670 Reviews are up

[aaksheytalwar]

You can't tell that a 16:10 aspect ratio is running differently on a native 16:9 monitor? Wow. Also, when you downscale and not use 1:1 mode you don't see that the image becomes a bit washed out?

For me that is super annoying, I would rather sacrifice a bit of graphics settings to keep it in native res.

No matter what rez I use the graphics are better than what they would have been on a 27" 1080p monitor (non IPS), so that isn't exactly a fair comparison. As long as it is still better, it is irrelevant.

Besides, even if I don't use 1:1 scaling the graphics are so damn good that I really can't make out the difference. Maybe if I buy two of these monitors and critically examine them to deliberately find the difference, then it may be different. But at a gross level, it is pretty much the same, can't make out any difference whether I do 16:10 or 16:9.

This is only in games, in the desktop only 1440p looks good. But in games it really doesn't matter, they look really good either way

 

[Mistwalker]

In Europe GTX680 is 20% more expensive than 7970, so GTX670 will be priced the same as 7970. I think given the price parity 7970 is a better deal than GTX670 because it's a better OCer.

In Japan it's worse, the 670 is more expensive than a 7970 (by about $15).

Really muddies the waters as Nvidia cards are marked up to hell, at $400 in the U.S. the 670 is pretty much the card to get (certainly until AMD price drops, and then everyone wins).

 

[aaksheytalwar]

In India 680 price = 7970 price, approx. And expected pricing of 670 will probably be close to 7950.

But the pricing of all four is so close than 670 and 7950 are automatically made redundant.

It is like:
670 will probably be like $570-580 or so. 680 is like $630-650 or so. The difference is around 10% or so, at that price one would get 680 or 7970.

7870 is a lot cheaper, 7870 custom oc is around $440 or so. so 2/3rd of 680/7970 and a good $100-120 cheaper than 670/7950.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Do you read?

1440p > 1080p 8x AA in terms of less jaggies at 1440p.

If you already get less jaggies, why do you need AA?

You are better off at 1440p in every possible way. Comparing with AA is being stupid when you are already doing fine without it.

If you don't have a 1440p monitor, you are already facing more jaggies, why not try at 1080p with 8x SSAA? Will it be playable then?

I really dunno what to say, you are not even making sense now

Not true at all. I made some screenshots to finally put this nonsense to rest. I can use downsampling on my Nvidia card (i.e. use higher resolutions than the native one). In the game, this is downscaled to my native res (1280x1024). However, if I make a screenshot with fraps, which I did, the high resolution is captured 1:1.

I made two screenshots in Serious Sam 3:
2560x1440, no AA
1920x1080, 8xMSAA

Look at them fullscreen 2560x1440 (the 1080p one will be scaled up of course as it would appear on your screen in the game) and tell me that you have less jaggies with screen one...look at the wood beams, you cannot miss it.




Edit:
For your convenience I have upscaled the 1080p shot with two different filters to 1440p. First lanczos3 on the top, linear on the bottom:

 

[Gigglin]

No matter what rez I use the graphics are better than what they would have been on a 27" 1080p monitor (non IPS), so that isn't exactly a fair comparison. As long as it is still better, it is irrelevant.

Besides, even if I don't use 1:1 scaling the graphics are so damn good that I really can't make out the difference. Maybe if I buy two of these monitors and critically examine them to deliberately find the difference, then it may be different. But at a gross level, it is pretty much the same, can't make out any difference whether I do 16:10 or 16:9.

This is only in games, in the desktop only 1440p looks good. But in games it really doesn't matter, they look really good either way

Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this 1440p, 7970 discussion. I run Skyrim @ 1440p with everything ultra, FXAA and texture pack at 60fps constant for the most part on a 27" catleap. I have the 7970 at 1000/1400 right now, since it's a reference card and gets too loud over 50% fan speed. However, I do notice minor jaggies on distant structures which is why I turned on FXAA.

I5-3570k @ 4.2 Ghz, 7970 @ 1000/1400, 1440p:
Skyrim: 60 fps @ ultra, fxaa
BF3: 52-60 fps@ ultra. no AA
DOTA 2 (hehe): 60fps @ whatever.

