yeah sure. when talking about how often techpowerUp update their benches:
Not updated recently != "not well managed, and their benching is wrong". Don't put words in my mouth.
If You mean something else there, I would apologize and hear what you mean by that. But from a normal person reading, you are saying TechpowerUp's most recent bench is poorly managed, and can be ignored. You got mislead by Xeon there, cause in fact Guru and other sites shows GTX680 > 7970 in his example, bioshock. Look at bluezero5's links if you do not believe.
Not only did I
mean something else, I
said something else. So let's hear it.
Yup, please keep up with the world before making a strong statement. as a senior member you should.
Read the senior member charter, have you? You have no clue, no clue at all.
Wrong is wrong dude. If correcting senior member now a 'no no' on this forum, that we might as well be communists.
Not wrong at all, but correcting can be done in a variety of ways, you've chosen the second worst way.
Of course, when correcting someone it helps if you are, you know,
right.
When it comes to "right", it helps to have a bit of a perspective. Game another decade and then look back on this.
funny isn't it?
one thing nvidia done, and you completely Soak it. good things from nvidia completely ignored. All my teammates I know, use 3D glasses on BF3, it makes it soooooo much better.
I will accept your personal dislike though, its not for everyone. but yes, the recent driver wasn't the best for bf3, that's why in techpowerup, nvidia no longer score as high as well. But EVEN THEN, the average performance is still better. I wonder what you have to say there.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_780/26.html
And everybody (
everybody) I know personally who plays BF3 does it in 2D. Guess the "people I know" card can go both ways, who'd have thought? Try again.
The recent driver was (is, unless it's been replaced/fixed) garbage. It wasn't just not the best, it breaks things.
AMD eyefinity use to be something, until the kepler series of GTX cards can do 4 screens WITHOUT the requirement of a passive->active tail adapter. So unless you want more than 4 screens. They are the same.
How bout six?
again SLI>CFX is ignored, cause AMD loses. totally normal. just people quitting gaming cause of it.
Depends on the game, the drivers, the cards, and the people.
Like I said, I've never had any issues, microstuttering or otherwise, on either brand. The only issue I have
ever had is in regards to GTX580s not being willing to SLI with modded drivers.
yup, bring the popcorn, what else you got to say?
Plenty, this is only part one
First off, MOST of the gamers do not overclock 'much' on their GPU, this is why sites like guru/techpowerUp compare on stock. Which is the most relevant data to us. However you are wrong when you say 7970GE better, maybe it was, but not anymore, now they are the same cross an avg of many games and resolution. In fact, if you wish to count out resolution people do not use, 680 > 7970GE a little, but the margin is so small it is pointless to argue that. 680 = 7970 on stock for the average gamer. (like me) Your recommendation, or Bobnova will be good advice for people trying to compete with benches, however, are you vain enough to say you two contributes better to say other sites are wrong? If the majority don't bench on crazy clocks, but your team does... now who's using niche data to justify a card is better than the other? unfortunately that's you. 90% of the buyers dont overclock. do you see?
As was pointed out, this is Overclockers.com, we aren't talking to, or for, people who don't overclock.
If you're looking to throw out overclocking results because "everybody else wasn't OCing", you're welcome to, but you might want to find a new forum.
For the average person that doesn't want to break their GPU with overclock, GTX 680 IS about the same as 7970GE.
I hope you are not in so deep that you want to call all these review sites wrong, and yourself and bobnova as right. cause that would be quite vain indeed.
Hey now you say it's about the same! Just recently you were saying the 680 is the clear gamers choice. Perhaps you should retrieve your "contradicting yourself" stone and contemplate your own sins before you cast it again, eh?
For reference, now that they're "about the same", the lowest price 7970 1GHz I can find is $400 flat, the lowest price GTX680 (excluding open boxes, those don't count, nor do used costs) is $450. 11% higher price for "about the same" performance. Clearly this is the right choice?
You might be right to the 1% of benchers among the majority, to the rest of the Majority, you are sounding like a moron saying stuff like "Not when it is on LN2 or water with Volt mods". Cause we don't do much of that, and we just don't care if you can do it, we don't. This is why I
when bobnova decided to say techpowerUp doesn't update enough, cause in fact, he's out out of the market in most cost and performance on stock, and he really should make a firm statement before checking.
Who said LN2/water (lol, what a combination) and voltmods? I suspect you forget that unlike Nvidia, AMD actually allows voltage control. Not that all AIB partners do, but it's there on the reference cards.
I suspect you meant "shouldn't make a firm statement". Perhaps a break is in order, keyboard rage may be setting in over there.
On cost, I covered that last quote. The jump in price to get to the GTX680 isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still a lot for "about the same performance".
On TPU, you clearly failed to note the lack of solidity. One doesn't wager on a solid, known, thing.
Beyond that, I still doubt they re-bench every single card every driver release, largely for time reasons.
This is IMPORTANT, get it in your head:
"COMPARING AT STOCK, IS TALKING TO MARKET MAJORITY"
you can overclock it a bit, compare, cool with that.
but when you talk about anything out of safety zones, well, that's interesting to know only, hardly applies.
Says the guy with "so.. you have an Intel "k" chip, but you think it is best not to OC it... seriously man, what are you?" in his signature. lol
This is why these sites that compare at stocks are the more popular review sites out there, not the extreme reviews.
Aha, popularity makes a person correct now?
I have NO DOUBT, the 7970GE can bench like a madman on synthetic 3D benches like 3dmark2011 or what not, you are right, 7970GE will KILL GTX680 in those area, hands down. I do not even try to argue there. I am saying, I didn't buy a GPU to bench, I bought one to play games, like the rest of the majority. Like the remaining 99% of the market.
