Vram: 2GB GTX 670 vs 3GB Sapphire HD7950 OC on single monitor

Zizo

Hey guys, am building my first rig, and just can't decide between these two cards, and hoped that your insight would help.

First off, im most like (99%) only going to use one 24' monitor with one of the cards.
I'm probably going to have the card for 2-3 years.

So originally i was going to go with the Sapphire HD7950 OC with the dual fans, because I thinks its a powerful card, remains cool, and has 3GB Vram.

Then i held off on the build until the new Kepler cards came out, and the only other one im interested in, is the GTX 670. However two things are holding me off from buying this card
1. Heat (but can be fixed by getting non-reference I guess - but temps higher than the Sapphire 7950 OC is what im trying to say)
2. Its 2GB Vram. Considering that im going to have the build for about 2-3 years, the Vram worries me that it wouldn't be enough. However since I'm thinking that I will only use one 24' monitor, it should be sufficient. Also I have read that the extra Vram as of right now (like 3GB compared to 2GB) doesn't make that big of a difference.

One last point is that the Sapphire 7950 OC in Australia where I am situated is $480
while the GTX 670 ranges from $500 - $540, so at minimum is $40 more expensive for the better non-reference versions. Also lack of availability for the GTX 670, while 7950 is available.

So what do you think, in my circumstances would be better.
To rap up:
2-3 years longevity, single 24' screen usage most likely, $40 price difference with 670 more expensive (and less availability), Vram into consideration, and heat.

Thank you

Pill Monster · 05-16-2012, 16:23 | posts: 20,495 | Location: NZ

Slightly OT but you can get a non-oc 7950 with a dual fan cooler....
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presenta...n=&lid=1&leg=0

snowdweller · 05-16-2012, 16:28 | posts: 492 | Location: Sydney

Can I ask where abouts in Aus you are? In Sydney metro theres a place in North Rocks that have 670s in stock if your from around here

Other than that the review for the 680 Palit 4gb card should be evidence enough for all checking VRAM usage these days that these new cards are pretty bloody good and will be something else slowing them down before VRAM is an issue. IMO the 670 is the choice here

Zizo · 05-17-2012, 02:50 | posts: 8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pill Monster

Slightly OT but you can get a non-oc 7950 with a dual fan cooler....
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presenta...n=&lid=1&leg=0

I'm sorry but i don't understand how this relates to my question and whats OT?

Also I was talking about the Sapphire 7950 OC edition with the dual fans, same one as you link, I believe, correct me if im wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowdweller

Can I ask where abouts in Aus you are? In Sydney metro theres a place in North Rocks that have 670s in stock if your from around here

Other than that the review for the 680 Palit 4gb card should be evidence enough for all checking VRAM usage these days that these new cards are pretty bloody good and will be something else slowing them down before VRAM is an issue. IMO the 670 is the choice here

I live in Sydney.
PCCaseGear.com have the 670 in stock so i can get it from them if need be.

However my main concern guys, and the question im basically asking is:
I know that the GTX 670 is better than the 7950 and has more features, however its only problem when compared to the 7950 is it has 2GB Vram as opposed to 3GB Vram on the 7950.

Now my question is, do you think that on a single 24" monitor, 2GB of Vram will be enough with games coming up in the next 2-3 years. As i will have the card for about 2-3 years, so the last thing i want is a Vram bottleneck. So will 2GB be enough or should I opt for the slightly worse card (7950) which has the more Vram?

Spets · 05-17-2012, 02:53 | posts: 1,439

http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-...tream-review/1
Speaks for itself, there's no difference in any games unless you're running Skyrim with 1000 mods.

Quote:

should I opt for the slightly worse card

It's not just slightly worse, the 670 beats the 7970 in almost all benchmarks.

Nichtswisser · 05-17-2012, 04:29 | posts: 263

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spets

http://www.guru3d.com/article/palit-...tream-review/1
Speaks for itself, there's no difference in any games unless you're running Skyrim with 1000 mods.

It's not just slightly worse, the 670 beats the 7970 in almost all benchmarks.

To be fair, a 670 at stock is pretty much how much performance you get while 7950/7970 offer at least 30% room for upwards OC and scale almost 1:1 with increasing clock speed while 670/680 cards offer far less room for OC and scale very poorly. At 1200/1500 a 7970 beats an overclocked 680 in most benchmarks ans so does a 7950 @ 1100/1500 a 670.

