You are comparing a factory overclocked 7970 to a stock clocked 670.
You can notice the stock 7970 beats the 670 by a "significant" amount of FPS on 2560x1600. That's cause it has 3GB VRAM, so at those resolutions you should compare it to a 4GB 670. At 1920x1080 I still prefer 670 cause it has more features, similar price and better drivers.
EDIT: Also, just to add:
Based on the complete benchmark analysis, we know that Nvidia’s design does best at 1680x1050, while AMD competes most aggressively at 2560x1600. Using 1920x1080 again gives us a good gauge of playable performance at the native resolution of many popular panels.
Nvidia’s architecture establishes a distinct lead in Crysis 2, DiRT 3, and WoW. Its advantage is less pronounced in Battlefield 3 and Skyrim. AMD jumps ahead in Metro 2033.
And I'll also quote a guy on tom's hardware forums which said it with the perfect words:
Get the 670 and enjoy good drivers, PhysX, Adaptive VSync, FXAA, lower power usage, lower noise levels, and better performance in some of the more popular games out there (BF3 and Skyrim to name a couple).
Even if the 7970 gets a overclocked win by a few FPS in a few less popular games, it still doesn't make it a more attractive purchase when looking at the total picture.
1 its not a stock overclocked card AMD updated their lines its two different things plus the stock overclocked 7970s are still cheaper and are better. Also the old release 7970 still beats the 680 in quite a few games.
Notice all my benchmarks are 1080p
You do understand the benchmarks I linked are newer and have the newer drives from the AMD and Nvidia camps performance changes over time.
Also FXAA can be run on AMD cards too but it looks like **** so why would you. Physx is not used in the vast majority of games.
1 its not a stock overclocked card AMD updated their lines its two different things plus the stock overclocked 7970s are still cheaper and are better. Also the old release 7970 still beats the 680 in quite a few games.
7970ghz edition is the same as 7970 except it has a higher clock, and all the reviews say that the 7970ghz edition is tied with stock gtx 680, so yes, you are compairing an overclocked 7970 to a stock 680. If you compare the 7970ghz edition to a factory overclocked 680, the 680 will win on most of the games again.
The 7970 beats the 680 in a few games, not quite a few, such as Metro 2033. Furthermore, the difference ain't massive and in benchmarks such as 3dmark11, the 680 beats the 7970.
Anyway, I still find both 7970 and 7970ghz edition lack some features of the 680, like adaptive vsync, frame rate target and turbo boost, and I've used all of them on my 680 so far.
On a side note, according to hardware canucks, their overclock reached 1156mhz core clock on 7970ghz edition. Compare that to my 1302mhz overclock I did on my GTX 680 Signature, which is also factory overclocked just like the 7970ghz edition, it came with a boost clock of 1202mhz and I reached 100+mhz offset with no artifacting or anything. I ran 3dmark11 and got a score of about P11200, I'd give the link but I'm not on my main PC and I didn't upload the result, but I doubt any 7970, ghz edition or not can beat that.
7970ghz edition is the same as 7970 except it has a higher clock, and all the reviews say that the 7970ghz edition is tied with stock gtx 680, so yes, you are compairing an overclocked 7970 to a stock 680. If you compare the 7970ghz edition to a factory overclocked 680, the 680 will win on most of the games again.
The 7970 beats the 680 in a few games, not quite a few, such as Metro 2033. Furthermore, the difference ain't massive and in benchmarks such as 3dmark11, the 680 beats the 7970.
Anyway, I still find both 7970 and 7970ghz edition lack some features of the 680, like adaptive vsync, frame rate target and turbo boost, and I've used all of them on my 680 so far.
On a side note, according to hardware canucks, their overclock reached 1156mhz core clock on 7970ghz edition. Compare that to my 1302mhz overclock I did on my GTX 680 Signature, which is also factory overclocked just like the 7970ghz edition, it came with a boost clock of 1202mhz and I reached 100+mhz offset with no artifacting or anything. I ran 3dmark11 and got a score of about P11200, I'd give the link but I'm not on my main PC and I didn't upload the result, but doubt any 7970, ghz edition or not can beat that.
The GE actually has boost btw.
Ya not **** a stock overclocked 680 will beat a 7970 except the whole its a lot more expensive and the 7970 can overclock.
The GE is a new model of the 7970 it has new features not just a higher clock.
Are you ****ing kidding me whoopty ****ing do 3d mark is a synthetic benchmark there is nothing that pisses me off more then them.
If you actually care about 3dmark scores its not worth talking to you.
The GE actually has boost btw.
Ya not **** a stock overclocked 680 will beat a 7970 except the whole its a lot more expensive and the 7970 can overclock.
the GE is a new model of the 7970 it has new features not just a higher clock.
Fair enough then, the 680 is more expensive yet beats it in both hardware and software (drivers + features).
Are you ****ing kidding me whoopty ****ing do 3d mark is a synthetic benchmark there is nothing that pisses me off more then them.
