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

[toyota]

I would go one step further and say 1GB is enough if you are willing to live with lesser MSAA or less-intensive AA types, for 1080p or less.

The false logic of people in this thread completely ignores WHY it is that VRAM requirements have gone up even during the lifetime of the XBOX360 and PS3.

Part of it is that PC games sometimes get higher-res textures and such, true.

But part of it is because console programmers got more efficient as they climbed the learning curve.

And lastly, and this is VERY important: resolutions went up. 6 years ago, many people were gaming at lower resolutions than they are today. This explains a huge part of why VRAM requirements went up. 1366x768 is half the resolution of 1080p for instance. Six years ago I was at 1280x1024, which is about 57% of 1920x1200.

If you plan to keep your current resolution for the next 2 years, chances are you will not need more than whatever VRAM you've already got, unless you are already hitting the VRAM wall today. New consoles won't come out at affordable prices until 2+ years from now, so most games are unlikely to really push VRAM until then, mods and ultrahighrez texture packs notwithstanding.

I also think that you rapidly get diminishing returns on VRAM-hogging stuff like AA and high-rez texture packs, btw. Going from 0x to 2x MSAA is nice, and maybe even 2x to 4x MSAA can be a notable difference, but 4x to 8x MSAA won't make nearly as much of a difference. Just as one example.

Also, for many (most?) people, by the time their VRAM becomes a limiting factor in more than a few games, the GPU itself will likely be outdated anyway. I'd rather have a fast card with 1GB VRAM than a medium-speed card with 1.5GB VRAM for instance, because by the time 1GB VRAM really isn't enough, that medium-speed 1.5GB VRAM card will likely be too slow anyway. A little extra VRAM will not do much to "futureproof" yourself... not that I believe in the concept of futureproofing yourself in an industry as fast-moving as GPUs anyway.

I disagree with a lot of that. 6 years ago 1680x1050 was probably way more common than 1280x1024 for anybody that was into buying decent gaming hardware. 1920x1200 was even common for enthusiasts back then. 1920x1080 sort of took over about 4 years ago but even just 4 to 5 years ago people were arguing about 256mb vs 512mb or 320mb vs 640mb. even just 2.5 to 3 years ago people were saying 512mb was plenty. 1.5 to 2 years ago people were saying 768mb was plenty. 1 to 1.5 years ago people were saying that 1gb was plenty. you are out of your mind if you think 1gb is enough now at the settings a new 28nm high end card can handle as even 1.5gb can be reached in some games. a 1.5g 7970 would be silly from this point going forward for anyone wanting to keep it for more than a year or 2 and get the most out of it.

 

[blastingcap]

I was trying to keep it as positive and upbeat as I could

In that case you should regale us with riveting tales of the gallant GTX 470 twins and NVIDIA's SLI awesomeness.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

No no, none of that... heads would explode.

 

[blastingcap]

I disagree with a lot of that. 6 years ago 1680x1050 was probably way more common than 1280x1024 for anybody that was into buying decent gaming hardware. 1920x1200 was even common for enthusiasts back then. 1920x1080 sort of took over about 3 to 4 years ago but even just 4 to 5 years ago people were arguing about 256mb vs 512mb or 320mb vs 640mb. even just 2.5 to 3 years ago people were saying 512mb was plenty. 1.5 to 2 years ago people were saying 768mb was plenty. 1 to 1.5 years ago people were saying that 1gb was plenty. you are out of your mind if you think 1gb is enough now at the settings a new 28nm high end card can handle as even 1.5gb can be reached in some games. a 1.5g 7970 would be silly from this point going forward for anyone wanting to keep it for more than a year or 2 and get the most out of it.

As for extrapolation based on flimsy "data":

http://xkcd.com/605/

If you were a total fool, and I am not saying you are a total fool, but if you were, you might look at the resolution growth rate in 2005 and forecast that everyone will be at 4K video resolutions by 2014. Is that likely to happen though?

I think Steam's HW survey would show ample resolution growth in the last 6 years and also show that the growth is slowing down. Monitor resolutions have stagnated at around 1920x????. AMD and NVIDIA know this, which is why they are pushing things like Eyefinity and Surround and 3D in an effort to keep people upgrading. The % of users above 1920x1200 is vanishingly small. Keep in mind that your average person at AT VCG forums is not representative of the mass market. The typical gamer isn't even a PC gamer anymore, they are probably a consoler happy with 720p or 1080p; or even worse an Angry Birder on an iPad.

 

[toyota]

As for extrapolation based on flimsy "data":

http://xkcd.com/605/

If you were a total fool, and I am not saying you are a total fool, but if you were, you might look at the resolution growth rate in 2005 and forecast that everyone will be at 4K video resolutions by 2014. Is that likely to happen though?