Frohman0905 · 05-17-2012, 10:04 | posts: 939 | Location: Belgium

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichtswisser

To be fair, a 670 at stock is pretty much how much performance you get while 7950/7970 offer at least 30% room for upwards OC and scale almost 1:1 with increasing clock speed while 670/680 cards offer far less room for OC and scale very poorly. At 1200/1500 a 7970 beats an overclocked 680 in most benchmarks ans so does a 7950 @ 1100/1500 a 670.

Not really. An overclocked 670 still beats an overclocked 7950 in the majority of games. An overclocked 680 is about on pair with an overclocked 7970.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._gaming_perf/3

Nichtswisser · 05-17-2012, 10:54 | posts: 263

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frohman0905

Not really. An overclocked 670 still beats an overclocked 7950 in the majority of games. An overclocked 680 is about on pair with an overclocked 7970.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._gaming_perf/3

7950 @1050 vs 570 @1234?

Raise the core clock on the 7950 to 1150 and the cards are on equal ground with the games used. And those games they used to bench aren't very balanced either. They could have at least benched one game that is more favorable to AMD like Shogun 2 or Metro 2033. Also the 7950 deals much better with older DX9 games when the drivers lack optimization for them (which means pretty much all non AAA games).

Frohman0905 · 05-17-2012, 12:52 | posts: 939 | Location: Belgium

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichtswisser

7950 @1050 vs 570 @1234?

Raise the core clock on the 7950 to 1150 and the cards are on equal ground with the games used. And those games they used to bench aren't very balanced either. They could have at least benched one game that is more favorable to AMD like Shogun 2 or Metro 2033. Also the 7950 deals much better with older DX9 games when the drivers lack optimization for them (which means pretty much all non AAA games).

So? Overclocking is always a guess and they've clearly mentioned in their review that 1050 is their maximum stable overclock. Of course there will be people who achieve higher overclocks but it's still a miss or a hit. A 670 @ 1234 is also rather low since most reviews (and users) achieve between 1250 and 1300 on the core. On the other hand, the 7970 in their review reaches a very high overclock and still it matches an average oc'd gtx 680.

@Pill Monster,

If you take the time to read some of their reviews, you'll notice that they also try to give you an idea of the gameplay experience. For example, in their "The Witcher 2" review, the 7970 gets a higher average fps than the 680 but a less consistent framerate:

Quote:

The 5.4% faster performance the Radeon HD 7970 experienced did not make any noticeable improvements in gameplay. In fact, the GeForce GTX 680 actually provided a better gameplay experience through the entire level. While it was just a little slower, the framerates were much more consistent at all times than the Radeon HD 7970. We found that FPS on the Radeon HD 7970 would jump up and down anytime the camera changed angles quickly. This spiking that we see is present on both video cards, but more evident on the Radeon HD 7970. The Blur options available in The Witcher 2 carry a noticeable performance hit when enabled which is most likely the cause of this spiking. The GeForce GTX 680 handled the game better at these settings with smoother and more consistent gameplay.

Pill Monster · 05-17-2012, 11:22 | posts: 20,495 | Location: NZ

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frohman0905

Not really. An overclocked 670 still beats an overclocked 7950 in the majority of games. An overclocked 680 is about on pair with an overclocked 7970.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/..._gaming_perf/3

HardOCP's conclusions are misleading since they're only looking at average and max fps. This is wrong, it's the min fps that matter most.

So....the difference is;

BF3 1fps
Arkham City 15fps
Skyrim 1fps
Deus Ex 5fps

Seems pretty close overall (minus Arkham city).

errorrrr · 05-17-2012, 15:55 | posts: 362

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pill Monster

HardOCP's conclusions are misleading since they're only looking at average and max fps. This is wrong, it's the min fps that matter most.

So....the difference is;

BF3 1fps
Arkham City 15fps
Skyrim 1fps
Deus Ex 5fps

Seems pretty close overall (minus Arkham city).

If that's the case why don't you take a look at GTX 670 min FPS vs 7970's min FPS? they are quiet close as well. Any reason for 7970 then?

Noisiv · **Memory**: 4GB OCZ 5-4-4-4-12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nichtswisser

To be fair, a 670 at stock is pretty much how much performance you get while 7950/7970 offer at least 30% room for upwards OC and scale almost 1:1 with increasing clock speed while 670/680 cards offer far less room for OC and scale very poorly. At 1200/1500 a 7970 beats an overclocked 680 in most benchmarks ans so does a 7950 @ 1100/1500 a 670.