Synthetic or not, it pushes your videocard to the max, and it is a fair benchmark for both of them; and I don't actually care that much, as I was just mentioning it to add an example of how a factory overclock 680 beats a factory overclocked 7970 in benchmarks.
Fair enough then, the 680 is more expensive yet beats it in both hardware and software (drivers + features).
It's like I always say, buy the features you need, not a bunch of useless crap you won't use.
Synthetic or not, it pushes your videocard to the max, and it is a fair benchmark for both of them; and I don't actually care that much, as I was just mentioning it to add an example of how a factory overclock 680 beats a factory overclocked 7970 in benchmarks.
It's not a realistic benchmark though. Do you understand that or are you too stupid to figure it out? No game runs like a synthetic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks hardly prove a point since no one uses synthetic benchmarks for anything practical.
It's not a realistic benchmark though. Do you understand that or are you too stupid to figure it out? No game runs like a synthetic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks hardly prove a point since no one uses synthetic benchmarks for anything practical.
True, but they are a support to game benchmarks, since games have a lot more variables that are hard to handle and make it exactly the same every single time, so they might not be 100% accurate. That's one of the reasons synthetic benchmarks were made, so that the test is repeated exactly the same every single time, so that all the hardware to compare has an equal chance of beating the other. They aren't 100% accurate, but at least they are trustworthy.
The GTX670 is a far better deal if you plan on gaming in 1080p on a single monitor, the GTX680 is only worth the extra money when you need to run Surround, 3D, or HD+ setups, in which case you might as well run SLI...
I never said the 680 was a good deal I think both are crap.
The 7970 is the good deal.
I misunderstood then.
LOL
Cough.
Notice how even the non GE is keeping up with the 680 and you can get a GE cheaper then a 680.
You can notice the stock 7970 beats the 670 by a "significant" amount of FPS on 2560x1600. That's cause it has 3GB VRAM, so at those resolutions you should compare it to a 4GB 670. At 1920x1080 I still prefer 670 cause it has more features, similar price and better drivers.
EDIT: Also, just to add:
And I'll also quote a guy on tom's hardware forums which said it with the perfect words:
1 its not a stock overclocked card AMD updated their lines its two different things plus the stock overclocked 7970s are still cheaper and are better. Also the old release 7970 still beats the 680 in quite a few games.
Notice all my benchmarks are 1080p
You do understand the benchmarks I linked are newer and have the newer drives from the AMD and Nvidia camps performance changes over time.
Also FXAA can be run on AMD cards too but it looks like **** so why would you. Physx is not used in the vast majority of games.
7970ghz edition is the same as 7970 except it has a higher clock, and all the reviews say that the 7970ghz edition is tied with stock gtx 680, so yes, you are compairing an overclocked 7970 to a stock 680. If you compare the 7970ghz edition to a factory overclocked 680, the 680 will win on most of the games again.
The 7970 beats the 680 in a few games, not quite a few, such as Metro 2033. Furthermore, the difference ain't massive and in benchmarks such as 3dmark11, the 680 beats the 7970.
Anyway, I still find both 7970 and 7970ghz edition lack some features of the 680, like adaptive vsync, frame rate target and turbo boost, and I've used all of them on my 680 so far.
On a side note, according to hardware canucks, their overclock reached 1156mhz core clock on 7970ghz edition. Compare that to my 1302mhz overclock I did on my GTX 680 Signature, which is also factory overclocked just like the 7970ghz edition, it came with a boost clock of 1202mhz and I reached 100+mhz offset with no artifacting or anything. I ran 3dmark11 and got a score of about P11200, I'd give the link but I'm not on my main PC and I didn't upload the result, but I doubt any 7970, ghz edition or not can beat that.
The GE actually has boost btw.
Ya not **** a stock overclocked 680 will beat a 7970 except the whole its a lot more expensive and the 7970 can overclock.
The GE is a new model of the 7970 it has new features not just a higher clock.
Are you ****ing kidding me whoopty ****ing do 3d mark is a synthetic benchmark there is nothing that pisses me off more then them.
If you actually care about 3dmark scores its not worth talking to you.
Fair enough then, the 680 is more expensive yet beats it in both hardware and software (drivers + features).
Synthetic or not, it pushes your videocard to the max, and it is a fair benchmark for both of them; and I don't actually care that much, as I was just mentioning it to add an example of how a factory overclock 680 beats a factory overclocked 7970 in benchmarks.
It's like I always say, buy the features you need, not a bunch of useless crap you won't use.
It's not a realistic benchmark though. Do you understand that or are you too stupid to figure it out? No game runs like a synthetic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks hardly prove a point since no one uses synthetic benchmarks for anything practical.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
As I said, I've used (and I am using) every single feature the 680 has.
True, but they are a support to game benchmarks, since games have a lot more variables that are hard to handle and make it exactly the same every single time, so they might not be 100% accurate. That's one of the reasons synthetic benchmarks were made, so that the test is repeated exactly the same every single time, so that all the hardware to compare has an equal chance of beating the other. They aren't 100% accurate, but at least they are trustworthy.