GTX670 or 7970 For THIS Game?

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, AMD had problems with original IL-2 that were FIXED! I know that for sure as I used both AMD and nVidia in IL-2, since beta as well. And I tested beta on TNT cards, Kryo cards etc. to get feedback to Oleg's team. Talk about a swap-o-rama and numb arse testing!

nVidia and AMD both make good hardware that run any game today. Even I could not use Water=4 straight with AMD there were ways to get around it, but for me FPS was more important than some a bit shinier water AMD gave me a solid 60fps with VSync, that is all that mattered at the time. So did nVidia cards I owned(up to 580GTX). So better not say AMD was nothing but trouble with IL-2.

What annoys me is this nVidia lobbying "let us give you some money to game developing..in exchange we give code that gimps AMD and you have to add that TWAT logo spinning at start up"..Every freaking game nV is involved with has something extra installed that AMD can not use..look at Skyrim and some other titles. PhysX is just a gimmick, won't go into that. AMD is not any better in this regard either so "pot and kettle"

I pondered hard if I should go for 680GTX over my current 7970HD. I did not as it does not offer anything SIGNIFICANTLY better in IQ or performance in games I currently play. And those titles are not seen in the hardware reviews, go figure. In CoD for example AMD and nVidia are equally good performance wise..if nV offers me only very little increase in FPS the cost difference for that is too big IMO, even the card itself is a good one. So I settle with 7970HD for now..next time I will review need for a new card is when the 8xxxHD and 7xxGTX series come out next year. No need to slap ePeens around which one is better before that

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

Well, AMD had problems with original IL-2 that were FIXED! I know that for sure as I used both AMD and nVidia in IL-2, since beta as well. And I tested beta on TNT cards, Kryo cards etc. to get feedback to Oleg's team. Talk about a swap-o-rama and numb arse testing!

nVidia and AMD both make good hardware that run any game today. Even I could not use Water=4 straight with AMD there were ways to get around it, but for me FPS was more important than some a bit shinier water AMD gave me a solid 60fps with VSync, that is all that mattered at the time. So did nVidia cards I owned(up to 580GTX). So better not say AMD was nothing but trouble with IL-2.

What annoys me is this nVidia lobbying "let us give you some money to game developing..in exchange we give code that gimps AMD and you have to add that TWAT logo spinning at start up"..Every freaking game nV is involved with has something extra installed that AMD can not use..look at Skyrim and some other titles. PhysX is just a gimmick, won't go into that. AMD is not any better in this regard either so "pot and kettle"

I pondered hard if I should go for 680GTX over my current 7970HD. I did not as it does not offer anything SIGNIFICANTLY better in IQ or performance in games I currently play. And those titles are not seen in the hardware reviews, go figure. In CoD for example AMD and nVidia are equally good performance wise..if nV offers me only very little increase in FPS the cost difference for that is too big IMO, even the card itself is a good one. So I settle with 7970HD for now..next time I will review need for a new card is when the 8xxxHD and 7xxGTX series come out next year. No need to slap ePeens around which one is better before that

Like i said, i didnt want to start anything and like you say, the closest truth is that both 7970 and 670 is good cards.

The thing i reacted to was the complete misinformation provided.

And to Stubleron: I really dont know how you manage to use up 2.7 GB memory. I myself run on 1920x1080 and my memory usage peeks at 1061 MB (Black Death) with everything set as high as it goes and i use NVidias FXAA to, witch works like a charm im glad to say.

[Von Crapenhauser]

I,m no expert.

But I got a Jetstream 680 gtx with 2g DDR3 at it runs Clod just fine at max with just AA at X2.
No stuttering exept at 1st loading up,then smooth as silk.

i5 2.9 Quad,
Gigabyte GA-h61 chipset,
8g 1300mhz Ram,
Palit Jetstream 680gtx 2g DDR 3,
microsoft FF2 Stick,
CH pro Pedals.
750w PSU Icecooler.
2x Sata HD,
HP Dvd 1260 Sata Drive.
X4 Cooling fans.

[Stublerone]

Originally Posted by Baron

And to Stubleron: I really dont know how you manage to use up 2.7 GB memory. I myself run on 1920x1080 and my memory usage peeks at 1061 MB (Black Death) with everything set as high as it goes and i use NVidias FXAA to, witch works like a charm im glad to say.

Hi Baron, you are just right over the whole matter. Both cards are good, but I just wanted to say, that vram is getting more and more important and that this is a clear advantage of the ati, especially when talking about higher reaolutions. Think abou tv's getting 4k resolutions and think about the current way of pc monitors to stay on 1080p, although we were playing games in a higher resolution 10 years ago. In this case or in case of multi monitor usage, you could perhaps run into problems in the next years. And the fact, that sli do not help you to get more vram to load textures fluently without problems, will also not change this.

But you are right, both cards do a good job.

To your vram statement: tell me your trick Please have a look at phats testings, which are near to mine. It was a thread " recommended settings..." or so.

The more vram you have, the more it could be used potentially. That could also be a reason, that our loads are varying.