GTX 670 Vs HD 7970 At Max Overclocks

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Not true. Add to several websites for crysis 2 680 is a bit better and for metro these cards often tie. 7970 is much better with crysis 1 tho

You've convinced me. Point me to the aftermarket cooled 7970 for $399 shipped and I'll get the 7970 over the gtx 670 today.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Do you even read carefully.

I am citing the 680 as better to 7970 in those games, that guy said 7970 was better but I am against him in that.

I said
680 is better than 7970 in crysis 2
680 and 7970 are about equal acc to many websites in metro
7970 is much better with crysis 1 tho

Overall, 7970 doesn't lead in all three games, and is an actual winner only in one,

 

[badb0y]

At current prices I wouldn't choose a GTX 670/80 over the 7970 because I hate the way NAdia locked down the overclocking for those cards. When the AMD Radeon 7970 was 550$ it was an easy decision but right now I would say they are pretty equal in price to performance scale.

 

[-Slacker-]

not sure what this is about ... the hd 7970 matches the 670 in 2 games where nvidia usually performs great and beats it by 12% in another game where nvidia does great.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

not sure what this is about ... the hd 7970 matches the 670 in 2 games where nvidia usually performs great and beats it by 12% in another game where nvidia does great.

Iposted in wrong thread

 

[Grooveriding]

Amd fans still think the 7970 is worth 50 dollars more then the GTX 670?

Definitely. Would take the 7970 over the 670 for another $50. I would take the GTX 680 over the 7970 for another $50 on top of that as well.

Things will get interesting once AMD gets these 1ghz+ 7970s out if they keep pricing the same. 1ghz+ 7970 @ $450 would put the 680 in a hard place and further distance it off the 670. 1.1ghz 7970 would take the cake all round, not sure if they can manage those sort of clocks reliably though.

We'll have to wait and see what clocks AMD releases the higher clocked ref. 7970s at, and if they leave prices alone as they are now.

Unfortunately it still looks like 97% of discreet GPU buyers are still only left with the 7850 as a nice 28nm option, since nvidia still only has 28nm cards geared to 3% of the market out.

 

[SickBeast]

AMD overclocking the GPU from the factory means nothing to me. It's pure marketing. It's just like how they underclock the 7850 and 7950. It's BS.

 

[hjalti8]

Do you even read carefully.

I am citing the 680 as better to 7970 in those games, that guy said 7970 was better but I am against him in that.

I said
680 is better than 7970 in crysis 2
680 and 7970 are about equal acc to many websites in metro
7970 is much better with crysis 1 tho

Overall, 7970 doesn't lead in all three games, and is an actual winner only in one,

you are talking about stock vs stock right 😕 ? Then you are right but since the topic was about max oc I tought it was pretty clear what I meant 🙂

 

[Elfear]

Well according to the article you got your charts from, the average gain for the 670 going from stock clocks to 1235/6400 was 10.6%. In [H]'s Sapphire 7970 article, the 7970 gained an average of 23.1% in the same games going from 925/5500 to 1280/7440. We can extrapolate that to other websites that test a wide range of games instead of three or four. At TPU the 7970 is 1% faster overall at 1920x1200 and 6% faster at 2560x1600. At Computerbase the 7970 is dead even at 1920x1080, 8% faster at 2560x1600, and 15% faster at 5760x1080.

Going by those results with both cards maxed the 7970 would end up being 12.5% faster at 1080p, 18.5% faster at 1600p, and 27.5% faster at triple monitor res. Easily sounds worth the $50 to me depending on what games you play. At minimum that's 12.5% more performance for 10% more cost (probably less than that since you could sell the 3 included games).

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The power consumption numbers are crazy. We're talking 320w vs 550w+, for nearly the exact same performance 🙁

 

[SickBeast]

The power consumption numbers are crazy. We're talking 320w vs 550w+, for nearly the exact same performance 🙁

If we're going to go there I could point out how my 7850 consumes probably 1/4 the power of your GTX 470 SLI setup while delivering performance in the same ballpark. :whiste:

 

[-Slacker-]

The power consumption numbers are crazy. We're talking 320w vs 550w+, for nearly the exact same performance 🙁

Where?

 

[Silverforce11]

AMD overclocking the GPU from the factory means nothing to me. It's pure marketing. It's just like how they underclock the 7850 and 7950. It's BS.

What about NV OC from the factory ie Turbo boost 100-200mhz extra?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If we're going to go there I could point out how my 7850 consumes probably 1/4 the power of your GTX 470 SLI setup while delivering performance in the same ballpark. :whiste:

Your 7850 is slightly faster than a single 470, there is no comparison either in power consumption or performance with 7850 vs 470 SLI.

470 is two year old tech, while it can perform with a 7850, it's using much more power to do it.

Where?

Just winging it, the 670 consumption OC is listed, however they do not list the 7970s OC consumption in their testing. I pulled the power draw from their Sapphire after market non reference results which has similar clocks.

 

[Don Karnage]

Your 7850 is slightly faster than a single 470, there is no comparison either in power consumption or performance with 7850 vs 470 SLI.

470 is two year old tech, while it can perform with a 7850, it's using much more power to do it.



Just winging it, the 670 consumption OC is listed, however they do not list the 7970s OC consumption in their testing. I pulled the power draw from their Sapphire after market non reference results which has similar clocks.

