Nvidias FTP bundle is over What will they do next

[Elfear]

It's not really even close. The 670 is typically 10%+ faster out of the box.

Wouldn't that make the 670 25% faster than the non-Boost 7950 though? I haven't seen reviews showing such a disparity on average but maybe I missed some.

 

[smackababy]

According to Amazon:

The $150 bundle ended on April 1, 2013 at 11:59pm.

The $75 bundle ends on April 30, 2013 at 11:59pm.

Guess I just made it in at the wire then.

And I have to say I enjoy where this thread went. It is no longer about the Nvidia bundles, but a fanboy fight over which card is better.

 

[Eureka]

The problem is there are a few very loud people on this forum.

I'm just hoping they drop prices completely and get rid of the bundles. These bundles are a headache. I'd rather do high rebates than have to deal with ebay... I don't play most of the games that come in the bundles, and if I do, I generally don't wait for the bundle to get the game.

 

[bluesquare07]

Umm...excuse me but you having been blowing a bright green horn since you arrived here a few days ago.
Try showing a little respect to a guy(3D)that knows a hell of a lot more about graphics technology that you do.

Blowing a green horn?

Yes, i prefer NV. That shouldn't be a secret and i think everyone on this forum has a brand preference whether they like to admit it or not. I like that they are always on top of drivers - ive never had any driver issues with them and ive always been completely satisfied with my gaming experience.
Mind you, i've owned amd video cards as well. So i'm not the type to just buy NV all my life and ignore AMD's offerings.

Just because i say the 670 is a faster and better card than the 7950 doesn't mean i'm blowing a green horn, it's simply the truth. If you care about price a lot and 50 or whatever odd dollars makes a big difference then by all means go for the 7950. I have no problem recommending a 7950, IMO its the best card AMD currently offers, overall.

Most people buy a factory overclocked 670 and not a stock 670, that's basically 680 performance for ~100+ dollars less (FTW can now be had for 350) right out of the box. Along with great driver support, NV features whether its on a few games such as physx or all of them like adaptive vsync (nobody can deny that they would rather have something as opposed to nothing) and the possibility of SLI which the 670 does amazingly well, i personally think its amazing value.

I'm just saying, a 7950 b at stock is not equivalent to a 670 at stock. Overclocked a 7950 can match a 670/680/7970 but that doesnt mean its a better card. If that was the case everyone would just buy 7950s and be done with it. Obviously thats not how it works.

 

[96Firebird]

Will just baited and humped the leg of a fellow member all in the same post. Awesome.

Only took 2 replies for Arkadrel to go off topic and turn it into a pissing match. Shocking.

So, what should you take from this post? The VC&G forum is both awesome and shocking, sarcasm aside of course.

I'm not in the market for a new card, but if I was, I'd much prefer rebates to game bundles. Hope to see more deals like the Asus 660 that was $170AR a couple days ago...

 

[Grooveriding]

Who knows.. what other worthless garbage is there out there to bundle ?

Trying to one-up useless fodder like currency in a crap-pile like Hawken is going to be tough. Maybe a pandaren monk non-combat pet in WoW in your next GeForce purchase I guess. Or perhaps a DLC pack for Duke Nukem Forever ?

 

[raghu78]

Blowing a green horn?

Yes, i prefer NV. That shouldn't be a secret and i think everyone on this forum has a brand preference whether they like to admit it or not. I like that they are always on top of drivers - ive never had any driver issues with them and ive always been completely satisfied with my gaming experience.
Mind you, i've owned amd video cards as well. So i'm not the type to just buy NV all my life and ignore AMD's offerings.

Just because i say the 670 is a faster and better card than the 7950 doesn't mean i'm blowing a green horn, it's simply the truth. If you care about price a lot and 50 or whatever odd dollars makes a big difference then by all means go for the 7950. I have no problem recommending a 7950, IMO its the best card AMD currently offers, overall.

Most people buy a factory overclocked 670 and not a stock 670, that's basically 680 performance for ~100+ dollars less (FTW can now be had for 350) right out of the box. Along with great driver support, NV features whether its on a few games such as physx or all of them like adaptive vsync (nobody can deny that they would rather have something as opposed to nothing) and the possibility of SLI which the 670 does amazingly well, i personally think its amazing value.

I'm just saying, a 7950 b at stock is not equivalent to a 670 at stock. Overclocked a 7950 can match a 670/680/7970 but that doesnt mean its a better card. If that was the case everyone would just buy 7950s and be done with it. Obviously thats not how it works.

HD 7950 boost at stock is on par with GTX 670.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7950_X2_Boost/28.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/his_radeon_7950_x_iceq_review,16.html
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...hz_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,3.html

the ref HD 7950 boost cards don't run at 925 mhz because of powertune throttling at stock power control of 0%. once you max out power control to +20% any HD 7950 boost will run at 925 mhz. as you can see from the HIS HD 7950 iceq x2 boost is performing very well against a GTX 670 (boosting to 1+ ghz).

the average overclock on these HD 7950 boost cards is 1150 mhz and at those speeds it requires a GTX 670 at 1250 mhz to keep up with it.

 

[Xarick]

I bought the 7950 knowing it was slower at stock boost clocks, but I also was willing to gamble on an overclock changing the landscape a bit.

Either way, the price difference between the two doesn't at all justify the performance differences even at stock. Plus the 7950 came with Crysis 3, which I sold for $32, and Bioshock which I was going to sell, until I found out how good the title actually was.

Nvidia needs a price drop to line their product up better with the 7950, and they need a bundle, or a rebate on top of the price drop to make it more lucrative, they don't have to be even but they need to be closer than they are now Nvidia branding only goes so far.

I dunno.. I only paid $338 for my 670 that was factory OC to 1006 with a custom cooler. Seems most 7950s are 300-350 depending on OC and cooling solution.
But.. that is not the point.
I am hoping to See NV drop a nice bundle.

FYI I have already been offered $40 for two of my codes (ps2, and wot) and another $15 for my other code. So you don't make as much as the amd bundle.. but if your goal is to sell.. they come out pretty close..

But personally I want to see NV drop the price and add a nice game.

Maybe they should include free minecraft with their lower end cards.. the way kids talk about that game today you would think it was the ultimate video game.

 

[smackababy]

Who knows.. what other worthless garbage is there out there to bundle ?

Trying to one-up useless fodder like currency in a crap-pile like Hawken is going to be tough. Maybe a pandaren monk non-combat pet in WoW in your next GeForce purchase I guess. Or perhaps a DLC pack for Duke Nukem Forever ?

I happen to like Hawken. And my 670 came with a Pandaren wow pet. >_>

 

[bluesquare07]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/bioshock_infinite_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/crysis_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,7.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...ops_ii_graphics_vga_performance_review,6.html

It's not really even close. The 670 is typically 10%+ faster out of the box.

HD 7950 boost at stock is on par with GTX 670.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_7950_X2_Boost/28.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/his_radeon_7950_x_iceq_review,16.html
http://www.legionhardware.com/artic...hz_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,3.html

the ref HD 7950 boost cards don't run at 925 mhz because of powertune throttling at stock power control of 0%. once you max out power control to +20% any HD 7950 boost will run at 925 mhz. as you can see from the HIS HD 7950 iceq x2 boost is performing very well against a GTX 670 (boosting to 1+ ghz).

the average overclock on these HD 7950 boost cards is 1150 mhz and at those speeds it requires a GTX 670 at 1250 mhz to keep up with it.

Look at first quote. Explain that. Dont show me benchmarks from November, a lot has changed since then. The 1 useful bench you have is one that doesnt show 1080p. NV cards perform a lot better at 1080p than higher resolutions. When you want to play higher than 1080p you get sli unless youre happy with 30 frames average (which nobody is). It even shows BF3 faster on a 7970 (non ghz) than a 680, so why would you even take that seriously. It shows the HIS 7950 1 frame faster than a reference 670. Great.

Lets all get benchmarks that show our side of the story, ignore the ones that go against it and not be realistic about things.

 

[railven]

Who knows.. what other worthless garbage is there out there to bundle ?

Trying to one-up useless fodder like currency in a crap-pile like Hawken is going to be tough. Maybe a pandaren monk non-combat pet in WoW in your next GeForce purchase I guess. Or perhaps a DLC pack for Duke Nukem Forever ?

Record sales for nVidia.

 

[railven]

Lets all get benchmarks that show our side of the story, ignore the ones that go against it and not be realistic about things.

And isn't it ironic...don't you think. A little too ironic...and, yeah, I really do think...

:whiste:

 

[raghu78]

Look at first quote. Explain that. Dont show me benchmarks from November, a lot has changed since then. The 1 useful bench you have is one that doesnt show 1080p. NV cards perform a lot better at 1080p than higher resolutions. When you want to play higher than 1080p you get sli unless youre happy with 30 frames average (which nobody is). It even shows BF3 faster on a 7970 (non ghz) than a 680, so why would you even take that seriously. It shows the HIS 7950 1 frame faster than a reference 670. Great.

Lets all get benchmarks that show our side of the story, ignore the ones that go against it and not be realistic about things.

at the same clocks HD 7950 is 3 - 5% slower than HD 7970. well proven by enough benchmarks on the web and from user benches/feedback. HD 7950(975 Mhz) = HD 7970(925 mhz) and HD 7950(1100 Mhz) = HD 7970 Ghz (1050 Mhz).

so don't talk rubbish. on average if a HD 7970 Ghz is faster than GTX 680 (boosting to 1100 mhz) than its the same for a HD 7950 at 1100 mhz.

at the same clocks HD 7970 > HD 7950 > GTX 680 > GTX 670. this is more as an average across many games. for a particular game Nvidia might be ahead like AC3 or Borderlands 2 or AMD might be ahead like Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution. But across a wide range of games the Tahitis are faster than Keplers clock for clock. it requires 100-150 mhz higher clocks on Keplers to be on par with the equivalent Tahitis on average.

the reviewers don't max out power control at +20% to avoid clock throttling on HD 7950 boost. users run with +20% power control to get the clocks they set. :whiste:

 

[Xarick]

Reviewers review cards at stock. As they are sold.. not as enthusiasts treat them.
However, the one thing I still don't understand is if the 7950 and 7970 OC as well as they do, why did AMD not clock them that way to begin with. I mean they are locking the voltage at 1.25.. so why not boost the mhz. What is the real reason here?

 

[Elfear]

And isn't it ironic...don't you think. A little too ironic...and, yeah, I really do think...

:whiste:

:awe:


I think Nvidia should offer Starcraft: HoS and Crysis 3 in their bundle. Both are pretty popular games.

 

[badb0y]

Reviewers review cards at stock. As they are sold.. not as enthusiasts treat them.
However, the one thing I still don't understand is if the 7950 and 7970 OC as well as they do, why did AMD not clock them that way to begin with. I mean they are locking the voltage at 1.25.. so why not boost the mhz. What is the real reason here?

If 7950 is 3% faster than 7970 Ghz at the same clocks, who would buy the 7970?

 

[raghu78]

Reviewers review cards at stock. As they are sold.. not as enthusiasts treat them.
However, the one thing I still don't understand is if the 7950 and 7970 OC as well as they do, why did AMD not clock them that way to begin with. I mean they are locking the voltage at 1.25.. so why not boost the mhz. What is the real reason here?

AMD's first HD 7970 / HD 7950 chips released in Jan 2012. at that time AMD clocked them lower for yield reasons and because they did not know Nvidia's GTX 680 / GTX 670 performance. The voltage was also lower at 1.175v for HD 7970(925 mhz) and 1.1v for HD 7950 (800 mhz). In July 2012 they updated the HD 7970 to HD 7970 Ghz (1050 mhz) and HD 7950 to HD 7950 boost (975 mhz). they increased voltage to 1.25v.

the only problem was the reference HD 7950 boost cards sent to reviewers did not run at 925 mhz consistently due to powertune throttling. with cards like HIS HD 7950 iceq x2 boost that problem does not exist even at stock power control. with power control maxed out to +20% any HD 7950 boost card runs at the max boost clocks.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If 7950 is 3% faster than 7970 Ghz at the same clocks, who would buy the 7970?

I was under the impression it was 6-9% at the same clocks.

