GTX680 vs Sapphire 7970 OC -- Performance and Noise Level matter

[Atomic Playboy]

I just got my GTX 680 (EVGA reference card) installed this weekend, and it is much quieter than my 5870 (XFX reference card) was. Can't compare it to the 7970 as I haven't heard one of those, but the 680 runs quiet. Granted, I haven't really put it through its paces yet; a marathon session of Skyrim or BF3 might crank the fan into overdrive. But the same is going to be true of the 7970 (especially if overclocking either one).

 

[Keysplayr]

If you plan to use for at most a year then yes 2gb isn't an issue, but if you plan to use it for 2-3 years then 2gb may not cut it just like anything less than 1.25 gb is a little less today and anything less than 1.5gb isn't comfortable. And 768mb is pure obsolete

I don't see that being a problem at all, especially with things like FXAA coming into play and when TXAA is implemented in titles. Much less harsh on the mem usage.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Hmmm. OP said "I am generally a person that wants to max all visual settings possible with the extras (AA, AF, etc) and do not want to frames to drop or get stuttering in games."

Have you seen any user reviews of the 680 running AA maxed out and a bunch of HD texture mods at 2560x1440 (or 1600p)? OP did say he plays Skyrim and that game can use a lot of vram. I see 2.4GB used in Afterburner so I'm not sure I'd be recommending a 2GB card without knowing if the 680 can handle lots of AA and lots of HD textures.

The Blizzard games will be fine with 2GB but I have my doubts about Skyrim or other moddable games.

He'd be able to run the SkyrimHD pack directly from the devs without a problem, a lot of texture addons are simply 512x512 images blown up to 4kx4k and offer hardly any real visual fidelity over 2k textures which does nothing but add needless amounts of vram overhead. Quality textures don't need to be as gigantic as what you'll find in some of the custom texture packs.

I'd rather have better looking lighting through Nvidia's AO than stack texture pack on top of texture pack though. But that's more of a call that OP would have to make, since he said a short stint in Skyrim, I never really gave it much weight.

 

[joshhedge]

He'd be able to run the SkyrimHD pack directly from the devs without a problem, a lot of texture addons are simply 512x512 images blown up to 4kx4k and offer hardly any real visual fidelity over 2k textures which does nothing but add needless amounts of vram overhead. Quality textures don't need to be as gigantic as what you'll find in some of the custom texture packs.

I'd rather have better looking lighting through Nvidia's AO than stack texture pack on top of texture pack though. But that's more of a call that OP would have to make, since he said a short stint in Skyrim, I never really gave it much weight.

Are you on about the DLC directly from bethesda or the extra high texture pack on the Skyrim Nexus forum? Because that hogs all of my 2GB VRAM on my 6970 while the bethesda one doesn't...

 

[lavaheadache]

Nvidia has superior IQ in D3 and SC2, 2GB hasn't held back SLI at 5760x1200 which is a higher resolution than you're running so imo, 2GB vs 3GB is a non factor.

:hmm:

Show me screenies of this so called superior IQ.

I would love to have you show me the dramatic difference so I can see why you have been boasting about it lately.

 

[SlowSpyder]

He'd be able to run the SkyrimHD pack directly from the devs without a problem, a lot of texture addons are simply 512x512 images blown up to 4kx4k and offer hardly any real visual fidelity over 2k textures which does nothing but add needless amounts of vram overhead. Quality textures don't need to be as gigantic as what you'll find in some of the custom texture packs.

I'd rather have better looking lighting through Nvidia's AO than stack texture pack on top of texture pack though. But that's more of a call that OP would have to make, since he said a short stint in Skyrim, I never really gave it much weight.

Just tessellation of triangles smaller than a pixel and under the ocean improve IQ, right?

 

[TidusZ]

I just got my GTX 680 (EVGA reference card) installed this weekend, and it is much quieter than my 5870 (XFX reference card) was. Can't compare it to the 7970 as I haven't heard one of those, but the 680 runs quiet. Granted, I haven't really put it through its paces yet; a marathon session of Skyrim or BF3 might crank the fan into overdrive. But the same is going to be true of the 7970 (especially if overclocking either one).

In BF3 2560x1600 ultra it doesn't get very loud at all I find. Maybe 1/2 as loud as my 5870.

680 can be pretty overclockable as well, or at least mine is, a little over 7 ghz on memory and around 1250ish on core, without increasing voltage (not sure if increasing voltage is even possible). In SC2 and D3 it usually runs at less than stock clocks and is silent at around 50 C.

 

[3DVagabond]

Was thinking the same thing. Please elaborate 3D

The 680 is not built like a typical "enthusiast" level card. This was just a quick look up on specs, but I think it shows what I was getting at.

behardware
There are 5 phases on the PCB to power the GK104, with two for the Hynix R0C GDDR5 certified at 1.5 Ghz. Only 4 of these GPU phases are however needed for the GeForce GTX 680 and the fifth is unpopulated. The GeForce GTX 680 has two 6-pin power supply connectors, corresponding to a maximum energy consumption of 225W according to PCI Express specifications.

behardware
The PCB is not that different to the one used for the Radeon HD 6970, but the power stage has been revisited to make it more powerful, with better quality components though still with 6 phases for the GPU. This increase in power isn’t actually necessary and one of the six phases remains vacant. The design will however allow manufacturers who so desire to produce an overclocked model with more in reserve and it will also be possible to go from 8+6 pin power supply connectors to 2x 8 pins.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Just tessellation of triangles smaller than a pixel and under the ocean improve IQ, right?

No, but tessellation adds more IQ than higher res textures after a certain point. Crysis 2 looks better with tess than without, HQ textures included. Was it done poorly, yes it was, was it done so poorly that modern hardware wasn't able to produce playable frame rates? No, not unless you had an AMD card or a low end Nvidia card.

You can have a discussion without using indirect trolling though, just pointing that out for future reference.

Nvidia's native AO support is quite nice to have in some of these DX9 titles, Diabo III, StarCraft II, and Skyrim all benefit from it's use more so imo than a few more texture mods without it.

Skyrim without any mods and no AA uses less than 1GB at 5900x1080, so I'm sure 1440p with 8x (an unnecessary amount) and a few HD textures won't eclipse the 2GB budget of the GTX 680. Even if it did Skyrim wasn't a major title for him, driving that home here once again because the 2GB vs 3GB is one of the few cards AMD users have to play. The other two titles he listed 2GB vs 3GB doesn't matter at all, and the only way you can actually improve IQ in those titles is through Nvidia's native AO support within the drivers.

 

[Elfear]

He'd be able to run the SkyrimHD pack directly from the devs without a problem, a lot of texture addons are simply 512x512 images blown up to 4kx4k and offer hardly any real visual fidelity over 2k textures which does nothing but add needless amounts of vram overhead. Quality textures don't need to be as gigantic as what you'll find in some of the custom texture packs.

I'd rather have better looking lighting through Nvidia's AO than stack texture pack on top of texture pack though. But that's more of a call that OP would have to make, since he said a short stint in Skyrim, I never really gave it much weight.

The official HD texture pack is just the tip of the IQ iceberg. Whether you think the plethora of mods available for Skyrim are worthless or not, the OP should be aware of the limit 2GB might place on his ability to choose which mods he wants. If the OP is done with Skyrim, then it's a non-issue for his decision but I have to shake my head when people say vram is not a factor. Yeah, the enormous amount of HD mods for last year's game of the year is a non-factor for a gamer.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The official HD texture pack is just the tip of the IQ iceberg. Whether you think the plethora of mods available for Skyrim are worthless or not, the OP should be aware of the limit 2GB might place on his ability to choose which mods he wants. If the OP is done with Skyrim, then it's a non-issue for his decision but I have to shake my head when people say vram is not a factor. Yeah, the enormous amount of HD mods for last year's game of the year is a non-factor for a gamer.

I never said it was and it's for the OP to decide, it's been said already there is no reason to argue back and forth over it as it is not our decision. You've said the same thing already leave it as it is and let the OP decide.

Here is what he said, since you seem stuck on Skyrim.

Generally I am playing mainly Blizzard games (D3 Beta, SC2, not so much WoW, along with LoL, with some shorter stints in Skyrim and/or the FPS of the month).

Slightly more texture mods vs slightly less texture mods and better light in one game, vs better IQ in all the others listed... :hmm:

 

[BoFox]

The 680 is not built like a typical "enthusiast" level card. This was just a quick look up on specs, but I think it shows what I was getting at.

This has nothing to do with the VRM quality.

The fact that GTX 680 needs 100W less than HD 7970 when both are oc'ed says a lot about the potential longevity of both cards (usually, increasing the voltage and power usage decreases the longevity).

For an HD 7970, I'd only go with a custom cooling design that is quieter, if I planned on oc'ing it to the max. There's a reason AMD stock-clocked the card at 925 MHz and not any higher.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The official HD texture pack is just the tip of the IQ iceberg. Whether you think the plethora of mods available for Skyrim are worthless or not, the OP should be aware of the limit 2GB might place on his ability to choose which mods he wants. If the OP is done with Skyrim, then it's a non-issue for his decision but I have to shake my head when people say vram is not a factor. Yeah, the enormous amount of HD mods for last year's game of the year is a non-factor for a gamer.