The 7970 at 1250 core pulls 200 more watts then a similar clocked 670? Wtf

 

[Elfear]

The power consumption numbers are crazy. We're talking 320w vs 550w+, for nearly the exact same performance 🙁

The 7970 at 1250 core pulls 200 more watts then a similar clocked 670? Wtf

The difference is 100W with both cards maxed according to [H] which is still not small. If you read the fine print, the system draw without the video card is 67W in the 670 article and 160W in the 7970 article.

So if you game 10hrs a week the 7970 user will pay 40-48 cents more per month. Over a year that's $5-6. The 7900 series superior idle numbers would probably offset that difference though.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I just go off system draw, if one vc makes the system work harder for the same framerates it should be taken into consideration.

Fermi had that problem, more clock cycles for the same fps level. Which meant testing on older 1366 OC'ed chips caused overall power draw to go up, even if the card wasn't drawing any extra power, total system draw would be higher because of the increased load on the cpu.


I don't know if that is what is happening here, but I wouldn't simply rule out total system power if both systems are identical outside of the vc used.

 

[-Slacker-]

Your 7850 is slightly faster than a single 470, there is no comparison either in power consumption or performance with 7850 vs 470 SLI.

470 is two year old tech, while it can perform with a 7850, it's using much more power to do it.

Don't mean to butt in but it's actually close to a gtx 570 at stock. A 1250mhz hd7850 should be at least 30% faster on average than a stock one, given how well it scales with OCs.

Just winging it, the 670 consumption OC is listed, however they do not list the 7970s OC consumption in their testing. I pulled the power draw from their Sapphire after market non reference results which has similar clocks.

Yeah .... and you're going to instantly take that at face value, right? Including that the gtx 680 at stock supposedly needs 100 more watts than a 1230 Mhz gtx 670...

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Don't mean to butt in but it's actually close to a gtx 570 at stock. A 1250mhz hd7850 should be at least 30% faster on average than a stock one, given how well it scales with OCs.






Yeah .... and you're going to instantly take that at face value, right? Including that the gtx 680 at stock supposedly needs 100 more watts than a 1230 Mhz gtx 670...

And a 470 can supersede a 570 and a 580 with overclocking, I know AMD had some tragic overclocking cards these last few gens, 6xxx and 5xxx, however Nvidia didn't suffer that same problem the last few gens. Overclocking isn't anything new, my cards scale almost to the percent increase in fps. 57% overclock yields a 52% increase in performance in many titles.


I didn't check yet if they maybe used a different setup, only noted what I had seen. I'm not posting it as a set in stone fact, only merely reposting what I had seen. If there is investigation to be done, I'm sure it will be.


You also have to look at the cards design. For instance GF100 and GF110 are much more texture performance limited than GK104 is, however GK104 is far more bandwidth and ROP starved than any of the GF110/100 cards.


If the bus and rops are already holding back the 680, throwing clocks at it might just decrease it's perf/watt at a much higher rate than it increases it's fps.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why? Because I hate stupidity. If you want to make a valid comparison, how about using the bench where many games are taken into account?

Then if you want to talk about OC, from all the 670 reviews, the OC performance scaling is 10-13%.

Guess the scaling for the radeons? Yeah, do the maths, add it up.

Ah, you mean all those older games that favor Tahiti as opposed to the latest games that favor Kepler. I suppose we could do that, but not sure why you think those older games are any more important than the 3 (how did you put it? FACKING?) games shown above. You want the older games included because it's brings down the performance gap between Kepler and Tahiti. Come on man.

 

[Keysplayr]

You've convinced me. Point me to the aftermarket cooled 7970 for $399 shipped and I'll get the 7970 over the gtx 670 today.

Sure thing! I'll have a link for ya in a moment...

Just a sec..

Just a moment now....

Working on it...

LILIAN!!! TURN ON THE DANG TIME MACHINE!!

😉

 

[Elfear]

I just go off system draw, if one vc makes the system work harder for the same framerates it should be taken into consideration.

Fermi had that problem, more clock cycles for the same fps level. Which meant testing on older 1366 OC'ed chips caused overall power draw to go up, even if the card wasn't drawing any extra power, total system draw would be higher because of the increased load on the cpu.


I don't know if that is what is happening here, but I wouldn't simply rule out total system power if both systems are identical outside of the vc used.

If you read the articles (even just the test setup pages), you'd notice the 7970 is on an X58 system with an oced 920 and the 670 is on a P67 system with an oced 2600k.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If you read the articles (even just the test setup pages), you'd notice the 7970 is on an X58 system with an oced 920 and the 670 is on a P67 system with an oced 2600k.

Well then that makes sense, I guess we can stop comparing older cards to newer cards in power consumption too then since the platform can make a world of difference. I mean unless of course they actually go back and retest with the same system.

Let me know when [H] tests 7970 OC and 670 OC on the same platform with power draw numbers.

 

[toyota]

I prefer Nvidia but some of you people are just being overboard. here a gtx670 oced to 1330 is easily beaten by a 7970 oced to 1250 at 1920x1080. considering the gtx670 is only around 5% slower than the gtx680 clock for clock then even the gtx680 oced would be matched or beaten here by the oced 7970. an yes not ever 7970 will do 1250 but not every gtx670 will do 1330 either.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Alan wake is the latest games and there a 7950 stock beats 680 oc. Lol. Skyrim is an old engine, but a new game. So that leaves you with bf3 where the diff isn't much with oc. So with Alan wake 7970 is the king. This is how stupid your point is