GTX770 (stock) vs. GTX670 OC vs. HD7950 OC vs. GTX760 OC vs. GTX660Ti OC

[Vesku]

Well, right now the price difference between 760<7950 is about the same as 7950<670. AMD is probably waiting a bit to judge how much their game bundling will buffer them in terms of amount the 7950 price will need to drop.

 

[Makaveli]

You slam the 770 too much, it's really a great card for what you get; especially if you're going to overclock them.

There has been some good points back and forth but I don't think RS has any bias towards the 770.

In the thread I created last week when I was deciding on a upgrade from 6950 he clearly presented both the 770 and the 7950 as viable options with good points to back them up.

As for this thread i'm kind of on the fence cause they both make decent arguments.

 

[Elfear]

Then again, I'm not sure the two are even in the same price bracket. The NVidia counterpart to the 7950 is the GTX 670 so

On average probably not, but there is one 7950 for $250 (after $20 rebate) and a few others in the $270-280 range. So they are actually pretty close in price right now.

 

[nikolarun]

I got my KFS2 GTX760 EX OC card today.
managed to O/C it to 1199/1319 boost and 1890 vram rock solid while still quiet with load temps in the low 70s.
paid £180 ($275) for it so quite a bit cheaper than the 7950 ( £225 or $341 ) which I was considering.

 

[RussianSensation]

This is my final word in this thread on this matter:
I have never ever seen someone linking OC article, and then discussing hypothetical performance if we lower one and raise other card over-clock.

Where do you even come up with this stuff? HD7950 is clocked at 1140 and GTX760 is tested at 1241mhz. No one is increasing HD7950's performance to 1200mhz or lowering GTX760's clocks from Xbitlabs review.

The BF3 graph you linked, I already addressed it in my post above, but apparently you didn't read my post since you just came up with the same redundant graph.

I said if you are so unhappy with the results, take the highest overclocked 760 you found at TPU and then let's take it against the highest overclocked 7950 at TPU, add BF3 driver improvements and the 7950 still won. You apparently didn't like that comparison either.

In other words, every review that shows 7950 OC beating 760 OC you dismiss. You also came up with some fallacy where I tried to lower 760's overclock when I even told you go ahead and add 10% to the core of 760 to get 1350mhz boost. Per Xbitlabs review, the 7950 OC is winning by 10% at 1440P to begin with. Even your golden sample 1350mhz 760 would just match an 1140mhz 7950 at 1440p in their testing assuming the 760 has 100% perfect scaling on the GPU core.

What's unbelievable is that instead of focusing on how much value both 760 oc and 7950 oc bring to the table, you are instead focused on derailing the entire thread on trying to find the highest 760 overclock on the internet and dismiss 7950's ability to overclock beyond 1140mhz.

There has been some good points back and forth but I don't think RS has any bias towards the 770.

If you look at 1080P testing, GTX760 oc SLI is more than sufficient for current games as a stop-gap $500-520 solution until 20nm generation hits. I am even going to put 770 in the best light but using benches from the $450 GTX770 Lightning card. Let's say you get a $400 770 that can even hit those clocks, it's getting 103.9 fps in BF3 vs. 760 oc that's getting 88.8 fps.

Therefore, in the best case scenario you are paying 54% more ($400 vs. $260) for a highest clocked 770 to get 17% more performance over 760. In SLI that's $520 vs. $800. If we look at 770 4GB versions, it's even worse. 17% more performance for 73% higher price ($900 vs. $520).

Finally, Sapphire HD7970 1Ghz is going for $310 and that provides 90% of the performance of a 770 2GB/4GB that sell for $400-450.

The reason I recommended 770 was because 7970 were hovering much closer to $400 mark and 760 wasn't launched yet. Now, the 770 hardly makes sense for 1080P or 1440P/1600P. At 1440P/1600P, GTX690 is running out of steam already, while at 1080P, $520 760 oc SLI is more than fast enough, giving up just 17% to GTX770 Lightning SLI overclocked models. Then, for 1440/1600P, 770 oc SLI isn't futureproof enough since it's too slow, and yet for 1080P, it offers far inferior value to 760 oc SLI which is fast enough for hundreds of dollars less.

Let's look at 760 oc vs. 770 oc vs 780 oc.

