670 Reviews are up

[aaksheytalwar]

Acc to techpowerup, at rez other than 2560, 670 stock = 7970 stock average performance.

At 2560:
670 scores 100 obviously
7970 scores 106
680 scores 108

And this is at stock, once overclocked, there is no way a 670 will be equal to a 7970, once both are overclocked, the 7970 will have a good 10%+ lead without a shadow of doubt.

On an average if you want to play at 1440p/1600p:
Assuming all stock
670 is like 5-10% slower than 7970, sometimes 670 smokes it away while sometimes 7970 smokes it away, but on an average, 5-10% slower than 7970 at that rez.
680 is like 2-5% faster than 7970 assuming both stock.
At 1440p/1600p, 680 will have a lead of about 10% over 670 which will reduce at lower rez, and max 10% that too, as an average.

So if 670 is $400, 670 oc is $420 then 7970 is fine at $450. WHY?

Stock vs stock 670 oc ~ 680 ~ 7970 all stock, 680 oc is slightly faster but a bit more expensive as well.
Once overclocked, 7970 is faster in most major games and where it counts most. PERIOD, though often 670 is about as fast or even faster, but overall 7970 wins once overclocked.
3GB VRAM is definitely worth $30, especially if you wish to keep your card for at least a year, 2GB is being fully utilized today, +1GB for just $30 with a fast card once overclocked is no brainer.

So,

Ideal pricing:
670 $400
670 oc $420
7970 $450
680 $500
7950 $350
7950 oc $375
7870 $275

 

[aaksheytalwar]

And a 7970 oc is just fine at 1440p for pretty much any game you throw at it. Except Crysis 2 or Metro maxed out.

BF3 is fine without AA.
Skyrim is fine with 8x MSAA.
Crysis is fine at 1440p without AA once overclocked.

1440p no AA > 1080p 4x AA anyway.

And fine means average of 50+ FPS and mostly 70+ fps with min mostly in 50s or even 60s.

Alan Wake is perfect at 1440p with 2x AA with 7970 oc.

Dirt3 is fine. NFS Run is fine. COD MW3 is fine. Very few games (like 5% are not okay at 1440p and you can always run only those at 1080p)

 

[Lepton87]

Well, almost no one is gonna be buying a single of these (HD 7970, GTX 670, HD 7950) for 2560x1600 or 5760x1200 gaming. People that want that are gonna CF/SLI.

This is more accurate when it comes to getting a good representation of what the cards can do given their target resolution:

There are a lot of 2560x1600(1440) owners with single cards but whatever suits your zealotry. Not everyone wants to deal with multi-gpu set-up.

 

[Alaa]

So, which one to get? Full PCB or reference PCB?

 

[Olikan]

There are a lot of 2560x1600(1440) owners with single cards but whatever suits your zealotry. Not everyone wants to deal with multi-gpu set-up.

there is only 3 games of 10 in anad benchmarks, that are unplayable at 1600p with a single card

 

[boxleitnerb]

Fact of the matter is, in a bunch of games these cards struggle even today at 1600p. And you want them to last lets say 2 years, no? 1080p is home turf, no doubt about it. Then you can play with AA which is basically a must in this performance category.

 

[mple]

Is it true the Asus DC2T version has voltage unlock?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Acc to techpowerup, at rez other than 2560, 670 stock = 7970 stock average performance.

At 2560:
670 scores 100 obviously
7970 scores 106
680 scores 108

And this is at stock, once overclocked, there is no way a 670 will be equal to a 7970, once both are overclocked, the 7970 will have a good 10%+ lead without a shadow of doubt.

On an average if you want to play at 1440p/1600p:
Assuming all stock
670 is like 5-10% slower than 7970, sometimes 670 smokes it away while sometimes 7970 smokes it away, but on an average, 5-10% slower than 7970 at that rez.
680 is like 2-5% faster than 7970 assuming both stock.
At 1440p/1600p, 680 will have a lead of about 10% over 670 which will reduce at lower rez, and max 10% that too, as an average.

So if 670 is $400, 670 oc is $420 then 7970 is fine at $450. WHY?

Stock vs stock 670 oc ~ 680 ~ 7970 all stock, 680 oc is slightly faster but a bit more expensive as well.
Once overclocked, 7970 is faster in most major games and where it counts most. PERIOD, though often 670 is about as fast or even faster, but overall 7970 wins once overclocked.
3GB VRAM is definitely worth $30, especially if you wish to keep your card for at least a year, 2GB is being fully utilized today, +1GB for just $30 with a fast card once overclocked is no brainer.

So,

Ideal pricing:
670 $400
670 oc $420
7970 $450
680 $500
7950 $350
7950 oc $375
7870 $275

LOL.

I guess you forgot the part where a single one of these cards isn't meant for resolutions like 2560x1440 and higher. The resolution they're designed for is 1920x1200.

Want to say 2560x1440 and higher is relevant for people with these cards in CF/SLI? Fine, but a single one isn't. Not even a single GTX 680 is designed for that high of a resolution.

