You think I should go for a 7950?

HonoredShadow · *Last edited by HonoredShadow; 04-09-2012 at 22:13.*

As the question asks really! You can see my specs. Is it worth it?

Both of my cards are overclocked to 765/1125.

I mostly play BF3 atm so 3gig would be good too.

It's alot of money if it's only a slight increase in performance.

orion24 · 04-10-2012, 00:04 | posts: 809 | Location: Greece

Not even close to "worth it". After the NVIDIA 680 release, with a performance higher than the 7970 and an $500 price, the ATI 79xx cards need a price cut to remain competitive. They don't have one because NVIDIA cannot supply enough 680 cards yet. Once this happens, the HD79xx prices will be forced to go down, unless NVIDIA decides to raise the price of the 680.

Eitherway, an 7950 with the current price is not worthy. If you are about to spend this much try the 680

---TK--- · 04-10-2012, 00:18 | posts: 14,696 | Location: New Jersey, USA

450 for a 7950 or 499 for a 680. get the 680 if you can find 1

The Goose · 04-10-2012, 04:11 | posts: 1,274 | Location: shropshire,UK

from what ive read the 7970 beats the 680 at most tests and they`re cheaper ,cooler and quieter, 7970 @ £400 7950 @ £350 and £420 for 680

Agent-A01 · 04-10-2012, 04:40 | posts: 5,621 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Goose

from what ive read the 7970 beats the 680 at most tests and they`re cheaper ,cooler and quieter, 7970 @ £400 7950 @ £350 and £420 for 680

you got it backwards lol

sykozis · 04-10-2012, 04:42 | posts: 13,489 | Location: US East Coast

But at least you can buy a 7970.....lol

Agent-A01 · 04-10-2012, 04:45 | posts: 5,621 | Location: USA

actually tiger direct has some reference galaxies.. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=2279333

sykozis · 04-10-2012, 05:16 | posts: 13,489 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent-A01

actually tiger direct has some reference galaxies.. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...?EdpNo=2279333

They don't have them in stock....

Quote:

Shipping: Usually Ships in 7 - 21 Days (Details)

They're being shipped from a 3rd party as they become available.

Ryu5uzaku · 04-10-2012, 10:30 | posts: 3,190 | Location: Finland

i'm happy with my 7950 but hmm i upgraded from single 5850. this thing clocked to the max lol.

i don't know 50$ price difference is way too little to say 7950 is good buy over 680. for me it was 100€ difference to 7970 and still would be to 7970 and 680 so rather good buy. with oc to 1200 this does beat both of those cards ofc. easily. if they aren't clocked

HonoredShadow · 04-10-2012, 11:19 | posts: 2,363 | Location: Shropshire, UK

More concerned about the performance compared.

Ryu5uzaku · 04-10-2012, 13:36 | posts: 3,190 | Location: Finland

well @ 1200 / 1600 it should eat your 5850's alive no matter what. my fps in bf3 doubled while i could up everything to ultra and use 4xMSAA with steady 60fps

Rich_Guy · 04-10-2012, 14:46 | posts: 6,662 | Location: UK

Id say its worth it, as once clocked, it'll be nigh on 7970 performance (over), plus single card is always best, and it will give you 2gb more v-ram.

7970's don't need a price cut, they are around same performance as the 680, around the same price, but have 1gb more v-ram.

HonoredShadow · 04-10-2012, 16:15 | posts: 2,363 | Location: Shropshire, UK

How much faster is a 7950 (or when it's overclocked)?

Thanks again.

proliferazor · 04-11-2012, 00:07 | posts: 684

Don't listen to the benchmark b!tches, they make a huge deal over a few frames difference. The 7950 is a good card, nothing wrong with it, it does also have more on board ram which is nice for future proofing. And for clarity the 680 is also a good card as well, really you can't go wrong with either one, just remember the 7970 is supposed to be the direct competitor to 680. The 7950 is just a tad slower and a bit cheaper. Such a small amount slower you will rarely notice unless your a benchmark b!tch.

orion24 · 04-11-2012, 08:40 | posts: 809 | Location: Greece

Quote:

Originally Posted by proliferazor

Don't listen to the benchmark b!tches, they make a huge deal over a few frames difference. The 7950 is a good card, nothing wrong with it, it does also have more on board ram which is nice for future proofing. And for clarity the 680 is also a good card as well, really you can't go wrong with either one, just remember the 7970 is supposed to be the direct competitor to 680. The 7950 is just a tad slower and a bit cheaper. Such a small amount slower you will rarely notice unless your a benchmark b!tch.