I think Steam's HW survey would show ample resolution growth in the last 6 years and also show that the growth is slowing down. Monitor resolutions have stagnated at around 1920x????. AMD and NVIDIA know this, which is why they are pushing things like Eyefinity and Surround and 3D in an effort to keep people upgrading. The % of users above 1920x1200 is vanishingly small. Keep in mind that your average person at AT VCG forums is not representative of the mass market. The typical gamer isn't even a PC gamer anymore, they are probably a consoler happy with 720p or 1080p; or even worse an Angry Birder on an iPad.

um I am talking about the type of people that buy higher end hardware.

 

[blastingcap]

um I am talking about the type of people that buy higher end hardware.

In which case I would rather buy a $350 7950@1.5GB than a $400 7950@3GB anyway. By the time you need more than 1.5GB VRAM, you will want to upgrade to something else anyway, regardless of whether you had 1.5 or 3 GB VRAM. The whole VRAM thing is totally overblown because the problem is that GPU depreciate so quickly as to make VRAM moot for relatively frequent upgraders such as "the type of people that buy higher end hardware." This is especially true if they don't plan on upgrading their monitor resolution.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I think it's been discussed quite thoroughly that its each individual perception.

I've used 2 different crossfire setups and 1 SLI setup in the past, and I have not experienced or noticed Microstutter.

Just because you see it, doesn't mean others do.

Nice way to post nothing relevant to what I said.

I am talking about the knowlegde of eg. microstutter...not if you can see it or not.
Even if you cannot see microstutter, you should be aware that it exsists...and can be measured:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21516

Was that clear enough?

 

[toyota]

In which case I would rather buy a $350 7950@1.5GB than a $400 7950@3GB anyway. By the time you need more than 1.5GB VRAM, you will want to upgrade to something else anyway, regardless of whether you had 1.5 or 3 GB VRAM. The whole VRAM thing is totally overblown because the problem is that GPU depreciate so quickly as to make VRAM moot for relatively frequent upgraders such as "the type of people that buy higher end hardware." This is especially true if they don't plan on upgrading their monitor resolution.

you have your opinion and and I have mine. some will agree with you and some will agree with me. many people keep their higher end cards for 2 years so its seems silly to drop over 400 bucks for a gimped card where 1.5gb can already be reached right now in same cases. we will be having the 2gb vram argument within a year or year and a half tops. the person getting the 1.5gb 7970 will have to upgrade long before the 7970 3gb owner will if trying to use the same settings in all of their games. seems like a pretty stupid way to save 50 bucks when spending over 400 anyway.

 

[blastingcap]

you have your opinion and and I have mine. some will agree with you and some will agree with me. many people keep their higher end cards for 2 years so its seems silly to drop over 400 bucks for a gimped card where 1.5gb can already be reached right now in same cases. we will be having the 2gb vram argument within a year or year and a half tops. the person getting the 1.5gb 7970 will have to upgrade long before the 7970 3gb owner will if trying to use the same settings in all of their games. seems like a pretty stupid way to save 50 bucks when spending over 400 anyway.

I reckon a 7970@1.5GB VRAM will be doing fine at 1080p until the new consoles come out, by which point it'd probably be time for an upgrade anyway. Not everyone feels a need to max out games. See, e.g., my comment on diminishing returns to MSAA.

 

[toyota]

I reckon a 7970@1.5GB VRAM will be doing fine at 1080p until the new consoles come out, by which point it'd probably be time for an upgrade anyway. Not everyone feels a need to max out games. See, e.g., my comment on diminishing returns to MSAA.

like I said earlier I think offering a 7950 1.5 gb would make more sense. someone buying that card would probably have slightly lower expectations and already expect to turn down a few settings in the more demanding games. I personally still don't like the thought of a 1.5gb 7970 though.

 

[blastingcap]

like I said earlier I think offering a 7950 1.5 gb would make more sense. someone buying that card would probably have slightly lower expectations and already expect to turn down a few settings in the more demanding games. I personally still don't like the thought of a 1.5gb 7970 though.

How do you feel about a 2GB Gtx 680

 

[Tempered81]

eww

 

[blastingcap]

eww

That resolution might be a bit larger than 1080p.

 

[toyota]

How do you feel about a 2GB Gtx 680

just fine and if there was a way to make the 7970 2gb it would be fine too. 1.5gb however is a bit sketchy in some cases now and that will only get worse in the next year or two.

 

[Lonbjerg]

eww

Cheryypicking eh?
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/3

Read all those funny letters that accompany they pictures...they go "eww" at your cherry-rigged post

 

[Ferzerp]

I still am very curious to see PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0 on these. I want to see if that one individual's anecdotal evidence becomes a pattern.

Honestly, slightly surprised that the 680's did better at these resolutions for the most part.

