670 Reviews are up

[kami]

Not entering into the GPU argument, certainly the 670 is impressive performance wise, no denying that. Nvidia definitely won this round in terms of performance at that price point.

However, just to comment on what you stated here -- anyone who spends 500$+ for 1080p is out of their mind. Even 400$ for 1080p is ridiculous. If I played 1080p I would get a GTX 560ti 448 or 7850 and call it a day. In fact, I am in utter disbelief when I see peoples sigs with 680 sli and yet they run a 23" wal mart el crapo TN panel. That is ridiculous. Also, 2560 is irrelevant? Yeah, 5 years ago people were gaming at 1280x1024 and 1080p was irrelevant. I bet those people weren't spending 500$ for 1024x768.....

What you spend on your GPU's = what you spend on your display. IMO. Thats what the 680, 7970, 690, etc so on and so forth are for - surround and super high resolution. Anyone spending 500$ on a gpu and 200$ on a crap TN 23 incher is crazy...IMO

I agree with your overall sentiment. It reminds me of seeing pictures of peoples setups showing the fancy desk, 3 or 4 multi-monitor setup, $3000 rig with all the bells and whistles.... all paired with a $19.99 wal-mart office chair. Those ones always blow my mind. Comfort is #1 for me.

But limiting yourself to a gtx 560ti for 1080p? No thanks. Many games won't handle ultra settings with AA/AF and keep minimum frame rates above 60 with that. I do agree that better monitor(s) are one of the best investments though, up there with SSDs and a good chair.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Already been proven:



Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-670-review,3200-16.html

Tom's uses mostly NVIDIA-biased games. Out of that chart, I can tell you WoW, DiRT 3, and Battlefield 3 have a strong preference for NVIDIA cards.

Let's wait until TPU posts their GTX 670 SLI article.

 

[greenhawk]

50% increase over my GTX570.

tempting but just not seeing the need currently when still using a q6600.

If I had not fallen for the GTX570 in preperation for Crysis 2, I might have held onto the 8800gt so this would have been a excellent upgrade.

o well, spilt milk.

Just have to wait until new consoles are out and see what the GPU depand is then for "console exports".

 

[sandorski]

Now we wait to see if NVidia can Supply the Demand. Even if they can't, AMD will need to drop the Price of the 7970 IMO.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Been here for awhile. Just an honest observation. The 7970 vs 680 vs 670 vs .... reminds me of the old days when the Ford and Chevy guys would saddle up about whose V-8 was better (showing my age at 61). Good Lord, on any given day one would beat they other till a Plymouth 426 Hemi came into town and clocked em both!

The hemi is still the leader of the pack even today,it made a name for itself when it first came out,it always will.

From one car fanatic to another,the 383 is one of my favorite motors from mopar,had one in a 65 chrysler newport.....beautiful motor for sure.

Might be doing a 383 in a duster/dart sport project soon myself but yeah your statement is very true but we all know the gtx690 is the hemi.

 

[sontin]

Tom's uses mostly NVIDIA-biased games. Out of that chart, I can tell you WoW, DiRT 3, and Battlefield 3 have a strong preference for NVIDIA cards.

Let's wait until TPU posts their GTX 670 SLI article.

AMD is promoting their cards with Dirt:3 and BF 3. It's not Toms problem that Kepler is much faster.

 

[RussianSensation]

A stock 670 beats the 7970 is most important games such as BF3, Skyrim, and SCII at 1080p as per the anandtech review. Also, Crossfire is broken for a lot of games says HardOCP. So I would venture to guess 2x670's would actually scale better making them faster than 2x7970.

I think it's interesting that people are focusing a lot on HD7970 vs. GTX670 when GTX670 is a $400 card. For example:

Gigabyte 670 OC = $400
Gigabyte HD7970 = $500

But HD7950 competes against GTX670 OC at $399.