BF3
760 oc = 88.8
770 oc = 103.9
780 oc = 127.7

^With 770, you pay at least 54% more than a $260 760 to get 17% more performance (paying 3.17% more for 1% increase in performance over 760 oc)
^With 780, you pay 63% more than a $400 770 to get 23% more performance (Paying 2.74% more for a 1% increase over 770 oc)

But if we look at 770 4GB, the 780 3GB has enough VRAM and costs just 44% more for 23% more performance (Paying 1.91% more for a 1% increase over 770 4GB oc).

That makes 770 2GB/4GB the most overpriced card out right now in the $250-$650 price range. TechReport agrees:

"Meanwhile, the GTX 770 is in a tougher spot. When it was introduced a couple of weeks ago, its $399.99 price tag undercut the Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition. The price advantage was especially welcome since the 7970 GHz is apparently still the faster card. Now, AMD and board makers have cut 7970 GHz prices in response, and the Radeon occupies the better spot in our value plots."
Source

All these benches can to help people save $ over 770 so that they can re-use it towards 20nm. Going with 760 oc, 7950 oc, or 7970 at $310 or getting a used 670 for example for 1080P or considering 760 SLI. $800-900 on 770 SLI is just $ wasted in the current context of 760/7950/7970 and 780 pricing. It offers the worst step-up value of all the setups and doesn't have enough power for next game games. You are paying $800-900 upfront when you'd be better off just getting 780 in that case and picking up a 2nd one in 12 months, while if you just want fast 1080P performance, 760 oc SLI thrashes 770 oc SLI on value. For single GPUs, 770 isn't even a consideration at $400-450 when 7970 1Ghz is $310 with 4 free games.

 

[jacktesterson]

I've actually never found a 7950 that hits those kinds of speeds. I've already had 2 (Gigabyte 7950 locked at 1.25V and a Sapphire 7950 with unlocked voltages). Both of them max out around 1100 MHz, and not exactly stable at those speeds either.

I've also had two 7970s, and both of them maxed out at under 1100 Mhz.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong here, but I haven't seen this amazing overclocking potential in 4 cards.

You must have some [bad] luck.

I've had my hands on 2 different 7950's, both that hit 1200 core no problem

Profanity is not allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[f1sherman]

No RS. It's you who are unhappy with the OC they achieved. Both on 7950, and on GTX 760.
So you're nipping numbers on both side. Adding little to red, taking little from green card. And it's not subtle at all.

Look:

Their version only hit 1140mhz. [...]HD7950 keeps scaling beyond 1140mhz.

1140mhz on the 7950 is reasonable but not anywhere close to maximum. On the contrary the 1241 overclock on the 760 is actually closer towards the higher end of the range.

Q.E.D.

 

[Praxis1452]

I feel like you guys are missing a fact that has been stated in many anandtech video card reviews. That AMD and Nvidia don't compete directly with their cards. The launch prices of the 600,700, and 7000 series tell you that everything's a little offset. The 670 was priced more than the 7950 and less than the 7970. The 760 is taking the place of the 660 Ti, and is priced like it, which is lower than the price target for the 7950 as of now. For a straight $250 you won't find a 7950 without a MIR. If you want to spend $20-$50 more for like 10% performance gain you can repeat it all the way up to the $770. The 780 requires more of a jump in price.

7950 if you OC will probably be better performance wise. It does however draw more power and you don't get stuff like PhysX. Also maybe you prefer one's drivers over the other. Also game bundling.

If the 760 gets you the graphical settings you want at $250 then it doesn't even matter. If you need a little more, spend a little more. There are no horrendously awful deals except the 670 at full price.

 

[f1sherman]

Also why would anyone expect linear perf/$ scaling is beyond me.

Something like this sounds much more realistic:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1740250&postcount=6616


@Praxis1452

:thumbsup:

 

[Carfax83]

Now, the 770 hardly makes sense for 1080P or 1440P/1600P. At 1440P/1600P, GTX690 is running out of steam already,

Um, why are you using a GTX 690 as a reference for the performance of 770 SLI? 770 SLI would be significantly faster than a GTX 690..

while at 1080P, $520 760 oc SLI is more than fast enough, giving up just 17% to GTX770 Lightning SLI overclocked models.