Speaking as someone who has a GTX 680, Skyrim, the official Bethesda HD pack and a further 4+ GB of HD texture mods installed (at the moment), running out of VRAM has not been an issue at all (with 4xAA as well). You have to really go out of your way to max 2GB of VRAM. I'm not saying it's not a valid concern, because it is (especially looking to the future), but there's nothing out right now nor on the horizon that's going to make 2 GB of VRAM seem insufficient.

 

[Elfear]

Speaking as someone who has a GTX 680, Skyrim, the official Bethesda HD pack and a further 4+ GB of HD texture mods installed (at the moment), running out of VRAM has not been an issue at all (with 4xAA as well). You have to really go out of your way to max 2GB of VRAM. I'm not saying it's not a valid concern, because it is (especially looking to the future), but there's nothing out right now nor on the horizon that's going to make 2 GB of VRAM seem insufficient.

What resolution do you play at?

My post was specifically addressing the OP's needs which are 1440p and IQ maxed (i.e. 8xMSAA, 8x Transparency AA, etc.). I'm sure 2Gb is fine for Skyrim at 1080p and 4xMSAA with some HD textures. It's also plenty for 95% of the games out there. There are just a few situations where it doesn't look like it would be enough, one of which is described by the OP.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What resolution do you play at?

My post was specifically addressing the OP's needs which are 1440p and IQ maxed (i.e. 8xMSAA, 8x Transparency AA, etc.). I'm sure 2Gb is fine for Skyrim at 1080p and 4xMSAA with some HD textures. It's also plenty for 95% of the games out there. There are just a few situations where it doesn't look like it would be enough, one of which is described by the OP.

That's fair. If you're running 1440P with 16xAA + 8xMSAA, you're probably going to hit that 2GB threshold. But the IQ at 4x or 8x AA and 4xMSAA is going to be outstanding at that resolution, not to mention FXAA (which is far less taxing to VRAM). I guess it's a matter of determining whether completely maxing AA is worth the additional cost (+$50 for the 7970 and the slight increase in power usage). Honestly, you can't go wrong with either card.

 

[Elfear]

That's fair. If you're running 1440P with 16xAA + 8xMSAA, you're probably going to hit that 2GB threshold. But the IQ at 4x or 8x AA and 4xMSAA is going to be outstanding at that resolution, not to mention FXAA (which is far less taxing to VRAM). I guess it's a matter of determining whether completely maxing AA is worth the additional cost (+$50 for the 7970 and the slight increase in power usage). Honestly, you can't go wrong with either card.

I agree. IMO the 680 is the better card for most games out there at current GPU prices. But I'm a personal fan of the Elder Scrolls series (obviously I'm not alone) and it would irk me to know my card had the horsepower but lacked the memory to max IQ settings in Skyrim. Especially with it being a DX9 title. It was the same deal with Oblivion. My X1900XT's chugged with certain mods because of vram limitations.

 

[chloros]

7970......seriously?

 

[boxleitnerb]

I don't see that being a problem at all, especially with things like FXAA coming into play and when TXAA is implemented in titles. Much less harsh on the mem usage.

Honest question:

How will Nvidia justify selling cards like the GTX680 and later 780, even in SLI configurations, when they push the performance requirements lower with FXAA and TXAA?

On still pictures, FXAA and TXAA may look acceptable or even good, but in motion it's a different thing entirely. I'd rather Nvidia would distance themselves from this poor mans "AA" and push for features that are worthy for highend setups. Don't get me wrong - FXAA/TXAA etc. are good if nothing else works or if the game is too demanding or the card is too weak. But generally speaking I don't see this as a selling point for the fastest cards, but as a compromise that not everyone wants.

 

[Keysplayr]

Honest answer:
You'd rather they distance themselves? Then you would rather not having options for things like FXAA or TXAA? You know they don't have to be used, so why care if you have the options? And btw, TXAA looks pretty damn good no matter what you call it (poor mans AA or other). Just my 2 cents.
With console ports, higher performance cards are a tough sell as they look like overkill. But PC versions allow us to crank the hell out of the settings and almost any new game can be set to weigh down even the highest end GPUs. And as you can see, people have absolutely no qualms about buying high end today. Just look around. Justification not needed when it's what the market wanted.

 

[upinsmokes]

Given the games that you listed (Blizzard ones) none of them should be taxing the 7950 oc that you are currently using. From many past experiences dealing with Crossfire setups I can honestly say I have given up on them. I was running a XFX 5850 setup in xfire and the sound levels were LOUD (not to mention the heat and electricity used by them.

So far I've been extremely happy with the Sapphire 7950 oc that I have. I play pretty much the same games as you and there has been zero issues or a desire to get anything "better" (which is rather subjective).

If it's just a matter of "having to have the best" and you have the money to do so, enjoy. There is going to be no real perceivable difference between any of the cards you mentioned though.

 

[Jaydip]

Couldn't agree more