And prices are defined by stock performance; I don't know what world you're living in, but overclocking performance doesn't determine a card's price. And as far as overclocking goes, OC GTX 680=OC HD 7970, but the 7970 will consume a ton more power. Want a good overclocking card? Buy an HD 7950 when the price is lowered instead, overclock to 1GHz, and don't raise the stock voltage.

 

[Grooveriding]

So, which one to get? Full PCB or reference PCB?

Whatever card you prefer really. These are all voltage locked, so 8+6pin or 6+6pin power connectors and/or additional phases makes next to no difference at all.

The small reference boards are overclocking as well as the larger non-ref boards or 670 cards using the ref 680 PCB.

Pick whatever you want and you'll just be playing the OC lottery like you do with any card.

 

[Phynaz]

Dear Nvidia,

Please release the 660 soon.

Thank you,
Phynaz

 

[Gloomy]

I game with a single 6950 2GB at 2560x1440.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Acc to techpowerup, at rez other than 2560, 670 stock = 7970 stock average performance.

At 2560:
670 scores 100 obviously
7970 scores 106
680 scores 108

And this is at stock, once overclocked, there is no way a 670 will be equal to a 7970, once both are overclocked, the 7970 will have a good 10%+ lead without a shadow of doubt.

On an average if you want to play at 1440p/1600p:
Assuming all stock
670 is like 5-10% slower than 7970, sometimes 670 smokes it away while sometimes 7970 smokes it away, but on an average, 5-10% slower than 7970 at that rez.
680 is like 2-5% faster than 7970 assuming both stock.
At 1440p/1600p, 680 will have a lead of about 10% over 670 which will reduce at lower rez, and max 10% that too, as an average.

So if 670 is $400, 670 oc is $420 then 7970 is fine at $450. WHY?

Stock vs stock 670 oc ~ 680 ~ 7970 all stock, 680 oc is slightly faster but a bit more expensive as well.
Once overclocked, 7970 is faster in most major games and where it counts most. PERIOD, though often 670 is about as fast or even faster, but overall 7970 wins once overclocked.
3GB VRAM is definitely worth $30, especially if you wish to keep your card for at least a year, 2GB is being fully utilized today, +1GB for just $30 with a fast card once overclocked is no brainer.

So,

Ideal pricing:
670 $400
670 oc $420
7970 $450
680 $500
7950 $350
7950 oc $375
7870 $275

Wrong IMO. Even if both the 7970 and 670 are $400 the 670 will outsell the 7970 4-1. Whatever the reason (better drivers, physX, or twimtbp) nvidia is the preferred brand of PC gamers.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

There are a lot of 2560x1600(1440) owners with single cards but whatever suits your zealotry. Not everyone wants to deal with multi-gpu set-up.

Yeah, I guess they'd be real happy to spend $700+ on a monitor to then conform with <60 FPS with AA.

A single of these cards isn't made for 2560x1440 or higher... unless you find it suitable to, again, spend $700+ on a monitor to have to lower your settings.

 

[sontin]

So, the GTX670 now has the crown for the best perf/watt card? Oh there was so much hype about pitcairn...

 

[Gloomy]

I paid half that for my 2560x1440 monitor.

 

[Lepton87]

LOL.

Want to say 2560x1440 and higher is relevant for people with these cards in CF/SLI? Fine, but a single one isn't. Not even a single GTX 680 is designed for that high of a resolution.

You are actually right here, GTX680 was never meant to be a top-tier card but HD7970 and HD7950 were certainly designed with 2560x1600(1440) in mind hence 384bit memory bus with 3GB of memory.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_670/6.html

Stock vs stock

Probable Max Playable Settings

Alan Wake
7970 1600p 2x AA
670 1600p no AA
WINNER 7970, smokes it away
Personally tried 7970 OC at 1440p 2x AA and it is perfectly fine.

AP
7970 1080p no AA
670 1080 no AA
WINNER 7970 is much faster

Arkham
7970 1080p 4x AA
670 1080p 4x AA
WINNER 670, faster but not exactly apreciably

BF3
7970 1600p no AA OR 1080p 4x AA
670 Same settings
WINNER TIE
Personally tried 7970 OC 1440p no MSAA no AA with BF3 and minimum is most of the time above 60+ FPS, average is a lot higher.

Battleforge
7970 Eyefinity 2x AA
670 Eyefinity
WINNER 7970 blows it away at the same settings

COD 4 (IRRELEVANT, LOL)
7970 Eyefinity 4x AA
670 Eyefinity 4x AA
670 blows it away

Civilization V
7970 1600p 4x
670 1600p 4x
WINNER TIE

Crysis 1
7970 1080p no AA
670 1080p no AA
WINNER TIE
Personally tried 7970 OC at 1440p no AA and it is playable.

Crysis 2
7970 1080p no AA
670 1080p no AA
WINNER TIE

Dirt 3
7970 Eyefinity 4x AA
670 1600p 4x AA
WINNER 1600p 4x AA 670, EYEFINITY not supported. All are very fast. REAL Winner 7970 though not very relevant

Dragon Age II
7970 1440p no AA or 1080p 4x AA
670 1440p no AA or 1080 4x AA
WINNER TIE

Hard Reset
7970 1600p 2x AA
670 1600p ~ 2x AA
WINNER TIE

Metro 1280x1024 4x AA
Same settings on both.
WINNER 7970, much faster

Stalker
7970 1600p 4x AA
670 1600p 2x AA
WINNER 7970, a bit faster

StarCraft II
Irrelevant, close and very fast, 670 has slight lead.

Shogun 2
1080p both no AA
WINNER 670, a bit faster

Skyrim
1600p 4x AA both
WINNER TIE

WoW
Eyefinity 4x AA both
670 is a bit faster, hence WINNER 670

Games which can't be played on 1440p no AA on 7970 OC:
Shogun 2
Metro
Crysis 2
AP
Remaining games can be played on 7970 OC perfectly fine, with or without AA, based on the game. Of these, Shogun 2 and Metro can't be maxed out at 1440p no AA even on 580 SLI. So practically pretty much most/nearly all games are perfectly fine at 1440p with either 670 (a few games less like Alan Wake etc) or 7970, once both are overclocked.

Overall, 7970 is a bit faster than 670 at 1440p/1600p and at 1080p currently there is no difference pretty much I would say.

Once you overclock both, 7970 will be faster with any rez/setting with most modern games, pretty much all games in fact.

But since 670 is $50 cheaper, it is as good a buy as 7970 despite slightly slower stock performance, slower oc performance, and less VRAM. I would still recommend a 680 over a 7970 to anybody. But if you are tight on cash, then 670 is the way to go.

The 7970 is a very good buy no doubt, however if somebody can spend just $400, he should go for 670. And if somebody can spend $450, then it makes sense going for 680. So in USA, 7970 will find few takers despite being great value. But in countries where 680 and 7970 are priced same, 7970 is still a card which overclocks to beat the competition

But even at stock, 1440p is fine with 7970 and mostly with 670 stock as well (except a game or two like Alan Wake)

 

[Silverforce11]

So, the GTX670 now has the crown for the best perf/watt card? Oh there was so much hype about pitcairn...

It's prolly the best or close to it.

Don't forget that 78xx with beastly OC consumes 20-30W more above their already low 115-130w.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Yeah, I guess they'd be real happy to spend $700+ on a monitor to then conform with <60 FPS with AA.

A single of these cards isn't made for 2560x1440 or higher... unless you find it suitable to, again, spend $700+ on a monitor to have to lower your settings.

As usual, wrong.

nvidia will outsell AMD even if AMD costs half as much for the same performance.

But if both cards are $400, 7970 > 670. PERIOD
At $450 7970 is just fine for an unbiased buyer.

And I play at 1440p (some games with AA some games without AA), only in a few games and very rarely that too, do FPS drop below 60 and I play games like BF3, Alan Wake, Skyrim etc.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So I was right in my thinking that the silence from NVIDIA this round meant that this was another G80-style GPU...and this is the "8800GT" of the kepler family...job well done.

Now give us the REAL (Big) Kepler!

 

[aaksheytalwar]

People who say a single 7970 can't play at 1440p speak through their hat.

A stock 7970 may be pushed at that rez, but an overclocked one isn't. Remember, an overclocked 7970 is 20-25% faster in FPS than stock, that is 560 TI / 570 SLI territory.

1440p no AA > 1080p 8x AA on a 27" screen, personal experience. So stop living in a fantasy world.

Most games run fine at 1440p with a 7970 OC with minimum FPS above 60, only some games go below 60 FPS often and even then that is rare/occasional and still in 40s or 50s.

And with a 1440p monitor, playing at 1080p is perfectly fine, regardless of the theory you have read about it. So you can always decrease the rez for Metro or Crysis 2 and nobody can even tell the difference without knowing the settings, comparing to a 27" monitor which is made for 1080. Again, personal experience. Went and actually bought both monitors and saw the difference. Unlike people who just preach from theory.

 

[Olikan]

So, the GTX670 now has the crown for the best perf/watt card? Oh there was so much hype about pitcairn...

no...but, the 660 will most likely

 

[thilanliyan]

I wish Kepler was better at bitcoin mining...I'm hankering for change

So I was right in my thinking that the silence from NVIDIA this round meant that this was another G80-style GPU...and this is the "8800GT" of the kepler family...job well done.

I disagree, G80 blew every single GPU out of the water at its release by a large margin (that did not happen with Kepler). And the 8800GT gave 8800GTX performance for $300 (?). The performance increase and mid-end prices are nowhere near G80/G92 levels.

 

[Gloomy]

Well, my monitor doesn't have scaling circuitry so I'm not sure how it would be on an Ultrasharp, but... I don't think playing at 1080p and upscaling is acceptable (or necessary in the vast majority of games). It looks a terrible, fuzzy mess. 1280x720 is sharp, but the pixels are the size of my thumbnail...

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Fact of the matter is, in a bunch of games these cards struggle even today at 1600p. And you want them to last lets say 2 years, no? 1080p is home turf, no doubt about it. Then you can play with AA which is basically a must in this performance category.

A bunch of games suffer even today at 1080p with single cards.

You should start playing at 720p then