The 17% comes from single card performance, not SLi. Also, that's at 1080p.

The figures you're getting for the 770 OC were taken at 1200p, so it's not directly comparable.

Then, for 1440/1600P, 770 oc SLI isn't futureproof enough since it's too slow, and yet for 1080P, it offers far inferior value to 760 oc SLI which is fast enough for hundreds of dollars less.

That's crazy. The 770 oc SLI isn't future proof enough since it's too slow, when it's right on the heels of a 780?

The 770 SLI will be good enough for at least 3 years, especially if they're the 4GB models. You're overestimating the impact that these next gen consoles will have on game development.

But if we look at 770 4GB, the 780 3GB has enough VRAM and costs just 44% more for 23% more performance (Paying 1.91% more for a 1% increase over 770 4GB oc).

For single card set ups, I would recommend a 780 over a 770 4GB, but for multi GPU, you're going to be paying 1300 USD for two 780s, vs 900 for two 4GB 770s.

It depends on the person, but 1300 is a lot of money to spend on graphics cards, especially when you can merely overclock the 4GB 770s and get similar performance for 400 less with an extra 1GB of VRAM.

This is the point of the thread - to help people save $ over 770 so that they can re-use it towards 20nm. Going with 760 oc, 7950 oc, or 7970 at $310 or getting a used 670 for example for 1080P or considering 760 SLI. $800-900 on 770 SLI is just $ wasted in the current context of 760/7950/7970 and 780 pricing. It offers the worst value of all the setups.

I don't view the 7970 as directly comparable to the 770. The 770 has extra features like PhysX, and much better multi GPU support than the 7970 Ghz..

 

[Carfax83]

Those TPU benches are a bit fishy. The results for 1080p 4xAA are the exact same results for 1200p 4xAA..

Probably just another example of reviewer laziness. Copying and pasting data rather than running the actual tests.

 

[nikolarun]

on my 1920x1200 screen running at 1200 gives much better results and lower cpu usage and temps. i guess it's due to nvidia scaling if enabled ( it is on my set-up). so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Carfax83]

Here are some more reliable results:

The MSI Lightning 770 had a boost clock speed of 1293 MHz, and it's right on the ass of the GTX 780.. Yes, you can overclock the GTX 780 as well and get even more performance, but the point is the GTX 780s at stock are fucking fast as hell and for an overclocked GTX 770 to nearly match them for 250 dollars less is pretty cool.

Source

 

[Jaydip]

How? And do legitmate RMA's affect legitmate customers? How are companies able to tell the difference?

Simple, if your card dies while operating @ default clocks you should get the warranty.But many people overclock and when their card dies they don't always disclose that to the rma department.If cards get returned because of user error the company may have to change their warranty policy which affects the consumers.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Here are some more reliable results:

The MSI Lightning 770 had a boost clock speed of 1293 MHz, and it's right on the ass of the GTX 780.. Yes, you can overclock the GTX 780 as well and get even more performance, but the point is the GTX 780s at stock are fucking fast as hell and for an overclocked GTX 770 to nearly match them for 250 dollars less is pretty cool.

Source

Stock 7970 doesn't look that great here. Where's the ghz?

 

[toyota]

Here are some more reliable results:

http://www.tbreak.com/?ACT=27&f=oc_bench.jpg&fid=8&d=960&

The MSI Lightning 770 had a boost clock speed of 1293 MHz, and it's right on the ass of the GTX 780.. Yes, you can overclock the GTX 780 as well and get even more performance, but the point is the GTX 780s at stock are fucking fast as hell and for an overclocked GTX 770 to nearly match them for 250 dollars less is pretty cool.

Source

yeah but many 770 cards dont oc that high and really its not that big of accomplishment. a 780 will scale much better with ocing and really take off. heck on oced 780 will easily beat the Titan. and also an oced non reference 780 will still mostly match an oced Titan because Titan will hit its TDP limit quicker.

 

[Carfax83]

Stock 7970 doesn't look that great here. Where's the ghz?

He probably didn't have time to bench the GHZ version or he was just being lazy. How much faster is the GHZ edition compared to the stock 7970?

 

[Carfax83]

yeah but many 770 cards dont oc that high and really its not that big of accomplishment.

