[H] 680 sli vs 7970 CF Review at 5760 x 1200 - Nvidia wins them all

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
n0x1ous

n0x1ous

Platinum Member
Sep 9, 2010
2,574
252
126
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/9

"In every game we tested GTX 680 SLI was faster, and provided gameplay options Radeon HD 7970 CFX did not. We were not bottlenecked at all at 5760x1200 with GTX 680 SLI. In fact, in BF3 Multiplayer GTX 680 SLI provided better performance, higher in-game settings, and a smoother experience, and this is a highly memory sensitive game. When we looked at power utilization we found GeForce GTX 680 SLI was more efficient in every single game, using less power, but giving us more performance.

With GeForce GTX 680 SLI you will be paying less money for a more efficient solution, getting more performance, a superior gameplay experience, and a smoother gaming feel than you will with AMD Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX. "
 
KingFatty

KingFatty

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2010
3,034
1
81
Anyone know of a review or personal experience of running three monitors on a single GTX 680, compared to eyefinity? Also, any idea how it may handle mixed-resolution combinations of monitors?

I am interested in how you physically set it up, how it handles the monitors etc., and this info seems to be omitted from the hardcore-performance numbers in the hardocp article.
 
A

Absolute0

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
714
21
81
Kinda confused... Read the title, GTX 680 SLI wins at everything. Ok. Go to BF3 benchmarks (because it's the only game I really care about and the only one that, IMO, really needs this kind of power).

7970 Crossfire wins every BF3 test, including more than doubling the minimum frames of 680 SLI @ 5760x1200 @ 4xMSAA/16xAF Ultra

WTF
 
Last edited:
9

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,738
334
126
Absolute0 said:
Kinda confused... Read the title, GTX 680 SLI wins at everything. Ok. Go to BF3 benchmarks (because it's the only game I really care about and the only one that, IMO, really needs this kind of power).

7970 Crossfire wins every BF3 test, including more than doubling the minimum frames of 680 SLI @ 5760x1200 @ 4xAA/16xAF Ultra

WTF
Click to expand...

Did you read the review, or just look at the pretty graphs?
 
B

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
Because that's SP, and it's producing choppy playback despite (read microstutter) the higher framerates.

Also in MP 680SLI was far better, both in experience and in fps.

FPS is a broken tool to convey experience anyways.
 
9

96Firebird

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
5,738
334
126
Multiplayer Summary - GTX 680 SLI offered the best multiplayer experience, despite it having less VRAM capacity and memory bandwidth. We were able to run with motion blur enabled and HBAO turned on at 5760x1200 with FXAA and averaged 60-70 FPS. This amount of performance is perfect for multiplayer, and with the highest in-game settings enabled the game looked great at multiplayer. AMD Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX struggled for performance, even though it had more RAM and memory bandwidth. To get the game to feel smooth enough with enough performance we had to lower ambient occlusion and motion blur. GeForce GTX 680 SLI was the clear winner in multiplayer.
Click to expand...

Probably driver issues...
 
A

Absolute0

Senior member
Nov 9, 2005
714
21
81
Ah yeah just read that bit on motion blue and HBAO.

Too used to seeing benchmark graphs at the same settings I guess. lol.

I suppose it's about what I expected. 680GTX is just a better card.
 
B

BallaTheFeared

Diamond Member
Nov 15, 2010
8,115
0
71
A better method, I have none to offer so I still go by FPS, but it's a weak method and not having a better one doesn't change that.

We're talking specifically about dual card setups, single card is much less of an issue.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel

LOL_Wut_Axel

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2011
4,310
8
81
LOL, no it's not. AMD, for now, has better multi-GPU scaling than NVIDIA and as a result NVIDIA's 5-10% lead goes away.
 
RussianSensation

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Absolute0 said:
I looked at the pretty graphs. Does the review attempt to amend the graph numbers? If there's something I'm missing please tell me.
Click to expand...

