 512. Then 512, and 1GB were plenty. I always bought the next jump more. Now people can STILL be found saying 2GB is plenty. One word: Skyrim. A single phrase: multi monitors with MSAA.

Look at the texture and shader units. Find the break point where cost per unit, and cost per clock is best. The choose the highest memory card from that series.

My examples: Radeon 4870 (4850 was behind in clock AND mem speeds by a good bit), 5850, 6950, and now 7950. Keep in mind that I have four(4) machines I do video card upgrades to (3 kids), so price/performance and overclocking are my focus.

Anything 2 GB is not forward-looking, and is obsolete on day 1, IMO. This is especially true when considering dual card solutions. You do NOT add the memory together in SLI/CF. Texture memory is duplicated on each card. The real advantage is for dual is that you get actual use out of the dual frame buffer memory usage. This has the caveat that enough resolution and AA can quickly deplete the PER CARD memory.

On the Titan thing: AMD does have a 6GB card that is a single GPU also, and it is much less expensive. The downside to it is that it pushes no extra frames above a 3 GB card in current games. It is a tad slower (just measurable, not visibly, IIRC) due to the large VRAM buffer being a little slower.


TL;DR - Get a 3GB single or dual card solution that has as much power as you feel is worth the money.

I'm sorry but this is total rubbish

Titan will be considered slow well before 6gb vram will be needed. There is far more to a video card than total vram.

Look at the bandwidth limitation and limited number of rops. That's why it's fps can't beat 2 smaller gpus with only 2gb vram
 

iiLeGiT101

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2013
10
0
0
The thing is I don't want just 1 card. 1 card (7970 or 680) is just fine and will give you 60+ fps in most games out there but I want more than 60fps. I want 100+ fps and two cards is able to achieve that. I know that makes me seem fps hungry but considering I am getting a 120hz monitor, I want to take advantage of it. If the drivers for two 7970s aren't that bad then I may stick with them, or just get one GTX 680 and save for another. I'm gonna rule out the 670s now and leave the battle between the 680s and the 7970s.. I noticed that the 7970s crossfire fall really behind in batman games, does anyone know why?
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
Drivers for cf suck. No doubt.

Stick to 670 sli or 680 sli or 690 for dual cards.

Also, as of today with max settings the 7970 or 680 often avg 30-40 fps. So your dual setup would just avg 50-75 fps even at 1080p.
 

iiLeGiT101

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2013
10
0
0
On what game? Lol those results are impossible if you're thinking of a game like Battlefield 3...
 

iiLeGiT101

Junior Member
Mar 13, 2013
10
0
0
Everyone, I don't care about overkill. I listed what I am choosing between, now just help me with that lol
 

Rvenger

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator <br> Video Cards
Apr 6, 2004
6,283
5
81
I'm sorry but this is total rubbish

Titan will be considered slow well before 6gb vram will be needed. There is far more to a video card than total vram.

Look at the bandwidth limitation and limited number of rops. That's why it's fps can't beat 2 smaller gpus with only 2gb vram


Im sorry but you just spewed more rubbish on top of someone elses rubbish.


6gb VRAM is needed for multimonitor setups. If you go over on OCN you will see users even exceeding 3gb VRAM on some crazy resolution multimonitor setups.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
The 7000 series crossfire is just broken. Take all the frame rates you see for it, halve it and then assume its a stuttering mess because in practice that is what is happening. The data is all very clear, crossfire is a net negative effect, you are better off with a single card.

Which leaves you with 670sli v 680sli. I went the 680s because the 670s weren't out, but the performance difference for the price difference is actually not great. The 670s are just fine in SLI and considering what you would have to do to get the 680s I suspect you don't really need to worry about the difference there. At the resolution and frame rate you are playing most of the time the 670s will be very close. But its up to you, a single 680 is a formidable card and you may find you just stop there and realize you don't need sli after all. Just avoid crossfire that is the main thing.
 

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,438
107
106
The 7000 series crossfire is just broken. Take all the frame rates you see for it, halve it and then assume its a stuttering mess because in practice that is what is happening. The data is all very clear, crossfire is a net negative effect, you are better off with a single card.

Which leaves you with 670sli v 680sli. I went the 680s because the 670s weren't out, but the performance difference for the price difference is actually not great. The 670s are just fine in SLI and considering what you would have to do to get the 680s I suspect you don't really need to worry about the difference there. At the resolution and frame rate you are playing most of the time the 670s will be very close. But its up to you, a single 680 is a formidable card and you may find you just stop there and realize you don't need sli after all. Just avoid crossfire that is the main thing.

While I agree with your premise SLI>CFX, I wouldn't agree that buying 1 680 and then deciding is a good plan. If he were to do that, he could end up with a sub optimal choice (1 680 instead of 1 7970)
 

Neurotic_X

Junior Member
Apr 17, 2011
20
0
0
Im sorry but you just spewed more rubbish on top of someone elses rubbish.


6gb VRAM is needed for multimonitor setups. If you go over on OCN you will see users even exceeding 3gb VRAM on some crazy resolution multimonitor setups.

You're right in terms of multi-monitor setups. There is no argument about that. But I think we're getting a little off what the TC has here which is a single 120hz monitor, 1080p monitor. He'll need 2GB vram at the most, 3GB for a few games like like Metro 2033 on a single monitor.

There isn't enough power draw from the GPU for the vram anyways. You'll see benchmarks and tests of 2GB vs 3GB vs 4GB of vram on 2560x1440p having very little impact on current games. The differences are negligible at the cost of 2-5fps.

At 1080p, the TC will be fine with 2GB of vram. I think 3GB is the sweet spot though if the user likes to turn up AA, and other graphics options. So far, I haven't had any issues with all very high and ultra settings turned up with 2-4xAA without exceeding 2GB of vram @ 1200p on my own setup.

Now, the question is, is SLi or CrossfireX better at scaling for these specific cards. How is the microstuttering? As far as I know, they do still exist, and one would even argue that there is less stuttering when you tri-sli or tri-fire.

And then there's price, which I don't think the TC cares about since he doesn't mind a bit of overkill. I think it's safe to say, you could knock out the GTX 680 sli option. You're paying $250-300 more when you could get the same performance with GTX 670 Signature 2 or MSI PE in sli for $800 usd.

For were up to me, and my needs/preferences, I would decide between the GTX 670 sli and 7970 crossfireX.

Cheers.
 
Last edited: