Which card for current build? HD 7950 or GTX 670

[BallaTheFeared]

It sounded like my 470 at 70% or higher, but worse because it had a drumming sound from poor quality components.

 

[RussianSensation]

It sounded like my 470 at 70% or higher, but worse because it had a drumming sound from poor quality components.

Now imagine how much worse it would sound with an 1175+ mhz overclock......

I find it ironic that some people who constantly criticized GTX470/480 cards for being abnoxiously loud and consuming a ton of power are now recommending reference designed 7970 that with a voltage bump and a 1.2ghz overclock would consume nearly 100W more power than a 680 and even without a voltage bump is even louder than the 480 ever was.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

What kind of person would do such a thing?

 

[twjr]

Yes, that's exactly how videocards work on air cooling. With additional overclocking, power consumption increases, which adds even more strain on the cooling system. Start with a loud reference design compared to after market versions (MSI TwinFrozr, Sapphire Dual-X, MSI Lightning, Asus DCUII), add 80-100W more power with overclocking (with a possible voltage bump) and you get an even louder reference designed 7970. Please go read some HD7970 GE reviews if you don't believe me. There are about 20-30 on the Internet and everyone says that a 1050mhz HD7970 reference is a jet engine. Even our very own AnandTech has the data:

Maybe you don't consider 60+ dB to be loud?

Here is even a video just for you confirming 60+ dB:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/8/

At 1200mhz, reference HD7970 becomes the 2nd loudest videocard on AT's list:

Power consumption skyrockets which exactly explai.s why the reference fan has to work that much harder, which directly contributes to additional noise levels:

I guess AnandTech, Computerbase, TechPowerUP, etc. are all wrong.....

This happens a lot actually. All the information that 99% of the world sees is there and you come in and say it's wrong and provide nothing to support your view. Just opinion with no data, but always an implication that your one off example is actually representative and the rest of the world is "testing it wrong" or using "questionable methods", etc. So, yes, HD7970 reference design is a loud videocard in overclocked states, shown by 99e25 of the world, except you want to ignore this. I even remember you were one of the few who said HD7970's reference blower was improved from HD6970 design and every single review on the Internet has proven that to be incorrect. Also, HD7970 uses up more power than an overclocked 6970/5870. It's just common sense that the blower would be struggling even more than it did on the 5870/6970, which would inevitably make a reference OCed 7970 louder than 5870 or 6970.

Ok So the take home message for me, a potential buyer, is that at the same price a custom GTX 670 is a better buy than a reference 7970?

But this doesn't really relate to my original question which is a custom cooled Gigabyte 7950 a better buy at $350 than a reference 670 @ $410 or custom 670 @440?

 

[Dark Shroud]

It depends on what you mean by "better."

The non-reference 7900 cards are very good in most ways. The only real fault you can find with the hardware is the energy consumption.

The custom cooled 7950s stay quiet and cool and are worth it. If you like lots of mods and eye candy the more memory and greater memory bandwidth really help out especially at higher resolutions.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Ok So the take home message for me, a potential buyer, is that at the same price a custom GTX 670 is a better buy than a reference 7970?

But this doesn't really relate to my original question which is a custom cooled Gigabyte 7950 a better buy at $350 than a reference 670 @ $410 or custom 670 @440?

At 1080p the 670 is a stronger card, it's better than the 7970 at that res.

Is it 50-70 $$ stronger, possibly but not in performance alone.

It's stronger in other areas, for instance it uses less power, creates less heat, has the option to go reference which is cool and quite already, and has the bonus of a better heat dump (outside instead of inside the case).

There are other factors, which can contribute a few dollar difference depending on who you talk to.

In the end you really can't go wrong with either choice, there are pros and cons for each card you need to figure out what you value then make a purchase based on the information you have at hand.

 

[twjr]

Energy consumption will be a non-issue. I spend more than half my time away with work. When I am away it will either be off, idling or even better with the ATI card on long idle. The difference in power consumption between a 7950 and 670 for me won't be and issue. Heat on the other hand may well be as it gets over 40 Celsius in summer where I live and AC is only so good. I guess I will just have to drop it back to stock clocks then.

 

[Dark Shroud]

Energy consumption will be a non-issue. I spend more than half my time away with work. When I am away it will either be off, idling or even better with the ATI card on long idle. The difference in power consumption between a 7950 and 670 for me won't be and issue. Heat on the other hand may well be as it gets over 40 Celsius in summer where I live and AC is only so good. I guess I will just have to drop it back to stock clocks then.

Well the GTX 670 has a thermal limit of 70C. When it hits that limit it starts down clocking until the card starts to cool off. The 7950 doesn't have that limit.

My vote http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127667

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Energy consumption will be a non-issue. I spend more than half my time away with work. When I am away it will either be off, idling or even better with the ATI card on long idle. The difference in power consumption between a 7950 and 670 for me won't be and issue. Heat on the other hand may well be as it gets over 40 Celsius in summer where I live and AC is only so good. I guess I will just have to drop it back to stock clocks then.

I was going off your OP, what exactly do you value and what exactly are your main games?

We've established that the 670 is faster at 1080p, we've established it's faster while using less power, and runs quiet /w reference cooling.

Performance:

Power:

Noise (reference):

With AMD you get a Graphics Card.

With Nvidia you are getting a tool, backed by software.

It brings additional features, such as CUDA simulation, TXAA, PhysX, Adaptive Vsync, top of the line Driver support, and a top notch user interface. Nvidia also offers a better solution should the need for multi-gpu arise down the road.


I don't think the 670s performance alone justifies it's cost over the 7950. The question you need to ask yourself is if the additional benefits of the card are worth the extra cost. Some say no, some say yes, the choice in the end is all yours.

 

[twjr]

I don't think the 670s performance alone justifies it's cost over the 7950. The question you need to ask yourself is if the additional benefits of the card are worth the extra cost. Some say no, some say yes, the choice in the end is all yours.

I think that sums everything up pretty nicely.

At 1080p both the cards are going to take anything I throw at them and look good. Even Battlefield 3 will run well and look good on the 7950. Sure it won't be the fastest but it is fast enough and will be significantly faster than the 7850 I started with. From what I have seem in benchmarks is that in any other game the performance of either the 7950 or 670 is sufficient that I wouldn't be able to tell them apart without benchmarking

Beyond the actual performance in game, the brand specific features are probably a wash with me and I'm unlikely to ever really leverage any of them significantly.

Too bad Amazon weren't shipping either of the ASUS or Gigabyte 670's internationally as I think they would have had a much quicker sale.

 

[Elfear]

At 1080p the 670 is a stronger card, it's better than the 7970 at that res.

Huh?

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/4/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_GHz_Edition/28.html

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/869-18/recapitulatif-performances.html


OP - I would go for the 7950. The 670 is a great card but at your resolution the 7950 is a better value IMO.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Huh?

Huh what?

Why are you linking hurricane force wind edition reviews anyways?

 

[Elfear]

Huh what?

Why are you linking hurricane force wind edition reviews anyways?

I'm talking the vanilla 7970. Two of the linked reviews show the 7970 is faster (one by only 2%) and one review shows it dead even with the 670 at 1080p.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I didn't say faster, I said stronger, in which I meant it offered it's best perf/watt perf/dollar at that resolution against the 7970. When you bump up to 1600 the 7970 pulls noticeably ahead performance wise. However let me attempt to clarify once again, stronger not faster, simply put the 670 is a far better solution for 1080 gaming than the 7970. Offering both percent difference in performance, considerable perf/watt advantage, noticeably better perf/$ and lower operating noise.

I used stronger to avoid narrowing down a situation with many factors into one single factor.

 

[Silverforce11]

I didn't say faster, I said stronger, in which I meant it offered it's best perf/watt perf/dollar at that resolution against the 7970. When you bump up to 1600 the 7970 pulls noticeably ahead performance wise. However let me attempt to clarify once again, stronger not faster, simply put the 670 is a far better solution for 1080 gaming than the 7970. Offering both percent difference in performance, considerable perf/watt advantage, noticeably better perf/$ and lower operating noise.

I used stronger to avoid narrowing down a situation with many factors into one single factor.

Agreed with this. Wouldn't say its stronger, just an overall better card due to perf/$ and perf/w. 7970 and 680s are NOT good cards considering the tier below them can run at identical clock speeds and get within a few % perf while being much cheaper and consuming less power.

 

[RussianSensation]

Agreed with this. Wouldn't say its stronger, just an overall better card due to perf/$ and perf/w. 7970 and 680s are NOT good cards considering the tier below them can run at identical clock speeds and get within a few % perf while being much cheaper and consuming less power.

For gaming, HD7950 MSI TwinFrozr for $320, Gigabyte WindForce 3x or something like PowerColor PCS+ 7950 (amazingly quiet) are outstanding values. There is 1 area though where HD7970 trounces the 7950 and it's compute. Distributed computing or bitcoin mining, the 7950 can't touch it. Many compute programs scale 100% with the added shaders. There are reasons to get a 7970 for people who actually use the compute functionality of the GCN architecture.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So what? Many people don't care about bitcoin mining all day.

These cards, as they are being discussed are gaming cards.

For $400 the GTX 670 is quite a deal. I wouldn't touch a 7950 with a 10 foot pole, and if you gave me one I'd sell it and use it toward a 7970 or GTX670 and if I cared much about power consumption the 670 would be it. That's just me.

 

[Agent-A01]

Id get a gtx 670 ftw, not reference. It doesnt have the grinding noise the reference fans have

 

[Elfear]

So what? Many people don't care about bitcoin mining all day.

These cards, as they are being discussed are gaming cards.

For $400 the GTX 670 is quite a deal. I wouldn't touch a 7950 with a 10 foot pole, and if you gave me one I'd sell it and use it toward a 7970 or GTX670 and if I cared much about power consumption the 670 would be it. That's just me.

Bitcoin is worth mentioning though. After expenses my card makes me ~$2/day at current prices. So someone mining since Tahiti launched would have paid only $220-350 for their 7970. How's that for performance/dollar? :sneaky:

 

[Piano Man]

GTX 670, but not the ones you listed.

Get this for 400 instead:

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GeForce-G...ata/B0081IFO2C

 

[twjr]

I didn't say faster, I said stronger, in which I meant it offered it's best perf/watt perf/dollar at that resolution against the 7970. When you bump up to 1600 the 7970 pulls noticeably ahead performance wise. However let me attempt to clarify once again, stronger not faster, simply put the 670 is a far better solution for 1080 gaming than the 7970. Offering both percent difference in performance, considerable perf/watt advantage, noticeably better perf/$ and lower operating noise.

I used stronger to avoid narrowing down a situation with many factors into one single factor.

I wouldn't consider a 7970 unless it was a really good price. With a reference GTX 670 costing $400 it is better value than a reference 7970 costing $440

For gaming, HD7950 MSI TwinFrozr for $320, Gigabyte WindForce 3x or something like PowerColor PCS+ 7950 (amazingly quiet) are outstanding values. There is 1 area though where HD7970 trounces the 7950 and it's compute. Distributed computing or bitcoin mining, the 7950 can't touch it. Many compute programs scale 100% with the added shaders. There are reasons to get a 7970 for people who actually use the compute functionality of the GCN architecture.

I am looking at $350 for the Gigabyte 7950 from Amazon. $320 would be nice but Newegg don't ship internationally.

So what? Many people don't care about bitcoin mining all day.

These cards, as they are being discussed are gaming cards.

For $400 the GTX 670 is quite a deal. I wouldn't touch a 7950 with a 10 foot pole, and if you gave me one I'd sell it and use it toward a 7970 or GTX670 and if I cared much about power consumption the 670 would be it. That's just me.

For $400 I can pick up this MSI GTX 670 from Amazon. At that price it is a toss up for me between the Gigabyte 7950 and the GTX 670.
http://www.amazon.com/MSI-N670GTX-PM...ywords=gtx+670

I think I am swinging towards the Nvidia card as I don't want to risk having the same issues with my BIOS as I had with the 7850.

 

[twjr]

GTX 670, but not the ones you listed.

Get this for 400 instead:

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-GeForce-G...ata/B0081IFO2C

Amazon isn't shipping that card internationally otherwise it would be a much easier decision.

 

[RussianSensation]

So what? Many people don't care about bitcoin mining all day. These cards, as they are being discussed are gaming cards.

Ya, I am not advocating that everyone should do bitcoin mining or that everyone runs compute (although bitcoin is free $ with a fast 7900 card once you set it up). My point was to Silverforce that there some reasons to get the 7970. Since many people tout compute as a feature of HD7900 against GTX670/680 and then they turn around and say HD7970 is worthless over the 7950. It doesn't work that way. 1 Bitcoin is worth > $6. Over time the added performance cost for 7970 will be offset since it will make more bitcoins but it will retain higher resale value than the 7950. Also in general, people who run GPGPU tasks may find it worth it. Because of Bitcoin mining, it's not necessarily cheaper to own the 7950. For gaming only, I'd spend $400 for a GTX670 over the $350 7950 for 1080P.

Ok So the take home message for me, a potential buyer, is that at the same price a custom GTX 670 is a better buy than a reference 7970?

twjr, I wouldn't get the reference 7970 period. It's louder than the reference 670. If the noise level of the reference 670 doesn't bother you against the quieter Windforce cooler (also present in the video) and you want guaranteed fast performance out of the box, get the 670.

You can look at specific games you intend to play to see how GTX670 performs against an HD7970.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2012/test-amd-radeon-hd-7970-ghz-edition/17/

 

[Dark Shroud]

It brings additional features, such as CUDA simulation, TXAA, PhysX, Adaptive Vsync, top of the line Driver support, and a top notch user interface. Nvidia also offers a better solution should the need for multi-gpu arise down the road.


I don't think the 670s performance alone justifies it's cost over the 7950. The question you need to ask yourself is if the additional benefits of the card are worth the extra cost. Some say no, some say yes, the choice in the end is all yours.

CUDA runs like trash on the GTX 600 cards. Why are you even bringing this up?

TXAA has to be specifically enabled by the game devs and almost nothing even uses this.

PhysX running on the GPU is only used in a handful of games as well.

Adaptive Vsync is an interesting idea, some people are questioning how much it even helps in games.

The rest of what you say sounds like it's from an Nvidia PR employee.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

CUDA runs like trash on the GTX 600 cards. Why are you even bringing this up?

TXAA has to be specifically enabled by the game devs and almost nothing even uses this.

PhysX running on the GPU is only used in a handful of games as well.

Adaptive Vsync is an interesting idea, some people are questioning how much it even helps in games.

The rest of what you say sounds like it's from an Nvidia PR employee.

You're confusing double precision floating point and well actually, you're simply confusing what CUDA simulation within a game is and GPGPU or perhaps you don't even know.

Here is an example of CUDA simulation within a gaming environment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULJ8XHnemHA

TXAA is brand new, were you expecting a console like launch where new hardware was supported with several titles? You'll be pleased to know there is a new title already that supports it just waiting for a patch!

Few more and like CUDA simulation, and AO support on the driver level they are all immersion techniques that go beyond simple fps counters. There are 100% more titles that support Nvidia's version than support the version that AMD simply doesn't have.

People question everything, have you ruled life out yet? People question it all the time.


Everything you said sounded like something a have not would say.