GTX 680 Versus 7970 GHZ Edition

[Elfear]

think needs lots of juice for those clocks,fook my 7970 was hungry for juice. 1.3v for 1220 core temps were buetiiful,so not the prob:S

Guess it depends on the card. Mine only needed 1.185V@1225Mhz on the reference cooler.

The review looks a little sketchy. Power consumption graph looks like they mixed up the numbers.

 

[Gordon Freemen]

7970 pricing is weak relative to GTX 670.

I can't comment on firsthand AVsync performance obviously but it sounds good in theory anyway.

I don't miss Physx/CUDA but then most people probably wouldn't miss the extra 1GB VRAM going from 2 to 3, either.

A GTX 480 for compute? No thanks, that thing is a power hog.

I don't see what controversial about what I wrote. The GTX 670 is obviously the price/perf winner in the $400-500 bracket though for top single-GPU performance it trails the 7970/680 by ~10% when all are max overclocked. The 7970 is priced higher, but if you sell off the extras it actually isn't as much of a price/perf drop relative to the GTX 670 as one might think, though it does eat more power. And the GTX 680 is like a more power-efficient version of the 7970, at least at load, but you pay extra for that efficiency like you pay extra for a 80+ Gold rated PSU over a regular 80+ rated PSU. Many people with access to cheap electricity don't even bother getting Gold rated PSUs because it takes a long time to recoup the costs for them, but for others it could matter more. The other stuff like +1 GB VRAM, Cuda/PhysX, HPC performance, etc. kind of cancel each other out for many people.

EDIT: Wow, you can get a 7970 reference for $435 after rebate. Sell off the extras (cable, games) and it could actually be less than $400 for a card that edges out a GTX 670 (stock vs stock) and is about 10% faster (oc vs oc): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161399

Amazing you made it this long for I have not seen any post of value out of you yet however I have seen allot of fickle trolling and child like bantering out of you please stop. I expected a bit more maturity and quality out of an Anandtech "Platinum" member or at leased I could hope :-(

This is a personal attack and is not acceptable.

Moderator jvroig

 

[Elfear]

Amazing you made it this long for I have not seen any post of value out of you yet however I have seen allot of fickle trolling and child like bantering out of you please stop. I expected a bit more maturity and quality out of an Anandtech "Platinum" member or at leased I could hope :-(

Trolls really suck but I never got that from Blastingcap. I thought his post was pretty fair.

 

[blastingcap]

Amazing you made it this long for I have not seen any post of value out of you yet however I have seen allot of fickle trolling and child like bantering out of you please stop. I expected a bit more maturity and quality out of an Anandtech "Platinum" member or at leased I could hope :-(

I'm only quoting you to preserve your post as evidence necessary for your infraction and, hopefully, eventual banning. You're surprised *I* made it this long? You should be surprised you aren't already banned for your posts in this: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2239216

 

[guskline]

blastingcap, let the comments of GF slide (doesn't even post his specs). I'm interested in why AMD did this Ghz edition now. Feeling the heat from Nvidia or just the improvement in the silicon?

 

[blastingcap]

blastingcap, let the comments of GF slide (doesn't even post his specs). I'm interested in why AMD did this Ghz edition now. Feeling the heat from Nvidia or just the improvement in the silicon?

Probably both since an AMD official stated, shortly after 7970's release but before GTX 680, that they clocked the 7970 so low at stock due to early samples from TSMC, but that by the time the first commercial batch of 7970s were made, it was clear that TSMC had significantly improved yields. (I can't find the exact quote but he said something like how 99% of first-wave 7970s could hit 1GHz, and the vast majority could hit 1.1GHz.) However, it was too late--AMD didn't want to re-validate their chips for 1GHz as that would delay the launch, so they went ahead and launched at 925MHz stock.

Of course for later-launched parts such as the 7870 they went ahead with the 1GHz@stock validation, but that's because they launched later, after AMD knew TSMC's yields had improved.

So even if GTX 680 didn't launch yet, I think AMD would have released GHz edition cards anyway since it wouldn't even require binning. Now that GTX 680s are out, though, that just adds more pressure for AMD to re-validate their chips to 1GHz@stock.

 

[Jaydip]

And an OC on the 7970 will destroy THAT. The 7970s simply OC better on avg.
I own 4 680s, and 2 7970s, and I've owned more 7970s in the past. All of my 7970s OC'd 300mhz+, some 400mhz+. Out of all 4 of my 680s, only 1 of them will break 1300mhz. Not to mention, clock for clock, the 7970s beat the 680s.

That 7970 is already an oced version.Clock for Clock lol,then NV has beaten AMD quite comfortably for the last few gens.6970 was clocked ~100Mhz higher than 580 remember?

 

[3DVagabond]

That 7970 is already an oced version.Clock for Clock lol,then NV has beaten AMD quite comfortably for the last few gens.6970 was clocked ~100Mhz higher than 580 remember?

Nobody's claiming the 580 wasn't faster than the 6970. I have no idea why you're bringing that into the argument. It doesn't address the 680/7970 IPC comparison and actually opens up a whole other can of worms. Hot clocks, for one. :\

 

[Jaydip]

Nobody's claiming the 580 wasn't faster than the 6970. I have no idea why you're bringing that into the argument. It doesn't address the 680/7970 IPC comparison and actually opens up a whole other can of worms. Hot clocks, for one. :\

Look at his post 3D,he said this "Not to mention, clock for clock, the 7970s beat the 680s".My post was a reply to that one.