That's pretty much all incorrect. Well except that on average 7970/7950 do offer bigger OC headroom.
But that also means throwing all acoustics/electrics out of the window.

And according to computerbase.de 680/670 scale a tad better overall :

Click to show spoiler

No one should count at X% amount of overlock when buying GPU.
Besides what would be the point of buying $400 GPU,
and then overclocking it just to reach stock level of another $400 card?

You'll ending up with borked acoustics, electric bill, living span and missing out on pretty impressive Nvidia bag of goodies.

@OP Keep in mind that reference 670 fan is pretty crappy.

And their VRAM OC-ing is very lacking when compared to non-reference.
Longer PCB lines apparently...

Nichtswisser · 05-17-2012, 11:57 | posts: 263

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noisiv

That's pretty much all incorrect. Well except that on average 7970/7950 do offer bigger OC headroom.
But that also means throwing all acoustics/electrics out of the window.

And according to computerbase.de 680/670 scale a tad better overall :

Click to show spoiler

According to PCGH it's the other way around, in their benches the 680 scales roughly 0,5:1 with increasing clocks while the 7970 scales almost 1:1.

Click to show spoiler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noisiv

No one should count at X% amount of overlock when buying GPU.
Besides what would be the point of buying $400 GPU,
and then overclocking it just to reach stock level of another $400 card?

You'll ending up with borked acoustics, electric bill, living span and missing out on pretty impressive Nvidia bag of goodies.

In the end only counts what you get for your money. And I see no reason why an AMD card should have a shorter life span when run on equal clocks and voltages compared to a 670/680. Nvidia pushes those cards by default very hard while AMD leaves much room upwards unused. AMD newest cards also manage vsinc without stuttering to death.

Spets · 05-17-2012, 06:20 | posts: 1,439

Not too sure about that, seen the 670/680 with good OC headroom and performance.

Nichtswisser · 05-17-2012, 06:43 | posts: 263

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spets

Not too sure about that, seen the 670/680 with good OC headroom and performance.

Check benchmarks of the custom OC versions, like the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 680 OC for example. 10% higher clocks get you at best +5% better performance on a 680. And the higher you get the core clocks, the more the 256Bit memory interface limits the performance gain.

79xx cards on the other hand scale really really well with higher clocks.

Zizo · 05-17-2012, 08:22 | posts: 8

LOL im even more confused now, on which to go for. So the 7950 overclocks better than the GTX 670 so it would match it, is what your trying to say, so I should opt for it to get similar performance and the extra 1 GB Vram.

My main question is still:
Do you think that on a single 24" monitor, 2GB (GTX 670) of Vram will be enough with games coming up in the next 2-3 years. As i will have the card for about 2-3 years, so the last thing i want is a Vram bottleneck. So will 2GB be enough or should I opt for the (7950) which has the more Vram (3GB).

Nichtswisser · 05-17-2012, 09:15 | posts: 263

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zizo

LOL im even more confused now, on which to go for. So the 7950 overclocks better than the GTX 670 so it would match it, is what your trying to say, so I should opt for it to get similar performance and the extra 1 GB Vram.

The last part is your decision, but yes. the rest is correct. While without OC the 670 is faster, with OC the 7950 comes out at top most of the time. In most benchmarks after all the 670 runs with clocks somewhere between 1000 and 1100 against the 7950 with only 800. Yet the 7950 easily manages 1100 as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zizo

My main question is still:
Do you think that on a single 24" monitor, 2GB (GTX 670) of Vram will be enough with games coming up in the next 2-3 years. As i will have the card for about 2-3 years, so the last thing i want is a Vram bottleneck. So will 2GB be enough or should I opt for the (7950) which has the more Vram (3GB).

That I really can't answer, for a long time now consoles have crippled development and when the new consoles come out in a years or so we might or might not see a huge jump in VRAM usage.

Redemption80 · 05-17-2012, 12:01 | posts: 13,445 | Location: Glasgow

There is no guarantee of either the 7950 or the 670 hitting the speeds people are throwing about.
Basing a $500 purchase on what you might get is very risky in my opinion.

I don’t think the extra 1GB makes any difference on a single screen for present games, even going up to three screens doesn’t seem to make an appreciable difference, so I think you would be fine with 2GB.
Next gen consoles aren’t likely to change this either, as they aren’t going to come with more than 2GB Vram, if anything they will lead to next gen games using vram more efficiently than what is happening presently.

Just get the card that you feel is best for you, and is the best value.