 

[blackened23]

I disagree with a lot of that. 6 years ago 1680x1050 was probably way more common than 1280x1024 for anybody that was into buying decent gaming hardware. 1920x1200 was even common for enthusiasts back then. 1920x1080 sort of took over about 4 years ago but even just 4 to 5 years ago people were arguing about 256mb vs 512mb or 320mb vs 640mb. even just 2.5 to 3 years ago people were saying 512mb was plenty. 1.5 to 2 years ago people were saying 768mb was plenty. 1 to 1.5 years ago people were saying that 1gb was plenty. you are out of your mind if you think 1gb is enough now at the settings a new 28nm high end card can handle as even 1.5gb can be reached in some games. a 1.5g 7970 would be silly from this point going forward for anyone wanting to keep it for more than a year or 2 and get the most out of it.

Proof. You say that 1.5 is worthless, I say it isn't. I remember this with the 6970 vs GTX 580 and the 580 generally came out on top despite having less VRAM. So that prompted me to look at benchmarks of 1.5gb vs 3gb 580s once 3gb models became available. Bottom line is that all evidence shows 3gb benefiting 3d surround resolutions ONLY. I've scoured pages of benchmarks showing virtually no difference between the two, and just provide some sort of citation backing up your claim. Otherwise anything you're saying is your word only.

For instance, RussianSensation always had a great way of making counter points (this is a complement to him) - he always provided very detailed counter arguments with supporting evidence.

You may well be right. Where's your supporting evidence? Otherwise arguing it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[toyota]

Proof. You say that 1.5 is worthless, I say it isn't. I remember this with the 6970 vs GTX 580 and the 580 generally came out on top despite having less VRAM. So that prompted me to look at benchmarks of 1.5gb vs 3gb 580s once 3gb models became available. Bottom line is that all evidence shows 3gb benefiting 3d surround resolutions ONLY. I've scoured pages of benchmarks showing virtually no difference between the two, and just provide some sort of citation backing up your claim. Otherwise anything you're saying is your word only.

For instance, RussianSensation always had a great way of making counter points (this is a complement to him) - he always provided very detailed counter arguments with supporting evidence.

You may well be right. Where's your supporting evidence? Otherwise arguing it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I dont say its worthless. I said that a 7970 can run some games at settings that use more than 1.5 of vram now and certainly will even more so in the very near future. you claim even at 2560 that having more than 1.5gb is useless and even punch that out with your silly "end of story" proclamation. that is 100% bs as I even showed you right there the 7970 review that the 7970 used 1.85 GB of vram at playable settings in BF 3 at 2560. and for the third or fourth time even my gtx570 can consume all or nearly all of its vram in some games at just 1920x1080.

 

[blackened23]

I dont say its worthless. I said that a 7970 can run some games at settings that use more than 1.5 of vram now and certainly will even more so in the very near future. you claim even at 2560 that having more than 1.5gb is useless and even punch that out with your silly "end of story" proclamation. that is 100% bs as I even showed you right there the 7970 review that the 7970 used 1.85 GB of vram at playable settings in BF 3 at 2560. and for the third or fourth time even my gtx570 can consume all or nearly all of its vram in some games at just 1920x1080.

Again... BF3 adjusts LOD depending on available VRAM, the idea is to max out your VRAM regardless of how much you have. If you have 3gb, bf3 will max it out. If you have 2gb, bf3 will max it out. Its not like your performance will degrade if you go from 3gb > 2b, LOS just lowers slightly and the performance will be the same. This was all covered by a DICE developer at last years Geforce LAN....

This is the only game i'm aware of that even has such a mechanic. Anyway, i'm saying, give customers a choice. I don't see an issue with that - it won't happen anyway because AMD are clueless.

 

[Jaydip]

So guys have we reached a resolution yet? I see no problem with a 1.5Gb 7970 @399 price point.Does amd know about this yet? We should get some accolades from them

 

[blackened23]

So guys have we reached a resolution yet? I see no problem with a 1.5Gb 7970 @399 price point.Does amd know about this yet? We should get some accolades from them

They're too busy making stupid business decisions and mucking up their drivers. I'm guessing 1.5gb less would lower the price an additional 70$,

 

[Jaydip]

Yeah a 1.5Gb 7970 @399 price point would force NV to do something out of the box.Otherwise we can see an anemic 670ti which will be a utter disappointment.

 

[Silverforce11]

AMD has garbage drivers, who knew?

Least AMD didn't furbar tri and quad scaling for single monitors. Srsly thats just pure fail there.

 

[boxleitnerb]

A good friend of mine has 4xGTX680 and he would strongly disagree with this review. His cards are scaling almost perfectly. I don't know what these guys tested there, but it is borked.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

He probably has them running in PCIe 3.0 whereas the review is 2.0

You have to be a true fan to cite scaling, while ignoring the fact that it has more pronounced MS because of it though.

Everyone knows 5xxx series had issues with scaling, and AMD solved that with 6xxx by no longer attempting to combat MS.