I've been reading as many 770 reviews as possible since I ordered a pair of the 4GB editions, and it seems most of them will hit over 1200 MHz on boost....even the reference cards.

If they are geared towards overclocking like the MSI Lightning, Gigabyte OC or DCU II, then they will likely go up to 1250 and above since those cards run cooler and have better components.

a 780 will scale much better with ocing and really take off. heck on oced 780 will easily beat the Titan. and also an oced non reference 780 will still mostly match an oced Titan because Titan will hit its TDP limit quicker.

Yeah, the 780 is a significantly stronger card, but it also costs quite a bit more as well. I just think it's cool that despite NVidia purposely limiting the overclocking potential of the GTX 770, the 770 can still catch up to the 780, which is an extremely fast card at stock clocks.

I still think the 770 is the best bang for buck high end card out there, especially once overclocked.

 

[toyota]

I've been reading as many 770 reviews as possible since I ordered a pair of the 4GB editions, and it seems most of them will hit over 1200 MHz on boost....even the reference cards.

If they are geared towards overclocking like the MSI Lightning, Gigabyte OC or DCU II, then they will likely go up to 1250 and above since those cards run cooler and have better components.



Yeah, the 780 is a significantly stronger card, but it also costs quite a bit more as well. I just think it's cool that despite NVidia purposely limiting the overclocking potential of the GTX 770, the 770 can still catch up to the 780, which is an extremely fast card at stock clocks.

I still think the 770 is the best bang for buck high end card out there, especially once overclocked.

hardocp only hit a max boost of 1241 in their Lightning overclocking review. that seems quite lame as most 680 cards can do that and with lower voltage too.

 

[Carfax83]

hardocp only hit a max boost of 1241 in their Lightning overclocking review. that seems quite lame as most 680 cards can do that and with lower voltage too.

I guess they got a flunky, because Guru3d's card hit over 1300 on boost, TPU's almost hit 1300, Hothardware's did over 1300, Legit Review's Asus card did over 1300, overclockersclub's Twin Frozr got over 1250, hardware heaven's Lightning got nearly 1300..

Oh, and Toms tested the Gigabyte, MSI and Palit cards and all three got either close to 1300, or over it:

 

[Elfear]

I still think the 770 is the best bang for buck high end card out there, especially once overclocked.

Wait what? It trades blows with the 7970Ghz but costs $50 more (7970 also comes with 3 AAA games). Why would you say it's the best bang for the buck in high end?

 

[Leadbox]

Wait what? It trades blows with the 7970Ghz but costs $50 more (7970 also comes with 3 AAA games). Why would you say it's the best bang for the buck in high end?

Some folk only have eyes for nvidia, that level of performance for that kind of money from them, gotta rank right up there with sliced bread as the best thing ever

 

[RussianSensation]

yeah but many 770 cards dont oc that high and really its not that big of accomplishment. a 780 will scale much better with ocing and really take off. heck on oced 780 will easily beat the Titan. and also an oced non reference 780 will still mostly match an oced Titan because Titan will hit its TDP limit quicker.

Yup. This idea that 770 OC can touch the 780 does not account that 780 has higher % overclocking room than 770 does. 770 has hardly any overclocking room in it since after-market cards already boost very high. Once 780 is overclocked, it handily beats 770 or 7970GE in demanding GPU titles. 7970GE / 1Ghz 7970 are at least priced at $310-350 which gives them the price/performance crown over 780, but 770 4GB at $450 is for the lulz in comparison.

Oh, and Toms tested the Gigabyte, MSI and Palit cards and all three got either close to 1300, or over it:

That's great. 770 4GB costs $450. HD7970 1Ghz is $310. Please explain why 770 is the best bang for the buck on the high-end.

Source

For single GPUs, it's destroyed on price/performance by 7970 1Ghz / 7970GE or 7950 OC or 760 OC.

Don't say SLI either because GTX760 4GB SLI is $560 and 770 OC SLI won't be faster by more than 20% since 760 is just 2-3% behind GTX670. Sounds like you are now trying to justify your own purchase of 770s instead of looking at it objectively based purely on performance.

Adding little to red, taking little from green card. And it's not subtle at all.