I prefer the games/engines that Nvidia sponsor and both cards are the same price over here, so it would be an easy choice of the 670 for me, but if you prefer the AMD sponsored games/engines, and/or the 7950 is a lot cheaper then it would be hard to argue against getting one of them.

Zizo · 05-17-2012, 15:13 | posts: 8

Thank you everyone for your contributions so far, it has been invaluable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redemption80

There is no guarantee of either the 7950 or the 670 hitting the speeds people are throwing about.
Basing a $500 purchase on what you might get is very risky in my opinion.

I don’t think the extra 1GB makes any difference on a single screen for present games, even going up to three screens doesn’t seem to make an appreciable difference, so I think you would be fine with 2GB.
Next gen consoles aren’t likely to change this either, as they aren’t going to come with more than 2GB Vram, if anything they will lead to next gen games using vram more efficiently than what is happening presently.

Just get the card that you feel is best for you, and is the best value.

I prefer the games/engines that Nvidia sponsor and both cards are the same price over here, so it would be an easy choice of the 670 for me, but if you prefer the AMD sponsored games/engines, and/or the 7950 is a lot cheaper then it would be hard to argue against getting one of them.

Thanks for posting Redemption80, I found your comment among the most helpful for some reason (not saying advice from the rest wasn't fantastic, it was more than fantastic so thanks guys).

I agree with what most of you have said:
- 670 at default is better than 7950 at deafult, even the 7970.
- 1 GB less Vram wouldn't be that major a deal since im using a single monitor.
- Nvidia drivers are better

I think Nvidia have better features overall Adaptive V-sync, PhysX, etc. And support more games i think.

So therefore (For the time being before i change my mind =P) i have decided to go with the Gigabyte Windforce 2GB 670. I guess i could try it out and if the Vram becomes a problem (hopefully it won't) like next year or something, I'll sell it and get something else.

And Frohman0905 thanks for pointing this out:

Quote:

If you take the time to read some of their reviews, you'll notice that they also try to give you an idea of the gameplay experience. For example, in their "The Witcher 2" review, the 7970 gets a higher average fps than the 680 but a less consistent framerate:

Quote:
The 5.4% faster performance the Radeon HD 7970 experienced did not make any noticeable improvements in gameplay. In fact, the GeForce GTX 680 actually provided a better gameplay experience through the entire level. While it was just a little slower, the framerates were much more consistent at all times than the Radeon HD 7970. We found that FPS on the Radeon HD 7970 would jump up and down anytime the camera changed angles quickly. This spiking that we see is present on both video cards, but more evident on the Radeon HD 7970. The Blur options available in The Witcher 2 carry a noticeable performance hit when enabled which is most likely the cause of this spiking. The GeForce GTX 680 handled the game better at these settings with smoother and more consistent gameplay.

Noisiv · **Memory**: 4GB OCZ 5-4-4-4-12

@Nichtswisser
You'll reading wrong those 680 clocks @PCGH.

@1006+ does not mean card was running at 1006, nor 1304 means card was running @1304 all the time.

And lets not dwell into driver issues, aight
Because I seriously doubt anyone sane AND concerned with driver issues, would chose AMD over Nvidia

HittriX · 05-17-2012, 12:29 | posts: 96 | Location: Belgium

I would recommend a gtx 670 oc (with a better cooling solution on it).
2gb should be fine for a single monitor for a long while , and when it won't be enough anymore...those cards will be outdated anyway.

Chillin · 05-17-2012, 12:48 | posts: 5,896 | Location: Chilling

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Produ...18.419.420.421

---TK--- · 05-17-2012, 23:29 | posts: 14,730 | Location: New Jersey, USA

some people not all have a stuttering issue and it will be fixed in a future driver. nvidia takes care of its customers with fantastic after purchase care

Redemption80 · 05-17-2012, 23:29 | posts: 13,445 | Location: Glasgow

It's only a driver issue and Nvidia have acknowledged and said will be fixed in the next driver, which will likely be out by the time he has the card.
Your suggesting it's a hardware problem, when it's not.

Nichtswisser · 05-17-2012, 23:51 | posts: 263

They say so, yet they could not be bothered to get out a beta driver in like 2 months even thought they pretty much release beta drivers for any little stuff. As long as the issue isn't fixed, it might still be a hardware issue and the driver talk is just damage control. Their business is making money, not telling the truth after all.

@---TK---

Some people don't have it, or some people don't see it? I mean there are people that can't see the difference between playing with AA or playing without AA. Others claim they can't see tearing without Vsinc.