If not than I made a huge mistake buying the 7950

 

[Rvenger]

I'm just saying, a 7950 b at stock is not equivalent to a 670 at stock. Overclocked a 7950 can match a 670/680/7970 but that doesnt mean its a better card. If that was the case everyone would just buy 7950s and be done with it. Obviously thats not how it works.

Dude, just stop. 7950 is faster than a 670 clock for clock. Go over to [H] and you will find nvidia winning 90% of the time. They always have some kind of drama issue with AMD and their "bad drivers" or it not feeling smooth or some crap. You can find the 7950 $80 cheaper and it has 3gb of VRAM and a 384bit bus. Wait till you get to higher resolutions. Watch that 2gb 670 drop to it's knees on the titles being released this year.


BTW no one said it was better. At the current prices, the 7950 is better right now.

 

[Eureka]

I was under the impression it was 6-9% at the same clocks.

If not than I made a huge mistake buying the 7950

You know, instead of listening to everyone drone on about which card is faster, buy them all and try them out.

I've owned a 7970 Ghz, then a 670, then a 7950, and now I'm trying to find a good 680 used to play with.

The 7970 Ghz was faster than either other card, using 12.8 drivers. The 7950 was not faster than the 670. The 670 was reference, stock, and it still had an average 1fps lead over the 7950 (1000/1250) when I tested it. At 1100/1400, the 7950 is around the ballpark of the 7970 Ghz stock, but then again, I could clock the 7970 Ghz much higher too.

I think the prices are fair, at least what I paid. $360 for 7970 Ghz, $305 for 670 and $300 for 7950.

The thing about this forum is, it's not red biased, it's 7950 biased. At least in my experience, I liked the 670 more than the 7950, but in terms of pure performance, the two are very close.

Dude, just stop. 7950 is faster than a 670 clock for clock. Go over to [H] and you will find nvidia winning 90% of the time. They always have some kind of drama issue with AMD and their "bad drivers" or it not feeling smooth or some crap. You can find the 7950 $80 cheaper and it has 3gb of VRAM and a 384bit bus. Wait till you get to higher resolutions. Watch that 2gb 670 drop to it's knees on the titles being released this year.


BTW no one said it was better. At the current prices, the 7950 is better right now.

Once again, I've had both, it only becomes faster clock for clock after you breach ~1050 MHz. Up to then the 670 is still highly competitive. And for a card that drops to its knees... it's doing pretty damn well in both TR and BI, even at 1600p.

 

[Rvenger]

You know, instead of listening to everyone drone on about which card is faster, buy them all and try them out.

I've owned a 7970 Ghz, then a 670, then a 7950, and now I'm trying to find a good 680 used to play with.

The 7970 Ghz was faster than either other card, using 12.8 drivers. The 7950 was not faster than the 670. The 670 was reference, stock, and it still had an average 1fps lead over the 7950 (1000/1250) when I tested it. At 1100/1400, the 7950 is around the ballpark of the 7970 Ghz stock, but then again, I could clock the 7970 Ghz much higher too.

I think the prices are fair, at least what I paid. $360 for 7970 Ghz, $305 for 670 and $300 for 7950.

The thing about this forum is, it's not red biased, it's 7950 biased. At least in my experience, I liked the 670 more than the 7950, but in terms of pure performance, the two are very close.



Once again, I've had both, it only becomes faster clock for clock after you breach ~1050 MHz. Up to then the 670 is still highly competitive. And for a card that drops to its knees... it's doing pretty damn well in both TR and BI, even at 1600p.

I have owned 3x 7950s and 4 GTX 670s. They both perform well, no doubt. Its the price I mainly have an issue with.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I've been running mine at 1200/1650, do I need to go higher to talk down to 670 owners? /sarcasm

 

[Zanovar]

I've been running mine at 1200/1650, do I need to go higher to talk down to 670 owners? /sarcasm

oo you bitch.haha

 

[Xarick]

Why do people still bring up the clock for clock argument. I was under the impression that 1000mhz on nvidia != 1000mhz on AMD because of the way they process information.

 

[willomz]

And I have to say I enjoy where this thread went. It is no longer about the Nvidia bundles, but a fanboy fight over which card is better.

Doesn't this happen with every thread?