I see, so you continue to ignore everything that's stated in this thread and keep beating a dead horse. First you don't agree with Xbitlabs review implying it puts 760 at a disadvantage since its boost is only 1241, yet many sites all over the net are showing similar overclocks for the average 760, including TPU, Hardware.fr where MSI Gaming OC reached 1253mhz. Then you go and make up new rules of how Kepler cards should be compared by only looking at core overclock when for the last 15 months everyone and their mother have always compared Kepler OC vs. GCN overclocked based on Kepler's boost clocks, not core clocks. No one compared Kepler based on core clocks because the cards boost in games which is why we refer to the Boost clock as the peak number for the Kepler card's overclock as Kepler OC is dynamic and has always been understood to be that way, regardless whether the card hits it in every game or not. Go ahead and check 20 professional review sites and they will all list max OC on Kepler cards as their peak Boost rate, much in the way Xbitlabs' presents it. Thirdly, you then ignore the comparison of TPU's top overclocked 7950 vs. top overclocked 760 which is as fair as it gets if you want to argue about Xbitlabs' unfair 760's overclocking. Fourthly, you ignore that Linus' review also showed 7950 OC beating 760 OC. Finally, you are making up things about me increasing 7950's performance and decreasing 760's when Xbitlabs review already shows that 7950 @ 1140mhz is beating 760 OC by 10% at 1440P, which means even if you had a 760 with Boost of 1350mhz, it would still only tie an 1140mhz 7950.

In other words, you presented no argument why 7950 OC is not better than 760 OC based on all the statistical information presented, and continue to focus on 760 OC vs. 7950 OC instead of appreciating how much the $250-260 cards now offer vs. $400-450 770, which is really what the key takeaway is to prospective GPU buyers trying to maximize their hard-earned dollars. The number of GE titles where 7950 OC will beat 760 OC is only growing, with Grid 2 and COH2 being recent additions.

 

[Carfax83]

Wait what? It trades blows with the 7970Ghz but costs $50 more (7970 also comes with 3 AAA games). Why would you say it's the best bang for the buck in high end?

Because it has extra features like PhysX, and SLI kicks the shit out of Crossfire if you plan on using more than one card like I am..

 

[Carfax83]

Yup. This idea that 770 OC can touch the 780 does not account that 780 has higher % overclocking room than 770 does. 770 has hardly any overclocking room in it since after-market cards already boost very high. Once 780 is overclocked, it handily beats 770 or 7970GE in demanding GPU titles. 7970GE / 1Ghz 7970 are at least priced at $310-350 which gives them the price/performance crown over 780, but 770 4GB at $450 is for the lulz in comparison.

How many times do I have to explain, the GTX 780 costs TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS more than the GTX 770.

You're acting as though the two are at similar price points or something. Of course the 780 is going to be much faster once overclocked, but it's also a lot more expensive too....

The whole point of overclocking is to get FREE performance to increase the value for your dollar. By overclocking a GTX 770, you're essentially getting 780 like performance for 250 dollars less. And the 780 is already a very fast card at stock clocks.

Posting all of these graphs means nothing, because most of them are using UNPLAYABLE settings.. You're intentionally using graphs which show ridiculous amounts of AA to put the Radeons in the best light possible, because they excel at high AA..

You'd have to be an idiot to play Far Cry 3 with MSAAx4 at 2560x1600 at Ultra quality on a single card, when you can have FXAA enabled via the postFX setting and have 95% of the jaggies eliminated for practically zero performance hit.

Here are some benches using more realistic settings:

That's great. 770 4GB costs $450. HD7970 1Ghz is $310. Please explain why 770 is the best bang for the buck on the high-end.

It has PhysX, which a lot of AAA games use. It has much better multi GPU performance, and it can approach GTX 780 levels of performance through overclocking.

Don't say SLI either because GTX760 4GB SLI is $560 and 770 OC SLI won't be faster by more than 20% since 760 is just 2-3% behind GTX670. Sounds like you are now trying to justify your own purchase of 770s instead of looking at it objectively based purely on performance.

And 20% is an insignificant lead is that what you're telling me?

It would be over 20% if both were overclocked by the way, since like the 780, the 770 will scale better with clock speed than the 760..

You can see a comparison here for yourself in fact.

Overclocked benches for 760

Overclocked benches for 770

I'm seeing more than 20% :whiste: