[H] - GTX680 3-Way SLI vs. 7970 Tri-Fire review

[toyota]

I am not asking AMD to abandon 3Gb 7970s, all i am asking them is to release a 1.5Gb 7970 @399$ for 99% of the gamers.

what type of person normally buys a 7970? a person with at least a 1920x1080/1200 screen that expects to play all their games at very high settings. they would also expect to have enough vram to not have to limit their settings just because of that. I already peg my vram in several games at just 1920x1080 so a 40-50% faster 7970 would have no trouble running settings that hit 1.5gb or more in some cases especially at a higher resolution. if I buy a 7970 then I do not want to be limited by not having enough vram now and for the next couple of years.

 

[blackened23]

Skyrim with HD texture mods runs out of VRAM on my crossfire 6950's @2560x1600 so it is not "End of story". Given the hundreds of hours I sank into Oblivion that is a pretty big problem for me. YOU may not care about more VRAM but I certainly do.

Uh, why not give users a choice between 1.5 or 3gb. 2 different SKUs. Whats the harm in that. For 99% of users 1.5gb is fine and I haven't run any single screen game that needs more than 1.5gb.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

There is always an exception to a general rule, community modded games are one of them.

Skyrim maxed out without mods and no AA/FXAA high only uses 1GB of vram at 5900x1080, vram has been overstated for many games since forever.

 

[Jaydip]

what type of person normally buys a 7970? a person with at least a 1920x1080/1200 screen that expects to play all their games at very high settings. they would also expect to have enough vram to not have to limit their settings just because of that.

Yeah and @1080P 1.5GB 7970 is fine.

 

[toyota]

Yeah and @1080P 1.5GB 7970 is fine.

not even for EVERY case now and certainly not for some upcoming games. same nonsense was said about 768mb a year and a half ago and 1gb just a year or so ago.

 

[Jaydip]

not even for EVERY case now and certainly not for some upcoming games. same nonsesne was said about 768mb a year and a half ago and 1gb just a year ago.

There is no solution for EVERY case.A 7970 3Gb can't run all games at max settings in 1600P either.U have to understand ur preference and take the decision.Otherwise the gfx makers have to enable the end users to increase the vram just like we do with our system rams.

 

[toyota]

There is no solution for EVERY case.A 7970 3Gb can't run all games at max settings in 1600P either.U have to understand ur preference and take the decision.Otherwise the gfx makers have to enable the end users to increase the vram just like we do with our system rams.

how about a compromise? I think that a 7950 1.5gb option might be an okay option but I think the flagship 7970 should stay with 3gb.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

again its STUPID to limit your high end gpus like that. we are at a point right now where 1.5gb is not always enough and that is only going to get worse.

this

 

[Jaydip]

Honestly i don't see the 7950 as good value.But of course a 1.5Gb 7950 will be no slouch.Lets mail to AMD about our proposition

 

[blackened23]

how about a compromise? I think that a 7950 1.5gb option might be an okay option but I think the flagship 7970 should stay with 3gb.

3gb only benefits surround.

 

[Elfear]

There is always an exception to a general rule, community modded games are one of them.

Skyrim maxed out without mods and no AA/FXAA high only uses 1GB of vram at 5900x1080, vram has been overstated for many games since forever.

Do people really want to spend $400-600 on a GPU only to have to turn down settings? Why not buy a $50 card if that is the case. You can always turn down settings to make the game playable. People pay a premium price for premium graphics.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Toyato is the only wise person in this thread Hats Off bro I am on your side

Anyway, if they could somehow release ~ 2 gb (perhaps not exact 2 gb but approx 2gb) 7950 for $350 then that would be something

 

[blackened23]

Toyato is the only wise person in this thread Hats Off bro I am on your side

Anyway, if they could somehow release ~ 2 gb (perhaps not exact 2 gb but approx 2gb) 7950 for $350 then that would be something

Why not give the end user a choice? 1.5gb vs 3gb. Make 2 SKUs. There is no benchmark outside of surround showing a benefit of 3gb at 2560x1600 unless you use something absolutely ridiculous like 8x SSAA. 8x SSAA is not usable anyway.

Please, if you state otherwise, find proof from an established website with a review. I'm 99% sure you won't find it. Find us proof that 3gb is more beneficial over 1.5gb or 2gb at 2560 resolution -- and thats not including exotic scenarios like 8x SSAA.

