Even 1.3GHz with boost will be very hard to find.
It seems 680 and 7970 can clock head to head. There is not much difference there.
What's the performance clock for clock?
680 is clocked faster and boost keeps kicking in as well. How is that clock for clock?Why does that matter? At 1125Mhz for the 7970 vs 1187Mhz for the 680 the 680 is still overall faster while using 100 watts less and still doesn't sound like a jet engine taking off 16 inches away from your ear like the 7970 does. :thumbsup:
I wish these reviews would all put a beefy (same %) overclock on the two cards and let them duke it out in their full selection of games, because it's hard to draw a conclusion when the two card's performance is all over the place form website to website. Who am I going to believe, when, for example, this happens:
Crysis2 1920x1200 or 1920x108 with AA
website/hd7970/gtx680
guru 3d 61/63
hexus 54/66.4
techreport 51/48
hardwarecanuks 69/76
computerbase 43/52
TPU 61/63.7
alienbabeltech 51/64
it's even worse with metro 2033. Both cards absolutely slaughter each other in this game depending on the review (and yes, the 7970 wins more than once, both cards do)
7970s don't have one stock voltage though. The voltage they run at is based on their ASIC quality. There are actually voltage levels between the ones below. My card is between 80-85% quality and fires up at 1.074.
On that note, overclocking utilities will be adding support for GPU Boost over the coming weeks. The first overclocking utility with support for GPU Boost is EVGA’s Precision X, the latest rendition of their Precision overclocking utility. NVIDIA supplied Precision X Beta 20 with our review samples, and as we understand it that will be made available shortly for GTX 680 buyers.
Why does that matter? At 1125Mhz for the 7970 vs 1187Mhz for the 680 the 680 is still overall faster while using 100 watts less and still doesn't sound like a jet engine taking off 16 inches away from your ear like the 7970 does. :thumbsup:
680 is clocked faster and boost keeps kicking in as well. How is that clock for clock?
Look at all the 4gb cards EVGA has on the plate
http://www.evga.com/articles/00669/#GTX680HydroCopper
25x16 is about to be as ugly as 19x12.
Actually the voltages I listed are very realistic for HD7970 cards. Did you take a look at average overclocks on air for cream de la crop HD7970 range?
Here is a Asus Direct CU II TOP - One of the most stringent bins of HD7970's in the industry:
The Makings Of ASUS TOP Graphics Cards.
That super-binned 7970 chip needed 1.3V to reach 1250mhz on air. At 1150mhz, HD7970 can't beat GTX680 and costs more. That means you are really getting into insane overclocking gambling trying to find a chip that'll do 1250mhz easily with an aftermarket cooler on 7970.
vs. Reference GTX680 with 0 chip binning, no after market cooling, no beefed up components, for less $?
That was done by kingpin with a special modded VRM soldered on the board and a special BIOS. Wizzard is saying that the standard BIOS has a hard GPU boost limit coded in... Did you read the entire article....:thumbsup:
REVIEW LINKS
Xbitlabs Review ~ HD7970 benefits more from overclocking in % terms since its stock speeds are only 925mhz
<snip
Nice, my 680s just shipped from newegg. Doubt I will get them tomorrow though. Even using the fastest shipping newegg Canada shipments coming from their California warehouse take 2 days.
Managed to sell all 3x480s to one guy for $580. Satisfied. Hope he stays nice and toasty this Summer ()
How does clock for clock matter again?
Nobody cares, just like nobody cares with cpu's.
Both cards can run with the same clocks. It seems 7970 is faster at the same clocks.How does clock for clock matter again?
Nobody cares, just like nobody cares with cpu's.
The only time you do clock for clock is when you want to see the IPC improvements from one design to another, gpu's have totally different designs, so there is zero point in doing a clock for clock comparison.
Instead, let's do a watt vs watt comparison, now 220 TDP is going to require a ton of overclocking on the 680, but I'm sure someone will manage it. It should be interesting to see how superior Nvidia is in this area since it's the only thing people wanted to talk about with GF100. They never wanted to talk about how it was faster, producing 40+ percent overclocks, had GPGPU, nope, none of that mattered back then, so let's continue to ignore it or do we flip flop on forums?
At least the reviewers have stayed consistent, even [H] recommend the 680 over the 7970 and they reviewed a 7970 that did 1300MHz.
How does clock for clock matter again?
Nobody cares, just like nobody cares with cpu's.
The only time you do clock for clock is when you want to see the IPC improvements from one design to another, gpu's have totally different designs, so there is zero point in doing a clock for clock comparison.
Instead, let's do a watt vs watt comparison, now 220 TDP is going to require a ton of overclocking on the 680, but I'm sure someone will manage it. It should be interesting to see how superior Nvidia is in this area since it's the only thing people wanted to talk about with GF100. They never wanted to talk about how it was faster, producing 40+ percent overclocks, had GPGPU, nope, none of that mattered back then, so let's continue to ignore it or do we flip flop on forums?
At least the reviewers have stayed consistent, even [H] recommend the 680 over the 7970 and they reviewed a 7970 that did 1300MHz.
Nice, my 680s just shipped from newegg. Doubt I will get them tomorrow though.
YOU buying nV cards??!! I'm sure some people's heads just exploded lol :biggrin:
He's obviously dissecting them in AMD's laboratories to see what kind of dirt he can dig up on them.
Instead, let's do a watt vs watt comparison, now 220 TDP is going to require a ton of overclocking on the 680, but I'm sure someone will manage it. It should be interesting to see how superior Nvidia is in this area since it's the only thing people wanted to talk about with GF100. They never wanted to talk about how it was faster, producing 40+ percent overclocks, had GPGPU, nope, none of that mattered back then, so let's continue to ignore it or do we flip flop on forums?
At least the reviewers have stayed consistent, even [H] recommend the 680 over the 7970 and they reviewed a 7970 that did 1300MHz.
I was going to say stick with computerbase, TPU, and hardware canucks, but there is a significant difference between the 3 of them that is pretty representative of your entire list. I assume that they all used different levels of AA?