HEXUS: GTX 680 vs. HD 7970 @ same clocks

[96Firebird]

Oh God, here we go with the biased games being used. Its like a never-ending saga...

 

[bryanW1995]

Excellent post! :thumbsup: Gamers buy cards for the games they play. If the majority of the games play better on 1 brand, then it's logical to buy that brand assuming similar price.

Right now the cheapest HD7970 in US is a $530 version with a loud blower fan that's not really suitable for high overclocks. In HEXUS's review a stock HD7970 only got 86.6% performance of GTX680 at 1080P. That means AMD is effectively asking us to pay $612 in adjusted dollars for GTX680 level of performance at stock ($530 / 0.866). That means HD7970 has roughly 23% worse performance per dollar at stock speeds than a 680 ($612 / $499 for same performance).

Once you start overclocking the 7970, it's reasonable to get a quieter aftermarket version. The cheapest ones runs at $550+.

In US the 7970 needs to drop to $450 for reference and $500 for aftermarket versions since it still consumes more power for a similar level of performance when overclocked to the max on air. Most vendor 7970s also have shorter warranties.

Hardware Heaven was able to overclock their Palit GTX680 JetStream to 1354mhz on air. These 1250-1300+ overclocks on 680s are dime a dozen now while seeing 1200-1250mhz HD7970 on air is more rare.

Once after-market 680s come out, unlocked BIOSes are released, TDP max is raised from 132% in Precision X to 150%+, HD7970 will even lose its overclocking advantage. However, HD7970 owners would be wasting $ side-grading. They should just save up for HD8790/GK110, etc. for a more tangible upgrade.

GTX 680 needs to get beefier to handle very large overclocks and/or voltage control. They limited that stuff on the original cards for a reason. The additional costs will be enough that we could see $100+ premiums on the high end overclocked units, putting them squarely into 7970 territory.

Hopefully nobody from AMD reads that last paragraph. We need cheaper 7970's!!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Oh God, here we go with the biased games being used. Its like a never-ending saga...

Don't forget the 680's poor clock scaling based on unknown stock clocks.

 

[Termie]

How about instead of picking a few "nvidia-biased" games and a few "amd-biased" games, we pick the top ten most popular and highly-rated games RIGHT NOW, not last year, not five years ago, but RIGHT NOW (in no particular order):

1. Skyrim
2. Starcraft II
3. BF3
4. Batman AC
5. ME3
6. Crysis 2
7. Shogun 2
8. Witcher 2
9. Deux Ex HR
10. Warcraft

I mean, come on, has anyone even played Stalker or AvP? And Dirt 3 - well, I'd play it if I got it free. I paid $5 for Dirt 2 and played it for 10 minutes...

 

[BrightCandle]

I still think its important that everyone reads the http://techreport.com/articles.x/22653 reveiew. Techreport are about the only people currently measuring and testing stutter and this is one area where the 680 is worse than the 7970, and ironically an area where NVidia has been worse for quite a few generations (according to the techreport reviews that is).

I really want to see them do a 7970 xfire verses 680 sli review, especially considering the recent HardOCP review that "felt" the 680 was smoother at lower frame rates. Seeing as how with fraps they can prove that its disappointing that they didn't consider measuring the amount of difference.

 

[Termie]

I still think its important that everyone reads the http://techreport.com/articles.x/22653 reveiew. Techreport are about the only people currently measuring and testing stutter and this is one area where the 680 is worse than the 7970, and ironically an area where NVidia has been worse for quite a few generations (according to the techreport reviews that is).

I really want to see them do a 7970 xfire verses 680 sli review, especially considering the recent HardOCP review that "felt" the 680 was smoother at lower frame rates. Seeing as how with fraps they can prove that its disappointing that they didn't consider measuring the amount of difference.

I read that previously, but it really doesn't come out favoring the 7970 regarding stutter. A few games trip up the 680, but on average, neither card has the advantage.

On an unrelated note, does it surprise anyone that among forum posters, there is an unusual number of nvidia owners supporting the 7970 and AMD owners supportnig the 680 in these discussions? I take that as a sign that both nvidia and amd have ticked off their faithful by pricing their cards too high for people who would have otherwise upgraded their cards to the next generation from their favored manufacturer.

 

[Grooveriding]

On an unrelated note, does it surprise anyone that among forum posters, there is an unusual number of nvidia owners supporting the 7970 and AMD owners supportnig the 680 in these discussions? I take that as a sign that both nvidia and amd have ticked off their faithful by pricing their cards too high for people who would have otherwise upgraded their cards to the next generation from their favored manufacturer.

Not really, I see mostly the same cheerleaders rooting for their brand of preference. Just a lot of cheering and attempts at face-rubbing.

I think nvidia got a pass on releasing a flagship not in line with the sort of performance increase we're used to, because AMD released first and took the heat for the price/perf level of 28nm at the moment. Certainly has been strange silence from the posters whining about AMD's 7970 perf/pricing with the 680 basically right in line with it.

I think if you have the fastest card, you can charge whatever you want for it and the people who want one will pay for it, whether it's $400, $500, $600 or more. The 680 is going down well because reviews show it about 10% faster than a 7970 and it's $50 cheaper.

