Any news on nvidia 7xx?

[wolfeking]

CCC is still troublesome

It is not so much troublesome, as difficult to work with, and that is with the latest stable drivers too.

and Linux support probably hasn't improved.

Not true. Linux support is a lot better now than it ever has been. At least with 12.11 and 13.1 it is.

 

[salvage-this]

As long as CCC doesn't break my system like it did then I'll probably be fine with it. I configure most everything out of CCC.

Good to hear that Linux and AMD are playing nicely (at least for now). Are you using the default drivers or did you download them from AMD?

 

[wolfeking]

It did not break my system when I used it. Right now it is not broken. Just limited on what I could do (gaming is not my primary use, and CCC did not play nice with CAD and direct compute apps.

I use 13.1 legacy that I got from amd.com. Default drivers are fine, as long as you are set on no gaming or compute apps in linux.

 

[FuryRosewood]

Id still go with the nvidia card. The newest drivers have pushed the 600 series card to lean on the boost more, and has improved performance quite a bit at least for me. In demanding situations my 680 hits 1228mhz and stays there. I am quite impressed with what the latest driver updates have done performance wise, however they do not downclock on idle, you have to install nvidia inspector and run multi-display power saver with more than one display attached. And by no means go with a 1000 dollar card when new cards are around the corner that likely will close the gap on those expensive solutions for much less money.

 

[wolfeking]

don't get me wrong Fury, I would go Nvidia also. But no harm in clearing up some misconception about AMD along the way.

 

[Geoff]

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to assume that Crysis 3 is pretty tough to play at the settings that would use over 3gb of VRAM. More than one card can really do easily.

With my system on Crysis 3 at the highest settings at 2560x1440 my FPS was about 6 for the first 5 minutes of the game.

 

[Spesh]

With my system on Crysis 3 at the highest settings at 2560x1440 my FPS was about 6 for the first 5 minutes of the game.

A 7970 should be able to make a better go of it than 6fps.

 

[salvage-this]

With my system on Crysis 3 at the highest settings at 2560x1440 my FPS was about 6 for the first 5 minutes of the game.

how does it play after the first 5 minutes?

 

[jonnyp11]

That first bit is probably the most demandingin the game.

 

[claptonman]

So for the people that have 1440 or 1600 monitors can you tell me what your VRAM usage is most of the time?

I know BF3 gets up to 2.2GB of Vram, but I know it'll use as much as it can get. I'll do some runs with Heaven and some other games and I'll let you know.

 

[salvage-this]

That first bit is probably the most demandingin the game.

yeah they probably want to show off the game engine.

I know BF3 gets up to 2.2GB of Vram, but I know it'll use as much as it can get. I'll do some runs with Heaven and some other games and I'll let you know.

Thanks for the information so far.

does anyone know what the performance hit is if you run out of VRAM?

 

[Spesh]

does anyone know what the performance hit is if you run out of VRAM?

When you run out of Vram you know about it. Makes the game completely unplayable. It used to happen on my 1.5gb 580's when playing BF3 on ultra.

 

[salvage-this]

Alright, I think I figured it out. I was looking around trying to find the peformance differnce between 256, 320 and 384. What I read here makes a lot of sense

Post #10 here

So I looked up benchmarks of 7970 vs 670. At 1600 here is what I found

BF3 on ultra
7970 = 33
7970 CF = 64

670 = 36
670 SLI = 68

So it looks like 670s are not having problems with high resolutions. 3gb probably would have been fine but 4gb makes be a bit more sure.

I'll probably get this and get another for SLI later down the road.

 

[jonnyp11]

Problem being No benches seem to use the latest drives so we dont know the current number as both companies have made major upgrades. But currently i can't see your link, forums are down for upgrading, so no clue what drivers they used.

 

[salvage-this]

Hopefully the link comes up here soon.

You have a point, but from my experience I think that the drivers can really only improve from release. I know the 6xx series gained huge performance numbers in the latest revision for Bioshock Infinite. I haven't really kept up with what AMD has documented for their drivers but I would bet that optimizations are already here or on the way.

the big thing that I looked to the benchmarks for was some concrete evidence that the 256 bus was hindering the 670 and 680. I can't really tell either way.

The link was explaining that it is not so much the bus, but rather the effective bandwidth. Faster memory can have use a smaller bus and still have around the same effective bandwidth as slower memory with a wider bus.

 

[Spesh]

Alright, I think I figured it out. I was looking around trying to find the peformance differnce between 256, 320 and 384. What I read here makes a lot of sense

Post #10 here

So I looked up benchmarks of 7970 vs 670. At 1600 here is what I found

BF3 on ultra
7970 = 33
7970 CF = 64

670 = 36
670 SLI = 68

So it looks like 670s are not having problems with high resolutions. 3gb probably would have been fine but 4gb makes be a bit more sure.

I'll probably get this and get another for SLI later down the road.

That's a sensible choice IMO. SLI 4Gb 670's should last you a while.

 

[salvage-this]

I hope so.

Right now I am looking between the card that I posted earlier and the ASUS 4gb

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121659&IsVirtualParent=1

I can get it from Microcenter with a rebate for the same price as the EVGA.

So what do you think has a better card? does the cooler design matter in SLI? I will have a single slot between the two cards but I want to keep the temps low. Just for future planning, it looks like both are compatible with full cover blocks as well.

 

[Spesh]

Definitely leave a slot between the cards if you are going to be running them on air cooling.

I would go for the EVGA card, as that design will expel the hot air out the back of your case. The ASUS card does not have a closed cooler, so running SLI will make the inside of your case a bit more toasty. EVGA also have a superb warranty that covers you for after market cooling solutions. Though I'm not sure if ASUS offer this or not.

 

[salvage-this]

If I am thinking correct since both cards are compatible with full cover blocks, both cards should be using the same PCB. So there would be no overclocking advantage with the ASUS vs the EVGA other than the temps.

In the single card config ASUS would be better because of the better cooler. In SLI EVGA would be better because it would keep case temps lower.

Let me know if I am on the right track.

 

[Spesh]

Yes you're on the right track.

If you plan on going SLI and putting full cover blocks on, then just get whichever works out cheapest, provided they both take full cover blocks (double check this). IIRC, to use one of the full cover blocks on a 670 4Gb, it needs to be one of the versions that uses the 680 pcb. Though this may not necessarily still be the case.

For SLI on air cooling, go for the EVGA and for a single card on air go with the ASUS.