Ok I am saving up for a good g card on my new build... cannot decide between these two cards... Asus GTX 680 or Asus HD7970... The 7970 page on newegg has a 15% rma rate so far... not sure about the GTX680... I need something reliable and with good warranty coverage (brand doesn't matter may be other than Asus)...

Suggestions?

1 decade ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

whats the rest of the build

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

well, I am conflicted between

  1. corei7 3960x, rampage IV extreme x79, G skill 4x4gb DDR3 2133 mhz, OCZ vertex 3 120 Gb SSD
  2. Core i7 2700k, maximus IV extreme-z z68, G skill 2x4gb DDR3 2133 mhz, OCZ vertex 3 120 Gb SSD
1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

2 . I think Would be better, Due to i7 2700K. That and GTX680 would just be great.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

x79 platform is useless for gaming

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Take either the i7 2700K or get your hands on some newer Ivy Bridge CPU.
8GB RAM should be enough for gaming, all the time I spend in BF3 I never used more than 6GB or so. As long as you don't do any Photo / Video editing it should be enough but then again, it's super cheap at the moment.
You might want to pay attention to XMP-Profile RAM, just in case you ever need to boost it a little ... Intel® Extreme Memory Profile - Intel® XMP

Your Mainboard should be a Z68 one as it makes overclocking your CPU much more easy!

OCZ is not my favourite SSD by the way, you might want to check out some recent Crucial or Samsung!

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree with 2. The performance gain from the 3960x over 2700k is miniscule, and you save $500+. You also don't need the 16GB RAM either IMO but it doesn't really matter.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Good luck finding an available 680 that isn't jacked up in price due to their lack of availability elsewhere. I recommend the 670, it should be easier to find, and is ~$400, and performs damn near close to the 680 for $100 less, while beating the 7970 at times. Also, there's no need for you to get the 3960x, you'll see barely, if any performance increase in gaming between a 2700k and 3960x, and even for things like video encoding/rendering, while the 3960x is no doubt better for it, it doesn't mean the 2700k can't hold its own. So yea, 670, and your choice #2.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

GTX680 is what i would go with, Nvidia offer more such as CUDA, Physx. But if you want to spend less go with AMD. Before people say Eye-finity, You can do the same with nvidia.. Also whos likly to own 3 moniters, And use all for gaming, (at the same size aswell else it doesnt work).

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

AMD is that not much cheaper... the 7970 I am looking at is priced at 520 USD and the 680 at 540 USD...

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nvidia cards are usually extremely power hungry compared to AMD, so AMD is a lot cheaper in the long run.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The money saved from parts taking a bit less power is marginal to nonexistent at best. Kepler's power consump is perfectly in check. According to Techpowerup, on average the 680 uses 3w more than the 7970...so yea.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

More power equals more heat. More heat equals less life.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

...no. These cards stay well within safe range temps and have a high threshold to temperatures to the point where there'd be no worry of degradation. Unless you have your whole PC wrapped in blankets and have piss poor ventilation as a result.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I have 3 monitors for gaming. Check Steam's hardware survey if you really want to know how many do. Triple monitor will probably end up more popular than dual due to the bezel in the centre of your vision.

Support for different monitor resolutions is supposed to be added (eventually?) in the 7xxx cards. Multi-monitor support in Windows itself is piss-poor but when it works its fun.

Both cards are very good and are very similar in terms of performance and efficiency, enough so that you really should just go with whichever card has the best deal.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I doubt triple monitor would come so popular that companies will always have to support it. Most people don't have the space or money for it. (Steam hardware survey only shows the res of people with Multi-monitors, Not how many people have.)

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

only nvidia.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

along with Intel

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1 to both.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

agreed! Intel and Nvidia 4 life :D

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

680 is the better bang for your buck. I'm not sure about their reliabilty though.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nvidia are generally very reliable. I've owned 1 lasted 5 years and one more around the same. My current one ive only had a year and half, but its not showing any problems.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

bought my pc 5+ years ago with a GT 8800 on

still runs well even on recent titles

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The GT 8800 is legendary and is still running in my old comp. Though in the meantime I switched to AMD and I'm ok with it.

OT: Personally, I would go for the 7970, although the 680 is definitely the faster card.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Use nvidia, that most good graphic processor

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i would get both

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I like of liked AMD but the newest GPUs aren't that good, so go with the GTX 680

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Physx - that all I need to say :)

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

nvidia.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Have you looked at benchmarks? Bitches love benchmarks.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

GTX 670. Cheaper than either of the two you listed, and pretty much as fast. less power consumtion.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I totally agree with you.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Get the ASUS GeForce GTX 670 Direct CU II TOP. I mean look at the reviews, the ASUS Direct CU II is faster than the 680 while being quieter under load than most cards in idle, that's nuts. Plus the power consumption is less than that of the 680.

It got the first perfect 10 for a GPU from TechPowerUp.

Battlefield 3 comparison

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

when the drivers are more mature the 680 will likely be faster lol

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, go ahead and pay more for the likelihood (y) and for a card that is louder, consumes more power and is slower.

Also, not all 670s are faster than the 680s, that card just seems tremendous bang for buck. It would be the card I'd be shopping for were I in the market for a new one.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah agreed. For the price/performance ratio, the 670 is the way to go.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ati

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I hope you have a good reason to get such a high end configuration! Like running huge resolutions with multiple monitors or some O/C mania! For common gaming it's an overkill (unless we see Unreal Engine 4 in games(?)).

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

gtx

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

GTX680

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Gaming: GTX680

Bitcoin farming: HD7970

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

nVIDIA+Intel = love

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this <3

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I prefer ATi/AMD, not as a fanboy, but for multiple reasons. Of course this could be different to you. If you can't decide based on price/performance, decide by looking at heat generation, power use, drivers, known issues.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

nvidia all the way...

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

HD7970 ,last news about nvidia's problems with manufacturing are scearing

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ATI HDMI = Shit -
NVIDIA COOLERS = Shit

depends on your preference =)

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

solution: get a non-reference nvidia card with a good cooler like the msi twinfrozr 3 :)

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

my mom.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I got 2x GTX 680 and they work pretty good.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

HD7970, hands down.

AMD have the better hardware, Nvidia have the better driver.

Hardware. Hardware. Hardware.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hardware is useless if your drivers are shit

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I yet have to experience an issue with AMD's drivers. I can't say the same for Nvidia, though. My brother and I have had 5 different Nvidia graphic cards (5200, 5500, 6200, 7600GT, GTX275) over the last few years and despite having tried about 5 different versions of Nvidia's drivers with each one and multiple setups, we still ran into plenty of BSODs caused by their cursed drivers. After experiencing the same with the GTX275, we lost all faith in Nvidia's products and switched over to AMD, which is a decision we don't regret at all.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So....you and your brother bought the lowest end cards, of the lowest end series, and you expected anything to work well?

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

While the first three were low-end and one generation behind the then new graphic cards, they shouldn't have had so many issues with games that ran perfectly fine until we got a BSOD (we didn't push them hard at all, but they crashed anyway). At first I thought the same as you just said, that the low-end cards might have been the problem, so I got a 7600GT (which was mid-end at the time, Series 8 was about to be launched) and had exactly the same issue. Then, a couple of years later, my brother decided to get a GTX275 (one of the latest cards in the market at the time) to avoid issues that we thought were specific to somewhat old low-end and mid-end cards. However, it was just as unstable as any other Nvidia card we had tried, so the low-end theory was discarded; the problem was Nvidia. And to answer your question, low-end cards are supposed to work as stably as any other product, so why wouldn't I expect them to get the job done with lower quality settings? I guess that's the case with Nvidia, though, since even an old 5200 crashed as often as a then new GTX275.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nvidia have better hardware, Better technologies, Drivers arnt that great sometimes but they would be around the same as AMD. AMD is the cheap mans version, Just like them against Intel.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

680 ofc.

1 decade ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 1 decade ago by h4r5h4v3ng3r.