I think right now the mid-range is the area that should be getting attention, that's where most of the money and buyers are. No idea why AMD is not dropping the 7870 to $299. That card would be amazing at that price and nvidia has nothing but the 680 right now, a niche card.

 

[BrightCandle]

I read that previously, but it really doesn't come out favoring the 7970 regarding stutter. A few games trip up the 680, but on average, neither card has the advantage.

On an unrelated note, does it surprise anyone that among forum posters, there is an unusual number of nvidia owners supporting the 7970 and AMD owners supportnig the 680 in these discussions? I take that as a sign that both nvidia and amd have ticked off their faithful by pricing their cards too high for people who would have otherwise upgraded their cards to the next generation from their favored manufacturer.

I think we are all a bit disappointed with the amount of performance on offer. Here we have a full node jump in process and we are getting about 50% on top of the first cards on the previous 40nm process. Along with that we have a massive increase in cost. If the 7970/GTX 680 had come out twice as quick as the previous generation and similar price points we might now have the performance levels we are craving. As is they are expensive, not really quick enough and hotter/noiser than we would like. They are better than the previous generation, but not by enough considering the leap in silicon.

 

[Elfear]

Hardware Heaven was able to overclock their Palit GTX680 JetStream to 1354mhz on air. These 1250-1300+ overclocks on 680s are dime a dozen now while seeing 1200-1250mhz HD7970 on air is more rare.

But doesn't the dynamic nature of GPU boost mean that the card might be seeing 1354MHz for some of the gameplay and 1250Mhz for other parts or insert another random speed for others? That's the hard part about getting all excited about the 680, you're not quite sure what you're getting except the max speed the card will perform at for an unknown % of the gameplay.

I'm not trying to poke fun at the 680, it's still the better buy at current price levels, just pointing out that the average overclocked speed of a particular card will almost certainly be lower than what most people think they are at.


Regarding the game selection, I think Hexus should have tested more games but I wouldn't say they used Nvidia-biased games. Termie's list is a good one with a broad range of current games. Although I would switch out WoW for Stalker. Yes it is an old game but a lot of people actually like it and it is very demanding hardware wise.

 

[Grooveriding]

But doesn't the dynamic nature of GPU boost mean that the card might be seeing 1354MHz for some of the gameplay and 1250Mhz for other parts or insert another random speed for others? That's the hard part about getting all excited about the 680, you're not quite sure what you're getting except the max speed the card will perform at for an unknown % of the gameplay.

I'm not trying to poke fun at the 680, it's still the better buy at current price levels, just pointing out that the average overclocked speeds will almost certainly be lower than what most people think they are at.

Well that is the thing with it. You buy a 680 you are guaranteed a 1006core clock. GPU boost guarantees you at minimum a 1054core clock. But, some cards only boost to 1054, some to 1084, some to 1110. These are all I have seen, there may be more variances.

It's pretty much a roll the dice on how your card will perform, you don't really know what you're going to get. One of my cards on its own boosts to 1110 and can be overclocked to 1300. The other boosts to 1084 and can be overclocked to 1235. Put them together and they both boost to 1084 and I clock them both to 1235.

Very nice cards and really satisfied with them. The only fault, for me, is GPU boost is no good for overclocking and takes away control of your hardware. I don't really care if one boosts a little higher than another, but there will be people who will get OCD about that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The GTX680 looks great. But I have a 1.2GHz 7970 and have been enjoying it's performance for months now. No looking back for me.

 

[JAG87]

I think we are all a bit disappointed with the amount of performance on offer. Here we have a full node jump in process and we are getting about 50% on top of the first cards on the previous 40nm process. Along with that we have a massive increase in cost. If the 7970/GTX 680 had come out twice as quick as the previous generation and similar price points we might now have the performance levels we are craving. As is they are expensive, not really quick enough and hotter/noiser than we would like. They are better than the previous generation, but not by enough considering the leap in silicon.

Let's not generalize.

AMD cards are expensive compared to previous generation. NVIDIA is still following the $499 price they've had with the 285/480/580. I'm not going to mention the 280 because that was the same mistake AMD made this year.

With the regards to the second point... you must be crazy. 28nm has brought the most power efficient architectures to date, and directly correlated are heat and noise. I'm not sure what "you would like" but you can't get much quieter than a GTX 680 with air cooling.

 

[nOOky]

Can I use my HD7970 as my main card and buy a GTX680 for a Physx card under Windows Vista?
Batman should look stunning then right?

 

[Makaveli]

At 1080p, the 680 absolutely kills the 7970, regardless of clocks.

But I don't want to pick a fight with you...you're a fellow 5850 owner who is clearly impressed by the 680.

I think its more about the words you choose to use.

a 2-3 fps advantage is killing something?

I never understood this people go apeshit over 5 fps difference if that is a killing what do you considering a 15-20fps difference?

Isn't the most important thing playability?

or do most people just stare at a fraps counter in the corner of the screen instead of playing?

 

[blackened23]

I really don't get why Hexus likes doing same clock comparisons. Who gives a F?