 

[Tempered81]

clock for clock means when the card's cores are at the same mhz. instead of 925 versus 1121, both are at 1250... 1250 versus 1250... clock for clock (clock versus clock) performance

 

[Jaydip]

Yes and that's why I brought the 580 vs 6970 comparison.

 

[3DVagabond]

Look at his post 3D,he said this "Not to mention, clock for clock, the 7970s beat the 680s".My post was a reply to that one.

I know what was said that you responded to. Why does it matter that the 580 was faster clock/clock?

The 580 was faster than the 6970. Even at lower GPU clocks.
The 580 wouldn't clock as high as the 6970, but didn't need to.
The 580 had "Hot Clocks". The CUDA cores ran at 2xGPU clocks.

The 680 is not faster than the 7970 once clocks are equalized.
The 7970 will still clock higher than the 680, but the 680 is saved by "GPU boost". Which allows it to run "peak" clocks as fast as the 7970 (This also has an added benefit of reducing energy consumption. +1).
The 680 no longer uses hot clocks. The CUDA cores are clocked 1/1 with the GPU, just as AMD does with their GCN cores.

See the two comparisons are so different that you can't just replace one with the other and make any kind of a point.

 

[Jaydip]

My point is that there were no clock for clock comparisons between 580 and 6970,why it is relevant now?Why "The 680 is not faster than the 7970 once clocks are equalized" suddenly makes sense?

 

[toyota]

My point is that there were no clock for clock comparisons between 580 and 6970,why it is relevant now?Why "The 680 is not faster than the 7970 once clocks are equalized" suddenly makes sense?

I think it is because Nvidia has a different architecture now and has lots of shaders and one clock speed so they seem more comparable to AMD now.

 

[Jaydip]

No it matters because 680 has higher clock speeds out of the box.Kepler is no way comparable to GCN.

 

[3DVagabond]

No it matters because 680 has higher clock speeds out of the box.Kepler is no way comparable to GCN.

The hot clocks skewed the comparison before.

 

[Jaydip]

Nope it didn't.The only valid way to compare two architectures is to look at the performance figures in various applications.U can stare at the architecture diagram for days without revealing any important info.

 

[Templar-]

Just accept the fact that the 7970 is on even ground with the 680 and be done with it

 

[Jaydip]

No it is not,680 is better even if slightly.

 

[Dark Shroud]

No it is not,680 is better even if slightly.

The 680 cannot maintain the high clocks and thanks to no voltage tweaks it doesn't have the same head room as the 7970. And if you're running 3 monitors the 7970 is better & cheaper.

The cards are on par with each other with some giving and taking.

 

[Jaydip]

The 680 cannot maintain the high clocks and thanks to no voltage tweaks it doesn't have the same head room as the 7970. And if you're running 3 monitors the 7970 is better & cheaper.

The cards are on par with each other with some giving and taking.

Where are u getting that from?I own a 680 and never saw the issue.Wrong again on the last part,check [H] review @ Eyefinity resolutions.

 

[blackened23]

Why do you type "u" for you ? Are you on your iphone or something?

Anyway, I pretty much agree with his statement. The 7970 wins some games, and the 680 wins others - most review websites really tend to favor bf3 and skyrim which favors nvidia hardware, while other games run a lot better on the 7970 (metro , crysis, alan wake, some others). In terms of overclocking the 7970 has the upper hand here currently. With voltage modification you can reach absurdly high overclocking speeds on water, and I was able to get 1150 on both of my cards with 50% manual fan. So there isn't a clear winner unless you a) don't overclock b) only play bf3 and skyrim.

Since you mention hardocp they did do a max 680 oc vs max 7970 oc in various games and while nvidia games tend to be about even (bf3 , skyrim) other games definitely run faster on tahiti. But there's also other factors that come into play, such as the software benefits of being in the nvidia ecosystem (I really have to give it to nvidia -- their software development for their cards is awesome) and you don't get the oddities that some 7970 users report. Currently i've switched to nvidia for the time being and I really enjoy being in their software ecosystem - but its not a flat out upgrade in some respects. I definitely get slightly lower framerates in a few games, but bf3 and skyrim are just better on nvidia hardware when you take OC'ing out of the picture.

The big problem here is what else does 7970 have going for it? I think the hardware is pretty good, and is great for overclocking, but unless it offers a clear benefit over the 680 I think most people would rather get the 680 or 670. I personally think a 1.5gb 7970 at 380$ or so would be a fantastic idea, but AMD will never do this. So there is no major benefit to getting a 7970 unless you really want to go insane with water cooling.

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

Where are u getting that from?I own a 680 and never saw the issue.Wrong again on the last part,check [H] review @ Eyefinity resolutions.

Well many 7970 advocates keep stating this when it simply isn't true. Remember when there were cries along the lines of "but GPU boost is cheating!"? It's amazing. I mean no one tried to claim that voltage boosting a 7970 was cheating when a GTX 680 can't do it...

Every 680 vs 7970 thread essentially progresses like this:
"the 680 is faster"
"the 7970 wins some"
"they overclock the same amount"
"every 7970 does 1.2Ghz+"
"the 7970 is faster at higher resolutions"
"they're the same... even though the 680 is faster, they are equal"
"actually the 7970 is faster clock for clock and can overclock more"

Same old crap in every thread.

 

[Vesku]

680 is not better for compute though, I wish it were. Wouldn't mind being able to diversify my bitcoin setup.

No it is not,680 is better even if slightly.

 

[Jaydip]

680 is not better for compute though, I wish it were. Wouldn't mind being able to diversify my bitcoin setup.

I agree here,they gimped the DP to 1/24th compared to 1/8th in Fermi.