I've been always saying that GTX680 is a worse card than 7970, it was always supposed to be a midrange card and as such a direct replacement for 560Ti but people didn't listen. NV saw how poorly tahiti performed with its immature drivers so they clocked it as high as they could so they could eke out a win a least temporarily and promote performent per W as end all be all of graphics card despite that being the exact opposite of what happened earlier with GTX480 with 5870, then all that mattered was all out performance. NV changed their goalposts how it suited them and blindfolded "fans" took the bait. 7970 on the other hand was a half-assed attempt for a high-end card that's why at first it performed similarly to GK104, partly due to immature drivers for GCN which was a huge departure from the earlier VLIV architecture. Kepler was essentially a modified fermi without hot-clocked shaders so their had most of the drivers pretty mature. 2GB isn't the only thing holding GTX680, if it was then 4GB edition would match 280X but it doesn't. Sorry if I reapeted someone I didn't read the thread yet. Right now in some games R280X matches GTX780 or even Titans. I was very angry with that as an owner of dual Titans. I really wanted to buy AMD but let's be honest Fury can't match a GM200 at 1500MHz(boost)/2000. It is barely competitive at 4k with a stock 980Ti but I don't play at 4K and my card is 30% faster than a stock 980ti. From Fury I could eke out what, maybe 5% more performance? It has no OC headroom
And that 4GB of memory to boot. I just couldn't buy such an inferior card at least to my OC 980Ti. Compared to a stock 980ti it is not so bad possibly with new drivers it will match or even beat it just like 290X beat 780Ti.
And that 4GB of memory to boot. I just couldn't buy such an inferior card at least to my OC 980Ti. Compared to a stock 980ti it is not so bad possibly with new drivers it will match or even beat it just like 290X beat 780Ti.