HotHardware Gigabyte GTX670 OC vs. HD7950 = both for $399

That's a clean sweep in a ton of games against a 7970 and in most of those it also beat a reference 7970 as you said. HD7970 at Max OC may be better than GTX670 OC at max overclocks but it's not a $400 card. With how great 670's performance is, a lot of people will pocket $100 towards GTX770/HD8000 series and enjoy 95% of the performance of the 7970.

If AMD had cards such as the Sapphire Dual-X, Diretc CUII, MSI Lightning 7970s for $440-450, it would be a different story. But a loud reference $450 HD7970 no longer makes sense imo. They either need to drop 7970 to $399 for reference models or launch after market 7970s with > 1Ghz clocks.

 

[RussianSensation]

Tom's uses mostly NVIDIA-biased games. Out of that chart, I can tell you WoW, DiRT 3, and Battlefield 3 have a strong preference for NVIDIA cards.

I know this term gets thrown out of a lot, but I think we want to know in which games NV or AMD cards perform better. That is the exact point of buying a card that suits each of us based on the games we play. If 70% of games run faster on AMD cards, we want to know that; and same for NV. It just happens to be in more recent games GTX670/680 do really well and that matters more to a lot of gamers than trying to max out Metro 2033 (we already know it takes > 4 GTX680s to do that at 2560x1600 4AA).

If NV paid $ to work closely with developers to optimize games/drives so that games such as SKYRIM, BF3, WOW, Dirt 3, Batman AC, Crysis 2 run faster, that's a competitive advantage. AMD could have done the same by working closer with developers/optimizing drivers. We've seen with consoles how important optimization can be. Stating that those games are NV or AMD-biased is irrelevant to actual performance that a gamer will have when he/she puts the card in the system. This is like stating that we shouldn't use Starcraft 2 for CPU tests because it runs faster on SB/IVB CPUs than Bulldozer and is therefore "Intel biased". We want to know that so we don't have to spend $ on Bulldozer if we happen to play Starcraft 2, etc.

Remember in the past when FX5800/5900 series had poor performance in DX9 games? We wouldn't have said: "Oh let's discount all DX9 games because they are ATI (i.e., 9700/9800Pro) biased."

 

[greenhawk]

So what's the point of buying a GTX 680 now? ... I think nvidia just killed their GTX 680 sales....

I suspect Nvidia's answer is "Lets raise the price of the GTX670"

 

[Don Karnage]

Not entering into the GPU argument, certainly the 670 is impressive performance wise, no denying that. Nvidia definitely won this round in terms of performance at that price point.

However, just to comment on what you stated here -- anyone who spends 500$+ for 1080p is out of their mind. Even 400$ for 1080p is ridiculous. If I played 1080p I would get a GTX 560ti 448 or 7850 and call it a day. In fact, I am in utter disbelief when I see peoples sigs with 680 sli and yet they run a 23" wal mart el crapo TN panel. That is ridiculous. Also, 2560 is irrelevant? Yeah, 5 years ago people were gaming at 1280x1024 and 1080p was irrelevant. I bet those people weren't spending 500$ for 1024x768.....

What you spend on your GPU's = what you spend on your display. IMO. Thats what the 680, 7970, 690, etc so on and so forth are for - surround and super high resolution. Anyone spending 500$ on a gpu and 200$ on a crap TN 23 incher is crazy...IMO

Do they make any 120hz 2560 X 1440 display's? Then i see no reason to even consider upgrading from 1920X1080 to one. I will never go back to 60hz. If i could get an Ultrasharp at 120hz i'd order it today but what kind of person wastes 1200 on an Ultrasharp and have it only 60hz?

 

[blackened23]

I agree with your overall sentiment. It reminds me of seeing pictures of peoples setups showing the fancy desk, 3 or 4 multi-monitor setup, $3000 rig with all the bells and whistles.... all paired with a $19.99 wal-mart office chair. Those ones always blow my mind. Comfort is #1 for me.

But limiting yourself to a gtx 560ti for 1080p? No thanks. Many games won't handle ultra settings with AA/AF and keep minimum frame rates above 60 with that. I do agree that better monitor(s) are one of the best investments though, up there with SSDs and a good chair.

True, but even SLI setups can't run ultra maxed settings in some games. Witcher 2 and metro 2033 come to mind. I still think that 400-500$ for 1080p is ridiculous, you can easily lower 1-2 settings on a 560 448 and maintain 60 fps. Crysis 2 looks 98% as good on ultra vs extreme. You can lower the preset in witcher 2 for 60 fps on older cards and it looks 98% as good. No SLI setup in the world can run ubersampling.

The point is, SPEND AS MUCH ON YOUR DISPLAY AS YOUR GPU. (IMO of course)

 

[DeeJayeS]

Do they make any 120hz 2560 X 1440 display's? Then i see no reason to even consider upgrading from 1920X1080 to one. I will never go back to 60hz. If i could get an Ultrasharp at 120hz i'd order it today but what kind of person wastes 1200 on an Ultrasharp and have it only 60hz?

OT, but I just can't bring myself to use a TN panel...wtb an IPS based 120hz 24" 1920x1200 monitor

 

[Olikan]

True, but even SLI setups can't run ultra maxed settings in some games. Witcher 2 and metro 2033 come to mind. I still think that 400-500$ for 1080p is ridiculous, you can easily lower 1-2 settings on a 560 448 and maintain 60 fps. Crysis 2 looks 98% as good on ultra vs extreme. You can lower the preset in witcher 2 for 60 fps on older cards and it looks 98% as good. No SLI setup in the world can run ubersampling.

The point is, SPEND AS MUCH ON YOUR DISPLAY AS YOUR GPU. (IMO of course)

run to the hills...save your life!

no, seriously, there is many enthusiast here....ppl that can buy stuff without thinking twice...
actually i don't blame them, nor do i care.... but sometimes i get annoyed

 

[Don Karnage]

Still no Asus 670's.... Come on man. I have money burning a hole in my pocket.

 

[cmdrdredd]

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.

 

[Don Karnage]

Blackened now has me scouring the web for the best price on a U3011

 

[Elfear]

Nvidia released a seriously good card at $399. Didn't expect it to perform so closely to the 680. Power consumption is very impressive compared to the 7000 series cards. AMD will probably make some price cuts as a result if there are no supply issues with the 670.

Hopefully some review sites will do some overclocked comparisons. It doesn't look like the 670 scales as well as the 7000 series at this point. Going by Anandtech's review the EVGA SC card had a 17% overclock (using average clocks as baseline) and gained 10% more performance.

A 7970 at 1200Mhz has a 30% overclock which gives it almost twice as much headroom as Anandtech's 670SC. It also scales better. Since the 670 SC basically equals a stock 7970, overclocking results might justify the higher price of the 7970.

For users that don't oc though the 670 is a better buy.

 

[Don Karnage]

Nvidia released a seriously good card at $399. Didn't expect it to perform so closely to the 680. Power consumption is very impressive compared to the 7000 series cards. AMD will probably make some price cuts as a result if there are no supply issues with the 670.

Hopefully some review sites will do some overclocked comparisons. It doesn't look like the 670 scales as well as the 7000 series at this point. Going by Anandtech's review the EVGA SC card had a 17% overclock (using average clocks as baseline) and gained 10% more performance.

A 7970 at 1200Mhz has a 30% overclock which gives it almost twice as much headroom as Anandtech's 670SC. It also scales better. Since the 670 SC basically equals a stock 7970, overclocking results might justify the higher price of the 7970.

For users that don't oc though the 670 is a better buy.

I expect hardocp to do a max overclocked 7970 vs 670 comparo within the next few days

 

[Lepton87]

You guys are forgetting something, GTX670 is only cheaper than 7970 in THE USA. In other parts of the world they are the same price and 7950 is significantly cheaper.
Where's my OC comparison to 7950@1200/1600. It might be an interesting fight. I don't care about 670 stock comparison to stock 7950 because that cards is clearly left with insane headroom. After OC 7950 may actually come up on top.

 

[Ieat]

I hope these same people were defending the gtx 480 2 years ago. I mean that card was actually faster at stock and scaled better overclocked then a 5870. Now we got people saying stock performance doesn't matter, noise doesn't matter, power consumption doesn't matter and price doesn't matter. lol

 

[Don Karnage]

You guys are forgetting something, GTX670 is only cheaper than 7970 in THE USA. In other parts of the world they are the same price and 7950 is significantly cheaper.
Where's my OC comparison to 7950@1200/1600. It might be an interesting fight. I don't care about 670 stock comparison to stock 7950 because that cards is clearly left with insane headroom. After OC 7950 may actually come up on top.

I don't think the 7950 max oc could keep up with a max oc 670.

Newegg just dropped the Asus 7870 to 334.99.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I know this term gets thrown out of a lot, but I think we want to know in which games NV or AMD cards perform better. That is the exact point of buying a card that suits each of us based on the games we play. If 70% of games run faster on AMD cards, we want to know that; and same for NV. It just happens to be in more recent games GTX670/680 do really well and that matters more to a lot of gamers than trying to max out Metro 2033 (we already know it takes > 4 GTX680s to do that at 2560x1600 4AA).

If NV paid $ to work closely with developers to optimize games/drives so that games such as SKYRIM, BF3, WOW, Dirt 3, Batman AC, Crysis 2 run faster, that's a competitive advantage. AMD could have done the same by working closer with developers/optimizing drivers. We've seen with consoles how important optimization can be. Stating that those games are NV or AMD-biased is irrelevant to actual performance that a gamer will have when he/she puts the card in the system. This is like stating that we shouldn't use Starcraft 2 for CPU tests because it runs faster on SB/IVB CPUs than Bulldozer and is therefore "Intel biased". We want to know that so we don't have to spend $ on Bulldozer if we happen to play Starcraft 2, etc.

Remember in the past when FX5800/5900 series had poor performance in DX9 games? We wouldn't have said: "Oh let's discount all DX9 games because they are ATI (i.e., 9700/9800Pro) biased."

Like I've said before, TPU is more accurate because they use a wide variety of games. And guess what, when you look at most games you'll find that the quantity of NVIDIA and AMD biased games are about the same. It's about TH using games that are for the most part NVIDIA biased, painting an inaccurate picture. BTW, almost no one plays the PC versions of DiRT 3 and Batman:AC, yet you mention them in your comment knowing that.

And Intel CPUs are faster in gaming because... oh, that's right: they're faster. There's a reason why AMD uses Intel CPUs for benchmarking their graphics cards.

 

[Don Karnage]

Like I've said before, TPU is more accurate because they use a wide variety of games. And guess what, when you look at most games you'll find that the quantity of NVIDIA and AMD biased games are about the same. It's about TH using games that are for the most part NVIDIA biased, painting an inaccurate picture. BTW, almost no one plays the PC versions of DiRT 3 and Batman:AC, yet you mention them in your comment knowing that.

And Intel CPUs are faster in gaming because... oh, that's right: they're faster. There's a reason why AMD uses Intel CPUs for benchmarking their graphics cards.

I want to see some Bulldozer GTX 670 testing :biggrin:

 

[Lepton87]

I don't think the 7950 max oc could keep up with a max oc 670.

Why not? It's only 5% slower clock for clock than 7970. It's definitely a very needed comparison. In the USA gtx 670 makes a Radeon 7950 nonviable purchase but in europe this may turn out to be a very interesting comparison.

 

[tviceman]

BTW, almost no one plays the PC versions of DiRT 3 and Batman:AC

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.