I don't think you need a SLI/CF for 1440p games presently. Might be right about future games, but right now a 7970 or 680 is sufficient for 1440p as long as you don't go crazy with the AA settings. I plan on upgrading my graphic card to the best for every generation, and stay away from CF/SLI.

I do notice washed out colors at a lower resolution, and don't plan on gaming at anything below 1440p.

TL: DR. Jaggies are present at 1440p. Can still game at 1440p with a single 7970 at 60fps as long I don't go crazy with AA settings.

 

[Gloomy]

Not true at all. I made some screenshots to finally put this nonsense to rest. I can use downsampling on my Nvidia card (i.e. use higher resolutions than the native one). In the game, this is downscaled to my native res (1280x1024). However, if I make a screenshot with fraps, which I did, the high resolution is captured 1:1.

I made two screenshots in Serious Sam 3:
2560x1440, no AA
1920x1080, 8xMSAA

Look at them fullscreen 2560x1440 (the 1080p one will be scaled up of course as it would appear on your screen in the game) and tell me that you have less jaggies with screen one...look at the wood beams, you cannot miss it.

It's a consequence of the pixel density. The jaggies are there, but smaller, so less noticeable. Taking screenshots wouldn't prove anything. Remember he said he had a 27" 1080p display? It must have been like playing a staircase simulator on that thing. It's much better than a 23" 1080p display even.

 

[railven]

Not true at all. I made some screenshots to finally put this nonsense to rest. I can use downsampling on my Nvidia card (i.e. use higher resolutions than the native one). In the game, this is downscaled to my native res (1280x1024). However, if I make a screenshot with fraps, which I did, the high resolution is captured 1:1.

I made two screenshots in Serious Sam 3:
2560x1440, no AA
1920x1080, 8xMSAA

Look at them fullscreen 2560x1440 (the 1080p one will be scaled up of course as it would appear on your screen in the game) and tell me that you have less jaggies with screen one...look at the wood beams, you cannot miss it.

You need to look at the pictures on your screen Up/down scaled for this to work. While I won't make the stretch he is making, I sometimes use a higher resolution and downscale it to my monitor to get better IQ in games that have horrid AA options.

On your screen, properly scaled, the 1400p one will look visibly better. What you are doing by not scaling is is basically zooming in. I can download these pictures and scale both to your resolution and you'll see what the point he is trying to make.

 

[Keysplayr]

Thanks Box and gigglin. Very informative and should put this 1440
argument to rest. At least on its current incarnation. If aa is usable at any Rees, it should always be used. IMHO.

 

[boxleitnerb]

You need to look at the pictures on your screen Up/down scaled for this to work. While I won't make the stretch he is making, I sometimes use a higher resolution and downscale it to my monitor to get better IQ in games that have horrid AA options.

On your screen, properly scaled, the 1400p one will look visibly better. What you are doing by not scaling is is basically zooming in. I can download these pictures and scale both to your resolution and you'll see what the point he is trying to make.

I have scaled the 1080p to his res with two filters, see my edit. Also, I looked at them properly scaled (i.e. fit to my screen size so I see the whole screenshot in both cases) with the Windows photo viewer. 1440p without AA has more jaggies. No matter if you scale it up or down, this is always the result.

Trust me, I'm not zooming in - I know what I'm doing

 

[Don Karnage]

Ofcourse im swamped at work today but thankfully I don't see the Asus 670 anywhere

 

[Valkyrie23]

Ofcourse im swamped at work today but thankfully I don't see the Asus 670 anywhere

Does anyone know if the Asus versions were originally planned to launch after the official release date?

 

[railven]

I have scaled both of them to his res, see my edit. Also, I looked at them properly scaled (i.e. fit to my screen size so I see the whole screenshot in both cases) with the Windows photo viewer. 1440p without AA has more jaggies. No matter if you scale it up or down, this is always the result.

No, I get that which is why I said I feel he is stretching it, I'd argue it be more akin to 4xAA or 2xAA.

 

[KevinH]

http://www.komplett.dk/k/search.aspx?q=GTX+670

Over 250 GTX 670 in stock here as time of writing

Is that an accelero on the Gigabyte?

 

[Don Karnage]

Does anyone know if the Asus versions were originally planned to launch after the official release date?

Knowing Asus they'll be late.

 

[Gloomy]

No, I get that which is why I said I feel he is stretching it, I'd argue it be more akin to 4xAA or 2xAA.

I feel like I've said this before...

 

[Axon]

Ofcourse im swamped at work today but thankfully I don't see the Asus 670 anywhere

Same. I can resist the rest, but not the ASUS. I love the EVGA as well, but a dual slot CUII is too much.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

When I tried gaming, 4x aa had far more Jaggies. 8x is better than 4x aa but 1440p is still comparable, I find it better, you may not. But it is still better than 4x aa because 1080p with 4x aa on 27" is worse than 1080p on 22 without aa. So even if they are not very staggering noticeable while gaming, the point is 1440p without aa is perfectly pleasant

 

[Gigglin]

When I tried gaming, 4x aa had far more Jaggies. 8x is better than 4x aa but 1440p is still comparable, I find it better, you may not. But it is still better than 4x aa because 1080p with 4x aa on 27" is worse than 1080p on 22 without aa. So even if they are not very staggering noticeable while gaming, the point is 1440p without aa is perfectly pleasant

I agree. You have to be super close to the screen and squint to make out the jaggies, really.

 

[thilanliyan]

That is because GK104 was intended for midrange.
The GK100/GK110 is still missing.
http://vr-zone.com/articles/how-the...-prime-example-of-nvidia-reshaped-/15786.html

(even though this si still being tried denied by the red team)

That is all fine and good, but it doesn't make sense to tout the performance of unreleased products does it? I have no doubt GK100 will be fast, but it's not out yet.

When nV release a desktop GK100, there could be something faster from ATI right (if you're also mentioning unreleased products)? So the performance difference between GK100 and what is on the market at that time may not look so G80 like WHEN it comes out.

 

[Arzachel]

In Japan it's worse, the 670 is more expensive than a 7970 (by about $15).

Really muddies the waters as Nvidia cards are marked up to hell, at $400 in the U.S. the 670 is pretty much the card to get (certainly until AMD price drops, and then everyone wins).

Same here. In Latvia the HD 7970 is 56Ls cheaper than the GTX 680, which is a bit more than double that in $.

 

[Gloomy]

When I tried gaming, 4x aa had far more Jaggies. 8x is better than 4x aa but 1440p is still comparable, I find it better, you may not. But it is still better than 4x aa because 1080p with 4x aa on 27" is worse than 1080p on 22 without aa. So even if they are not very staggering noticeable while gaming, the point is 1440p without aa is perfectly pleasant

No, the point is that you exaggerated (and that's an understatement!) when you said it was like 8x AA. In reality it's more like 1.7x AA.

 

[Subyman]

Wow, the 670 is a fantastic card. Custom ones will be a HTPC's dream. Finally proper gaming in a small case. This card made the 7970 and 7950 irrelevant, and the 680 is a hard buy now.

Can't wait to see the lower end cards for 250.

 

[Kenmitch]

These would be tiny little cards with full water blocks!

Looks like these are priced to sell and those waiting for 680's should see more supply left in the chain for them.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

It isn't 1.7aa. It is definitely better than 4x aa, I prefer it to 8x aa too but that is my opinion. Your opinion may be different. Most people can't play at 8x aa anyway unless the fps drop to the same levels, so it is irrelevant.

 

[Silverforce11]

That is because GK104 was intended for midrange.
The GK100/GK110 is still missing.

And when a GTX670 can toy with a 7970...then it IS a G80'ish GPU.

I hope you've realized by now but Tahiti IS mid-range . It's a small die GPU (smaller than last gen even) that somehow got sold at enthusiast prices where it was never intended to be.

It's only now that NV has offered some compelling competition with their own mid-range chip to hopefully drive down prices.

The problem here is the 2nd tier gtx670 by itself, without user input, turbo boost to match a gtx680 performance. This hurts the value of the top tier card. While previously, 2nd tier cards could be OC to get top tier performance, it required users to manually OC. Here, the card does it out of the box. There's no point to paying $100 extra for a 680. Especially since both with manual OC hit the same peak clocks so far as the lack of vcore and fine OC controls restrict the ability of the 680 to distance itself.