GTX 680 vs HD 7970 at roughly the same clocks

[ViperXtreme]

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...clocks/?page=2

Not exactly same clocks due to the gpu boost

[h0d]

nice review !

[WhiteLightning]

thanks for the share!

[Elder III]

Nice comparison - I would opt for a 7970 if going with a triple monitor setup due to the higher VRAM, but for anything else I would have to get a 680...... at least at current prices, there's no reason not to.

[k1net1cs]

Originally Posted by Elder III

I would opt for a 7970 if going with a triple monitor setup due to the higher VRAM, ...

If you're going to do it with two cards, the amount of VRAM might not matter that much.

[orion24]

Originally Posted by ViperXtreme

Not exactly same clocks due to the gpu boost

GPU boost barely makes any difference. NVIDIA has a clear architecture winner with Kepler, something not very surprising considering the AMD tight budget for development (I was actually surprised how they managed to compete all these years after the combined R600 fiasko and Intel Conroe comeback).

If you do an apples to apples Kepler vs Tahiti comparison, you need 2 cards with similar size/voltage/manufacturing process GPUs and the same memory interface. You can do some basic prediction by calculating:

Kepler die size at GTX 680: 295
Tahiti die size at HD 7970: 365
Memory interface of GTX 680: 256
Memory interface of HD 7970: 384

To simulate the performance of a 295 sized Tahiti (that would mean less processing units), downclock the 7970 at 295/365 of the stock clock, that will be about 748 MHz core clock
To simulate the performance of a 256-bit Tahiti (less memory bandwidth), downclock the memory clock at 256/384 of the stock clock, that would be about 917 MHz memory clock

This would approximate an apples to apples Kepler vs Tahiti: GTX 680 vs HD 7970 @ 748 core / 917 memory.

The clear superiority of Kepler will allow NVIDIA a lot of strategic moves. Eg, already it sells a mid-high end range product (size & production cost wise) at $500 (very profitable). It can alternatively try to bring AMD down to its knees financially by selling the GTX 680 at $300 (still profitable) and bringing the AMD sales very low, or forcing it to sell well below production cost to stay competitive, etc. We'll see what it'll do after TSMC gives it a unit quantity it can supply the market without shortages

[Rich_Guy]

Yeah won't be the same clocks seen as the 680 auto overclocks itself, so unless you can disable that, its an overclocked 680 against a stock 7970 everytime

[---TK---]

Can't take the fact your card is not no 1 Richy lol

[Rich_Guy]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

Can't take the fact your card is not no 1 Richy lol

Can't take the fact the 680 is not No 1, has to share it with that crap 7970, you must be seething

[---TK---]

its not me thats obviously annoyed just have to look for your posts in different threads here. it had a 10 week run and is almost as fast as a 680 enjoy your card.

[Denial]

I still don't see what the hell the point of this is. It doesn't give you a gauge of the architecture at all as different designs utilize the clock completely differently.

I also don't understand how people are calling GPU Boost an overclock. If you're going to use words use them correctly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/overclock

greater speeds than the manufacturer intended

Nvidia definitely intends the card to run at GPU Boost speeds, hence the reason why they implemented it. Stop looking at it differently.

[---TK---]

its an out of box feature just like the extra 1 gb of vram on the 7970. speed boost is technically not an oc as per above.