That said, AMD really should have aimed higher with clock speeds and/or created a harvested SKU with a higher clock. Set themselves up for failure by being so conservative...

 

[Termie]

I think its more about the words you choose to use.

a 2-3 fps advantage is killing something?

I never understood this people go apeshit over 5 fps difference if that is a killing what do you considering a 15-20fps difference?

Isn't the most important thing playability?

or do most people just stare at a fraps counter in the corner of the screen instead of playing?

Let's cut to the chase. the 680 beats the 7970 by 27% at stock and by 15% when the 7970 is overclocked. For a card that's cheaper, yes, it's killing the 7970 at 1080p. Talking percent is much more precise and meaningful than talking numerical fps difference.

 

[Makaveli]

Let's cut to the chase. the 680 beats the 7970 by over 25% at stock and by 15% when the 7970 is overclocked. For a card that's cheaper, yes, it's killing the 7970 at 1080p. Talking percent is much more precise and meaningful than talking 5fps or 10fps.

This is my point ya that graph is pretty and looks nice but how is one more playable than the other?

The minimums are comparable and that is the area you feel the slow down Max and average don't matter as much.

And talking percentage/fps/ grandma's lunch is great but for me all that matter is if its playable at the settings I need to use.

I'm not saying the 7970 is a better but the amount of cock fighting that goes on for these small increases is amusing.

 

[Termie]

This is my point ya that graph is pretty and looks nice but how is one more playable than the other?

The minimums are comparable and that is the area you feel the slow down Max and average don't matter as much.

And talking percentage/fps/ grandma's lunch is great but for me all that matter is if its playable at the settings I need to use.
I'm not saying the 7970 is a better but the amount of cock fighting that goes on for these small increases is amusing.

Oh come on - that's not all that matters. Price/performance matters.

 

[bryanW1995]

How about instead of picking a few "nvidia-biased" games and a few "amd-biased" games, we pick the top ten most popular and highly-rated games RIGHT NOW, not last year, not five years ago, but RIGHT NOW (in no particular order):

1. Skyrim
2. Starcraft II
3. BF3
4. Batman AC
5. ME3
6. Crysis 2
7. Shogun 2
8. Witcher 2
9. Deux Ex HR
10. Warcraft

I mean, come on, has anyone even played Stalker or AvP? And Dirt 3 - well, I'd play it if I got it free. I paid $5 for Dirt 2 and played it for 10 minutes...

This isn't a bad idea, though I'd substitude civ5 for WOW since WOW isn't particularly taxing for even midrange cards.

 

[SirPauly]

This is my point ya that graph is pretty and looks nice but how is one more playable than the other?

The minimums are comparable and that is the area you feel the slow down Max and average don't matter as much.

And talking percentage/fps/ grandma's lunch is great but for me all that matter is if its playable at the settings I need to use.

I'm not saying the 7970 is a better but the amount of cock fighting that goes on for these small increases is amusing.

Considering one is actually over-clocked, used more power OC and default, less features and flexibility and more money -- doesn't really make them that close.

My beef is the GTX 680 and HD 7970 over-all performance gains are more-so evolutionary and incremental on 28nm and price/performance as a whole has suffered.

 

[Makaveli]

Oh come on - that's not all that matters. Price/performance matters.

Well you are right of course that matters. And I did say for me not implying to everyone.

And the geforce is cheaper and wins in that catergory.

All i'm saying it alot of people just focus on graphs and these small fps increases.

When playability is far more important. I don't think Hardocp benchmarking is perfect but its one of the reasons I like reading their reviews.

These two highend cards are close enough in most metrics that its really comes down to personal choice and which games you play.

 

[Makaveli]

Considering one is actually over-clocked, used more power OC and default, less features and flexibility and more money -- doesn't really make them that close.

My beef is the GTX 680 and HD 7970 over-all performance gains are more-so evolutionary and incremental on 28nm and price/performance as a whole has suffered.

Its close enough that if I built you a rig and asked you to play on both without checking you wouldn't be able to tell what gpu is in which machine.

 

[SirPauly]

It was already a tough sell when AMD offered less performance for much less money - considering nVidia has some differentiation and flexibility -- try convincing the gamers that AMD is worth paying more for less performance --- good luck with that.

 

[Termie]

This isn't a bad idea, though I'd substitude civ5 for WOW since WOW isn't particularly taxing for even midrange cards.

Yup - Civ5 would be a better test, but I included WoW mostly because it's still played by a lot of people and it offers some cross-generational comparability.

I applauded Ryan Smith of Anandtech when he took a poll of forum users regarding what should be in their new graphics card benchmarking suite. He came up with:

1. Crysis: Warhead
2. Metro 2033
3. Dirt 3
4. Shogun 2
5. Batman AC
6. Portal 2
7. BF3
8. Starcraft 2
9. Skyrim
10. Civ5

That was probably a pretty good list, and admittedly mine isn't that different, but removing rarely-played games would defuse the "it's AMD/Nvidia-biased" chant. That means get rid of Dirt 3 and Crysis at the minimum.

 

[SirPauly]

WoW is still taxing when one desires quality on Alpha tests. That title has many, many alphas in many, many areas.