Actually 3d11 is Nvidia's game if you don't turn off tessellation. You should have done some research on that one.
7970GE use to boost Performace/Cost
Uses what? Completing sentences helps a person be understood.
but this has changed since 780 came out, and you need to know, as GTX680 price dropped a little.
now the performance/cost of GTX680 and 7970GE basically at the same margin. That has been my 'entire point'.
Has it? It started off that 7970s were a terrible choice, not that they were basically at the same level. (Margin means, essentially, border. Sometimes a dividing space.)
now when they are the same, what gamers value? other add/on values for gaming.
like 3Dvision, like quick driver delivery.
Quick driver delivery, that you have to search the partially hidden "beta drivers" section to find. Great.
and I was asked what makes the GTX680 a gamer's choice, so I brought up other features, which I will suppose won't be very useful to people benching either. So I am not surprised if you do not find those points relevant. I am here to say, you folks that bench, see things differently than the avg Joe who doesn't. If 7970GE is so good, why is it not giving more FPS than GTX680 in ALL titles? You have a reason there? Cause I have one, that is GeForce drivers improves faster, 7970GE might be a stronger card in the core, but it LACKS DRIVERS support for new games, this is the case since catalyst 11.0. This alone keeps the GTX680 better in gaming FPS despite the 7970 can overclock better on 3dBenches.
Now 7970s are stronger?
But GTX680s are better?
The driver support thing continues to be hilarious to me, btw.
The 7970 can overclock better on
everything, not just benches.
and this is where, you are wrong. to the majority, those sites are closer to reality. You and your team who can only speak to the 1% of the benching elites, in this case, is WRONG. I am sorry. We don't bench, we compare at stock and at the low end of overclocking. and as of today, 7970GE doesn't even have the performance/cost edge anymore. is it still 'marginally' cheaper than GTX680 on performance/cost? maybe, depends where you get the card and what for, but that margin to the majority, doesn't REMOTELY compare to the other services a nvidia card holder gets from the company.
You contradict yourself here again, first it doesn't have an edge, then it does, but it doesn't matter because Nvidia services the card holders well.
You seem to be of the (highly mistaken) opinion that the benching team doesn't play games.
News flash: We almost all play games. Some of us play a LOT of games.
Bonus news flash: Most of the benching team doesn't overclock much, or at all, for 24/7 use.
Those two news flashes plop us squarely in what you define as "normal gamers". We just happen to be normal gamers that know a
touch more about the hardware.
Again, I am NOT saying GTX 680 > 7970GE on performance. DO NOT READ IT AS SUCH.
they are the about the same, is what i am saying, justified by many sites. I listed them out already.
and for 'similar performance, or too small a gap of difference' Nvidia has a LOT more to offer.
Go re-read your post here:
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7486943&postcount=181
Then tell me you aren't saying that the GTX680 is better on performance. Let me give you a few lines from that post, for completeness sake:
"This is my favorite link, as he posted a link that shows the performance of EVERYHTING averaging in, clearly showing GTX680 >= 7970 Ghz"
"multiple sites clear shows the avg performance of GTX680 > 7970GE."
"So rather than 'realizing GTX680 > 7970GE is true since many months ago"
"I am saying that GTX680 is a clear Gamer's choice, cause the performance is better"
"But if you are like the rest, on 1920+/- resolution, GTX680 has better avg gaming performance"
I think you can see how we got the idea you were claiming the GTX680 has higher performance.
I am not even going to start another microstutter talk.
Me neither, never seen it, can't talk about it.
hopefully now you learn how to recommend this to the public, not sounding like a nerd in a tin can.
Nice.
I'm going to make an off-topic suggestion real quick here: People take posts that contain proper grammar, capitalization and punctuation rather more seriously than posts that lack such things.
On the subject of performance:
It varies, hugely, by game.
It varies, hugely, by individual GPU as well. What
is "stock".
Is a 7970GHz "stock" at 1.0GHz? What about Gigabyte's base windforce model, it's not a GHz Edition, but the clocks are 1GHz stock. Their GHz edition is 1.1GHz "stock".
I think we covered the overclocking thing enough, I have to say that I find it absolutely hilarious coming from you with your sig that bashes non-OCers and your CPU OC'd to the bitter edge of MOSFET flame out.
I say that now that the prices are within 12%, look at the games you want to play and pick based on that.
With the previous pricing, the 680 was lol. With the new pricing, that it really ought to have had for rather of a while (and would have, if Nvidia didn't enjoy servicing their card holders quite so much), it's a much more reasonable choice.
The GTX780 is an epic card with a lol pricetag. The titan is even more epic, with an even more lol pricetag.
None of them have decently beefy power sections. One of the main reasons the Titan is limited so much in voltage is that the MOSFETs go blammo somewhere between 1.25v and 1.35v when overclocking. That's regardless of cooling, too.
The 680 power bits are stronger, but still fall woefully short of the 7970 power bits.
The 780 uses the same stuff the Titan does, it can overvolt (with hardmods, being Nvidia) a bit further before blammo.
I don't think I've seen even a reference to a 7970 that chunked the MOSFETs, excluding improperly done OCP hardmods. Those are lethal.
So, to extrapolate a bit, I think we all know that heat kills silicon (not to be confused with silicone
). That isn't really up for argument.
MOSFETs are silicon devices.
The more stressed the MOSFETs are, the hotter they run.
The hotter they run the faster they degrade.
The more they degrade, the hotter they run.
It's a positive feedback loop.
It leads to another positive feedback loop, which in turn promptly leads to blammo.
Have I seen stock cooled 680s dying yet? No. Do I expect to see them next week? No. Do I expect to see them eventually? Yes. Think GTX570 and GTX590 for examples.
Now that I've spent some time writing all this up, I'm going to get on with me evening. Enjoy!