7950 is not just a tad slower, nor was the 680 supposed to be a direct competitor to the 7970. It just turned out to be this way because Kepler is the better performing architecture.
The 7950 card has a performance that might leave a lot of people happy. But the presence of the 680 makes it an unworthy purchase at this time with its current price tag.
Personally if I wanted an 7950 I'd wait for the market to stabilize and would grab once its inevitable price cut arrives. If I didn't want to wait, I'd pay a few more for the 680.

Ryu5uzaku · *Last edited by Ryu5uzaku; 04-11-2012 at 17:30.*

100€ price difference around here makes no sense to buy 7970 or 680 tho imo not that big difference in performance if you will oc.

Hard to say how much faster it is than anything cause my processor is goddamn weak i get bad gpu usage in everything yet it did double frames with higher settings from 5850

in bf3 my fps is solid 60 1920x1200 all maxed 4xmsaa with 68-80 gpu usage thats mp, no FXAA on tho but i didn't really notice that much difference in iq.

NiColaoS · *Last edited by NiColaoS; 04-12-2012 at 05:56.*

I can't say either what's exactly the performance difference... But in BF3 from rather slow-motion ( smooth slow-m, not choppy ) in full Ultra ( 1080p ), it becomes 100% playable with the clock being at 1100Mhz, 1.175mV and 64C Max.

I got mine 400€ ( WindForce, not ref ) while the 7970 ref had 120€ difference and the 7970 WindForce even greater ( 170€ ). Currently we've very few choices of 680's and one example, Gigabyte ref 560€... That means, 160€ difference. This is always the case in my small country, they're raping us especially at the beginning.

This makes my purchase seem normal/logical, although If I was in USA, I'd certainly regret it. But the fact is, what I see on YouTube, simple users have uploaded videos on BF3... It's not that amazing they made us believe... The card on Ultra is many times around 50+ FPS... That's -almost- my card if I give exactly the same overclock as the 680, 1050Mhz... But still, ok... If you're in USA, give a few more and get the 680.

I'm really not trying to create excuses out of nowhere. I was 12 years in Nvidia's camp, first time in AMD's. And I don't live in US where the prices are better and normal, without surprises, especially when our suppliers have to convert the US to EUR. Usually 1US=1EUR here. Madness... :S

sykozis · 04-12-2012, 04:08 | posts: 13,489 | Location: US East Coast

Quote:

Originally Posted by orion24

7950 is not just a tad slower, nor was the 680 supposed to be a direct competitor to the 7970. It just turned out to be this way because Kepler is the better performing architecture.
The 7950 card has a performance that might leave a lot of people happy. But the presence of the 680 makes it an unworthy purchase at this time with its current price tag.
Personally if I wanted an 7950 I'd wait for the market to stabilize and would grab once its inevitable price cut arrives. If I didn't want to wait, I'd pay a few more for the 680.

Go back to the nVidia section....geezus. The GTX680 was in fact intended to compete with the HD7970. If it wasn't, it wouldn't carry the labelling that nVidia designates as a "high-end" graphics cards.

angmar · 04-12-2012, 04:32 | posts: 1,019 | Location: Monmouth County, NJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by sykozis

Go back to the nVidia section....geezus. The GTX680 was in fact intended to compete with the HD7970. If it wasn't, it wouldn't carry the labelling that nVidia designates as a "high-end" graphics cards.

Sometimes you are just down right rude and hostile. You really come off as a real fanboy when you talk like that. Go back to the nvidia section? Not everyone is a fanboy some people are actually just giving unbiased advice. Nothing he said was untrue....and it's pretty much common knowledge now that gk104 was not originally intended to be placed where it's at.

NiColaoS · *Last edited by NiColaoS; 04-12-2012 at 06:08.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by angmar

Sometimes you are just down right rude and hostile. You really come off as a real fanboy when you talk like that. Go back to the nvidia section? Not everyone is a fanboy some people are actually just giving unbiased advice. Nothing he said was untrue....and it's pretty much common knowledge now that gk104 was not originally intended to be placed where it's at.

In other words, GTX680 should cost 250$ ( as the initial plan to get the name GTX660 Ti ), right? But the situation went so bad in AMD's camp and so well in Nvidia's and took advantage, right? Well, I really want to believe you, but do you have any proof? "Common knowledge" doesn't mean much... What tells us that Nvidia hasn't a serious problem in try to release a so powerful card you're talking about? Seriously, I don't say you're not correct, but I'd just like proof, 'cause what you're claiming now, I can claim exactly the opposite... Rumors.

