I've gotta say, you really are upgrading your computer a lot lately.
I have reached a point of contentment with my rig, personally.
I've gotta say, you really are upgrading your computer a lot lately.Still no Asus 670's.... Come on man. I have money burning a hole in my pocket.
Still no Asus 670's.... Come on man. I have money burning a hole in my pocket.
No one plays Dirt 3, except AMD showcased the game and gave it away with with their 5800 cards that everyone seemingly bought in droves.
No one plays Batman AC, except Nvidia showcased the game and gave it away with their gtx500 cards for most of 2011.
Please stop trying to make arguments that sound as stupid as this one.
And yes, almost no one plays both of those games. It doesn't matter if they include them; that doesn't mean people play them.
Honestly I'd rather buy more GPU than I need for 1920x1200 and then I can turn everything up to max and run AA etc. Getting what is "good enough if you drop some settings" is not ideal IMO.
How do you know?
LOL Wut, does no body play BF3, WoW, SCII, or skyrim either?
The games nvidia does well at are more popular than Metro, Civ 5, and Crysis, which AMD does better at. In general, Nvidia will be the way to go for the average gamer right now. People that must have that 10% extra boost in Crysis or Metro at high res will have AMD to go with.
Exactly. Almost 30% of Steam users have 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 monitors as the combined group. Right now for 1080P, GTX670 OC is ~ HD7970, and in fact slightly faster in more popular SKYRIM, BF3, but costs $100 less.
Here is another way to look at it: 2x GTX670 OC will be $800 vs. $1000 for 7970 CF. That's $200 savings for 95% of the performance. AMD had the right idea when cards like the Sapphire HD7970 Dual-X dropped to $450. Right now that card creeped up to $480.
No, those are extremely popular titles. Especially WoW, StarCraft II, and Skyrim. Skyrim is rather GPU neutral, as is SCII (mostly because of a CPU limitation). WoW is extremely NVIDIA-biased, and BF3 is somewhat NVIDIA biased. Crysis 2 isn't a popular title on the PC, but it's NVIDIA-biased (unrealistic and unneeded tessellation anyone?)
What I don't like is reviewers including games that aren't popular that are NVIDIA biased, yet they barely if ever include AMD biased games as well (Metro 2033, AvP, Civ V). If they're gonna include relatively unpopular games, at least include things that are GPU-neutral like Shogun 2, Hard Reset, STALKER: COP, and others. But hey, not only is NVIDIA a PITA to work with, but it seems like they're better at buying reviewers over.
Ever heard of this thing called "sales numbers" or this cool PC program called "Steam"?
You know that Kepler is mich faster in Hard Reset and in Shogun 2 (before the latest patch)?
And why BF3 and Dirt:3 would be "somewhat NVIDIA biased" is beyond me. Both games are under the "gaming evolved" programm of AMD...
The cool PC program you call "Steam" reports 3,825 concurrent players at peak for Arkham City, and 2,424 still playing as of 5 PM. It's in the top 20.
I can't believe you guys are arguing about whether stock vs stock a 670 is faster than a 7970. It's not like you're buying the card to play only 1-2 games or anything, I hope. NV themselves said via press release today that stock vs stock they are tied at 1080p across TWENTY FIVE popular games. OC vs OC, it's probably close but maybe the 7970 edges ahead due to the higher memory bandwidth? I don't know. I do know the GHZ edition will probably beat the 670 but you can also OC a 670 so that may end up being another tie or slim victory for the 7970, at 1080p.
At 5040x1050 and above, though, the 7970 does slightly better. And 3GB VRAM becomes more important and I would not feel as comfortable with 2GB. I would either get a 79xx series card if priced right, or a 4GB 6xx card if priced right.
2560x1600 is twice the rez of 1080p and thus somewhere in-between high and triple-high rez and thus difficult to comment on but I think ultimately the 670 wouldn't be materially slower than the 7970 so I would still go with the 670 if it were priced the same as the 7970. You would get 1GB less RAM but gain efficiency and other NV-only features.
At current prices though it's a major NV victory, even for triple-monitor in some cases. AMD needs to drop the price of the 7970 lower than their stated $480 in order to compete.
LOL at using "peak" numbers. And you do realize it being Top 20 doesn't mean much, right, especially when the reviewers are mostly testing 5-10 games? There are games that are more popular and not NVIDIA biased that could be included in its place.
Nice try. Do point out where Kepler has a huge advantage here, though.
And? Both games were released before Kepler hit the market.And it's widely known that DiRT 3 and BF3 prefer NVIDIA cards. Arguing over that at this stage is pretty nonsensical. At least BF3 is popular, so it should definitely be included in the chart (even if it's a pretty crappy game in comparison to BF2).
AvP is a generic first person shooter which looks ugly. Dirt:3 is one of the view semi-realistic racing games on the pc. Oh and Dirt:3 is a "gaming evolved" title. :awe:Why include DiRT 3 and not Aliens vs. Predator, for example? Both aren't popular PC games after all. That's why I like TPU, because they test lots of games so you can get an actual feel for how fast a card is overall, not just on a hand-picked number of games that are biased towards one manufacturer for the most part.
Yeah, I don't know why this argument keeps going. At their target resolutions the HD 7970 and GTX 670 are in a dead heat. NVIDIA has a huge advantage in pricing, but for the GTX 680 availability was (and still is) a big problem. We'll have to see if the availability issues are somewhat solved with the GTX 670. If they are, that means they have a huge amount of cards with defective compute units: bad for them, good for us.
OC vs. OC the HD 7970 will be faster due to Tahiti scaling better and having a higher overclocking percentage, but at the cost of a huge power consumption increase. For overclocking I see the HD 7950 having more potential, especially because you can get a very good OC on stock voltage at a very low cost in power consumption. The only question now is: when AMD will drop the HD 7950 to $350? Remember that card is only 5% slower clock-for-clock than the HD 7970, and consumes a lot less power too.
What's with the swerving arguments? Do you want to use Steam numbers or not? There are 19 games more popular and the most demanding of those 19 (Shogun, Civ5, Skyrim) are already being used in benches. The remaining 16 are not worth benching on.
OC vs. OC the HD 7970 will be faster due to Tahiti scaling better and having a higher overclocking percentage, but at the cost of a huge power consumption increase.
I think it'd be more due to memory but in any case, the whole 7970 energy guzzler reptuation thing is overblown. If you don't overvolt much or at all, the 7970's power draw doesn't grow nearly as much. (Stock vs stock a 7970 only draws 19 more watts at load than a gtx670 despite the HPC silicon and extra 1GB of GDDR5 VRAM.) The 7970 also has lower idle wattage due to ZeroCore so if you leave your PC idling a lot, it will offset your load power somewhat. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_670/26.html The 670 is still more energy efficient but it's not like a night-and-day comparison stock voltage vs stock voltage.