 

[Jaydip]

Do people really want to spend $400-600 on a GPU only to have to turn down settings? Why not buy a $50 card if that is the case. You can always turn down settings to make the game playable. People pay a premium price for premium graphics.

And after buying the premium card they find that the premium graphics is still not possible for rare few oddballs

 

[toyota]

random nonsense



3gb only benefits surround.[/B]

thats a gtx580 not a 7970. even Hard already said the 7970 needed over 1.8gb of vram to use its playable settings on single screen.

and something you don't always see when looking at just numbers is the hitching that can occur.

 

[blackened23]

thats a gtx580 not a 7970. even Hard already said the 7970 needed over 1.8gb of vram to use its playable settings on single screen.

and something you don't always see when looking at just numbers is the hitching that can occur.

I just explained that frostbite 2 changes LOD depending on available VRAM. Look at the video of last years geforce lan, a dice dev was present. 1.5gb won't hurt performance.

Anyway, if you believe 3gb has benefits to single screen resolution thats fine, just provide proof and a citation with benchmarks from a reputable website.

 

[toyota]

I just explained that frostbite 2 changes LOD depending on available VRAM. Look at the video of last years geforce lan, a dice dev was present. 1.5gb won't hurt performance.

Anyway, if you believe 3gb has benefits to single screen resolution thats fine, just provide proof and a citation with benchmarks from a reputable website.

you are right. AMD is never conservative and just put useless amounts of vram on their cards. perhaps you should email them and let them know that 1.5gb would have been plenty as no game needs more than that even at 2560x1600. AGAIN I hit my vram limit in some games at just 1920x1080 with just a gtx570 but I guess higher settings or a higher res would not ever go over 1.5gb according to you.

 

[Elfear]

I just explained that frostbite 2 changes LOD depending on available VRAM. Look at the video of last years geforce lan, a dice dev was present. 1.5gb won't hurt performance.

Anyway, if you believe 3gb has benefits to single screen resolution thats fine, just provide proof and a citation with benchmarks from a reputable website.

Blackened, wouldn't that still mean the card with more vram has higher IQ? Seems like having more vram in games using the Frostbite 2 engine would provide a benefit even if it doesn't help fps.

 

[toyota]

Blackened, wouldn't that still mean the card with more vram has higher IQ? Seems like having more vram in games using the Frostbite 2 engine would provide a benefit even if it doesn't help fps.

exactly. these guys think if a game does not come to almost a complete stop then vram must not have an impact on anything at all.

 

[Jaydip]

exactly. these guys think if a game does not come to a complete stop then vram must not have an impact on anything at all.

Look at the [H] graphs,more vram doesn't amount to less stuttering.

 

[Rvenger]

Callsignvega over at OCN hit the VRAM limit on a 680 on BF3. It dropped the FPS in the teens!

I think he was running 6 screens with 4 way SLI though.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Do people really want to spend $400-600 on a GPU only to have to turn down settings? Why not buy a $50 card if that is the case. You can always turn down settings to make the game playable. People pay a premium price for premium graphics.

Not modding isn't turning down settings though, but after reading what else you had to say the extremist logic is clearly at play.

Callsignvega over at OCN hit the VRAM limit on a 680 on BF3. It dropped the FPS in the teens!

He's also running something like 3x1600p in portrait, but opted for 2GB 680s over 7970s because the 680s despite their limitations at times are better cards.

 

[blackened23]

Blackened, wouldn't that still mean the card with more vram has higher IQ? Seems like having more vram in games using the Frostbite 2 engine would provide a benefit even if it doesn't help fps.

So? Thats why purchasers would have a choice. 1.5gb or 3gb. The difference in bf3 is laughable anyway, look at screenshots between 1.5gb and 3gb 580s.

Still, provide proof that 3gb has an advantage for single screen. I have not seen any yet in this thread, i've already provided benchmarks earlier.

 

[toyota]

Look at the [H] graphs,more vram doesn't amount to less stuttering.

at which graphs for which card? they do not have a 1.5gb card that is as fast as a 7970.

 

[blackened23]

Callsignvega over at OCN hit the VRAM limit on a 680 on BF3. It dropped the FPS in the teens!

He also plays surround. We are talking about single screen resolutions.