They're only 2 companies... I strongly believe, they don't have any reason to make 2 & 3 steps further at once... They can take their time both and sell as many as they can... Like Intel's tik-tocks... Certainly Intel can skip 1-2 tick-tocks and give us now the Ivy's successor, but why?

angmar · *Last edited by angmar; 04-12-2012 at 06:44.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by NiColaoS

In other words, GTX680 should cost 250$ ( as the initial plan to get the name GTX660 Ti ), right? But the situation went so bad in AMD's camp and so well in Nvidia's and took advantage, right? Well, I really want to believe you, but do you have any proof? "Common knowledge" doesn't mean much... What tells us that Nvidia hasn't a serious problem in try to release a so powerful card you're talking about? Seriously, I don't say you're not correct, but I'd just like proof, 'cause what you're claiming now, I can claim exactly the opposite... Rumors.

They're only 2 companies... I strongly believe, they don't have any reason to make 2 & 3 steps further at once... They can take their time both and sell as many as they can... Like Intel's tik-tocks... Certainly Intel can skip 1-2 tick-tocks and give us now the Ivy's successor, but why?

i'm not going to argue....it really is common knowledge at this point. The fact that gk110 already existed at the time of them releasing gk104 should really be all the proof you need...or the low tdp...or the 256 bit bus or the 2gb of ram....or the simple fact that it's called gk104 the same number they used for the gtx 460 and 560...or how there is pics of the card saying GTX 670 engraved on the cooler on some websites. They changed there mind last minute. It's pretty damn obvious they didn't initially plan on releasing it as a GTX 680 until they realized they could get away with it when AMD under performed and now they will release there actual large gpu in a couple months without having to do a bunch more R&D Quite frankly it pissed me off that they decided to call it a 680 and charge 500 dollars for it so I didn't buy it. I will wait for there real kepler high end large die gpu or if AMD manages to have some secret weapon nobody knows about coming out in a couple months that beats gk110 then obviously I will get that. But I really am not trying to get into some off topic debate.

proliferazor · 04-12-2012, 06:59 | posts: 684

Guys I wasn't talking about pre release. At the time of release and right now, the 680 and the 7970 are ment to compete.

That said, yep it really is a mid range chip in disguise, the reason for this however is unknown. It could be they couldn't make the high end for whatever reason, or maybe they didn't need to.

/sarcasm
My opinion though, is better than everyone else's. Since Nvidia is clearly late to the party they needed to get something out the door fast. The mid range card was good to go but not the high end. However the card performed well enough compared to the ATI high end product. And they switched up the labels and released it.

Also worth noting that the state of the gk110 is currently unknown.

For people who think nvidia must have a baddass card for the gk110. This could be the case but unlikely. If nvidia could have crushed amd why wouldn't they? First there is no known benchies for that chip so any one saying this is just guessing. Second, even if they do have a really good card ready in the gk110 that they will release soon, amd has had their cards out longer and have had all this time to make an even better card too. So if nvidia releases the gk110 and it pwns the 7970 + 680 by 20-30% amd could be ready to release a new card as well that matches or ups the ante yet again

In any case the last few paragraphs are just my opinion, which is better than yours.

aless83 · 04-12-2012, 08:34 | posts: 158 | Location: Madrid, Spain

Quote:

Originally Posted by HonoredShadow

As the question asks really! You can see my specs. Is it worth it?

Both of my cards are overclocked to 765/1125.

I mostly play BF3 atm so 3gig would be good too.

It's alot of money if it's only a slight increase in performance.

Back to the question...

I would buy the cheapest 7950 you can find, it has enough power and is cheaper (where I live) than the 7970. Don't care about marketing strategy or if the 7970 competing with the 680 or with the future GK 110 etcetc blabla.
You can also look into the 7870, hilbert's review shows they have a really good bang/buck ratio.

happy gaming!

sTOrM41 · 04-12-2012, 08:46 | posts: 241 | Location: Germany

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryu5uzaku

well @ 1200 / 1600 it should eat your 5850's alive no matter what. my fps in bf3 doubled while i could up everything to ultra and use 4xMSAA with steady 60fps

plz show me how ur 7950 beats this

http://666kb.com/i/c2vn0dly1maemje34.jpg

5850 crossfire and 7950 is equal,
the main problem with 5850 cf is that u only have 1gb vram.

enough power for ultra settings in bf3 + 4*aa , but to less vram for it..

aless83 · 04-12-2012, 10:52 | posts: 158 | Location: Madrid, Spain

Quote:

Originally Posted by sTOrM41

plz show me how ur 7950 beats this

http://666kb.com/i/c2vn0dly1maemje34.jpg

5850 crossfire and 7950 is equal,
the main problem with 5850 cf is that u only have 1gb vram.

enough power for ultra settings in bf3 + 4*aa , but to less vram for it..

Are you aware that you're on a PCIxpress @x4 bus? or am I wrong?