680 DCII looks decent. http://www.guru3d.com/article/asus-geforce-gtx-680-asus-directcu-ii-top-review/1
Get MSI. Sapphire voids warranty if you remove the stock cooler. MSI lets you go with better cooling in the future if ever you require that. Besides, I prefer MSI to Sapphire these days
And if you plan to do water cooling then 7970 > 680 period. 7970 can mange 1250-1375 range core depending on your card, but more often than not most manage 1270/1280 at least and several manage 1300+ with water cooling.
And 3D Mark 2011 is one place where 680 is better than the 7970, and the difference is no where similar in real world benchmarks.
But I have heard of pretty good things especially about reference MSI 7970's. And many of their Lightening cards are very good as well. And I was talking of water cooling with extreme volts for that high. I personally use 1175 at 1.168 V for mine with 1625 at stock mem volts.
So you think every watercooled 7970 with max volts will do 1250-1375?
Not every 7970 will hit that high, but since Tahiti is so sensitive to temperature the odds would be in your favor.
This.
It is like 70-80% 7970s should manage at least 1230-1270+ on water cooling. And at least 20-40% should probably touch 1300+ with water cooling.
As we know it is like 95% of them do 1125 with the stock cooler with stock volts.
So let me know if this is what you guys are advocating.
Buying a 7970, spending $120 on a water block, buying a pump, res, rad, fans for all of it, because it might be about as fast as a 680 reference card while drawing upward of 100-150 more watts?
as if people who want to go watercooling are only doing it because they want a 7970, sheesh..
It doesn't take watercooling to topple the mighty 680. Just open up Catalyst Control Center, click a tab and slide the sliders to the right and enjoy. This can now be done at a cheaper cost of a 680 and they are actually in stock. The power draw increase is irrelevant to anybody living in the U.S.. What will that cost the average American Joe to run over it's lifetime? :whiste:
Remember.. I came from Fermi, so don't use any power arguments with me. You are blowing the power consumption numbers wayyy out of proportion. Those are absolute peak numbers and in no way way representative of average power consumption while gaming.
My entire rig running Batman AC pulls roughly 435-450w. That is with a 4.4 2600k, 7970 @1125, GTX 285, soundblaster, 2 ssd, 1 hdd, optical, 6gb ram and lots of fans. Power consumption may be higher but it is hardly of any concern.
Oh and where can we purchase these vaporware 680's?
yeah, right. 21% OC in not enough to overcome 5% performance deficit.Did I say that? I didn't think I did, maybe I did though so please quote it in your response.
1125MHz isn't enough to beat it on avg, sorry.
Maybe we should find out what specific needs the OP has, as far as what games he's playing?
A water cooled 7970 beats a water cooled 680. Period. I don't have the patience to explain maths to every person out there. Read the articles I have written if you want more details. But once water cooled 7970, is better in every way.
Power means zilch. It is pocket change and most of us can afford 1000-1200 watts PSUs especially those who go for water cooling.
And you are joking if you are just showing one benchmark, and the 7970 didn't even have the patch that time. With the patch with 1440p MAX no AA I rarely go below 60 FPS minimum, and 70-80 FPS average throughout the game. Your FPS are before the patch and so are all BF3 benchmarks on the internet.
Besides, it is just one game. There are games where the reverse is nearly true. Which? Pay me to answer, will leave my paypal id for you,
Besides that isn't 1190 but 1000 or 1070 max.
Did I say that? I didn't think I did, maybe I did though so please quote it in your response.
1125MHz isn't enough to beat it on avg, sorry.
There is a reason they're in stock, at nearly $500 after ridiculous price gouging they're still the worse choice compared to the 680.
I dunno, don't care, but it was worth mentioning as I've heard it in every thread since 2010.
You, you, you, you, let me know when "you" = OP.
Great, 1125 isn't enough though!
Anything worth getting is worth waiting for.
I think it's funny how you're attacking me for suggesting the 680 might, perhaps, by a long shot, be a better choice. It's nice to know where you stand.
Why?
He didn't ask AMD or Nvidia. He asked between two brands of cards.
Do you have an answer for his question?
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Of course there is always the option of the 680 as well... but imo it has a few drawbacks... ugh this is difficult lol
A water cooled 7970 beats a water cooled 680. Period. I don't have the patience to explain maths to every person out there. Read the articles I have written if you want more details. But once water cooled 7970, is better in every way.
Power means zilch. It is pocket change and most of us can afford 1000-1200 watts PSUs especially those who go for water cooling.
And you are joking if you are just showing one benchmark, and the 7970 didn't even have the patch that time. With the patch with 1440p MAX no AA I rarely go below 60 FPS minimum, and 70-80 FPS average throughout the game. Your FPS are before the patch and so are all BF3 benchmarks on the internet.
Besides, it is just one game. There are games where the reverse is nearly true. Which? Pay me to answer, will leave my paypal id for you,
Besides that isn't 1190 but 1000 or 1070 max.
A 1100 7970 >= stock 680. If the 7970 had a stock at 1100 it was the better card. No two ways about it.
Even a 1050 7970 ~= stock 680 with minor variations here and there. But no card is better in this case either.
a 680 stock can only be 5-7% better avg when 7970 is at 925 Mhz.
Why not stick to the two cards the OP specifically asked about after he even clarified he had it narrowed down. Rather than explode his thread with irrelevancy for the sake of picking fights.