You are looking at 4xMSAA benchmarks? Often playing a FPS game with averages of 40-45 fps is completely unplayable (unless it's Crysis since it's one of the few FPS I can think of that feels decent at 40 fps in single player). For once in a long time, HardOCP actually noted this:

GTX680SLI - "When we tried to turn on 2X MSAA it brought the FPS down to 40 FPS average and at 4X AA the game was completely choppy and unplayable."

HD7970 CF - "Once we did all that, then it was only playable at FXAA, just the same as GTX 680 SLI. When we increased to 2X and 4X MSAA, performance was choppy and unplayable. We had to disable HBAO and use SSAO instead. While both setups were at FXAA, GTX 680 SLI had the better experience since HBAO was enabled."

Therefore, the only benchmarks that in this game with 3 monitors are the ones with FXAA and HBAO on. That's why he concluded that 680 SLI provided a better experience. Granted, for someone with 7970 @ 1070mhz or faster, it would probably provide a similar gaming experience to stock 680s. Not a reason enough to side-grade for 7970 users.

LOL_Wut_Axel said:
LOL, no it's not. AMD, for now, has better multi-GPU scaling than NVIDIA and as a result NVIDIA's 5-10% lead goes away.
Click to expand...

Right now HD7970 almost wins by default since 680s are sold out. However, in US/Canada, quiet aftermarket 7970s cost anywhere from $100-200 more than 2 680s. The aftermarket 7970's dump all the heat into your case, while consuming more power too and don't even offer any tangible benefits in Surround/Eyefinity gaming to speak of.
 
Last edited:
S

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
I'm actually surprised at the HardOCP results and would be interested in seeing another review to prove them right or wrong.

Crossfire tends to scale better than SLI, and I would have thought that the 3gb of vram would have made a bigger difference.

I'll bet that for quadfire the vram will become more useful.
 
L

Lepton87

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2009
2,544
9
81
SickBeast said:
I'll bet that for quadfire the vram will become more useful.
Click to expand...

I can see it being useful for SSAA right now. On a 2560x1440 screen with SSAA 4x you actually render at 5120x2880 so I imagine it being useful for that. I'm not sure that QuadFire 7970 would actually be able to play demanding games at that settings though. I can only play the least demanding games like ME2 with SSAA 4x and at stock clocks 7970 is 45% faster on average than 6970. Anyway I wouldn't be comfortable upgrading to cards that have the same amount of RAM as my current ones but for single or dual cards I don't think that's an issue.
 
DooKey

DooKey

Golden Member
Nov 9, 2005
1,811
458
136
I checked out this review and it should shut up the AMD biased. The GTX 680s are great cards and if I didn't have 7970s they would be the next cards I owned.
 
R

Rezist

Senior member
Jun 20, 2009
726
0
71
BallaTheFeared said:
A better method, I have none to offer so I still go by FPS, but it's a weak method and not having a better one doesn't change that.

We're talking specifically about dual card setups, single card is much less of an issue.
Click to expand...


If they could record a video then have it play back? That might do it.
 
D

digitaldurandal

Golden Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,828
0
76
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
LOL, no it's not. AMD, for now, has better multi-GPU scaling than NVIDIA and as a result NVIDIA's 5-10% lead goes away.
Click to expand...

In that review the 7970 cf got beaten by 680 sli in every game with the exception of BF3 single player. On top of that the 680's used less power and were cooler. Can you clarify your statement please?
 
D

digitaldurandal

Golden Member
Dec 3, 2009
1,828
0
76
Rezist said:
If they could record a video then have it play back? That might do it.
Click to expand...

It be difficult to pull that off effectively - sometimes screenshots and videos do not effectively show what is occurring on the screen live. It has to do with the way a computer records video vs outputting video. Then if you record video outside of the computer it can cause other issues in playback quality.
 
S

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
This is actually pretty interesting... It seems the 680s excel at multi monitor resolutions, but in "normal" settings, the scaling is pitiful, although that will likely be fixed with future drivers

So beware, dont go buying 2 680s to play on a single monitor just because you saw this review, the results will be completely different
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom