Originally posted by Fadedbomb

Normally I agree with most of the stuff you post, but the 7770 is a piece of crap. 

Just one of the sources I use for GPU stuff: Link

 

They tend to be fairly spot on.

So basically, your argument is, don't buy a Radeon HD 7770 because some synthetic benchmark doesn't like AMD's new GCN architecture?  For example, a Radeon HD 7970 beats a GeForce GTX 580 at nearly everything, and usually by a lot--except that it loses in that synthetic benchmark.  What if AMD optimizes their drivers for that benchmark, and improves performance in the synthetic benchmark by 20% without changing performance in any real games?  Would you then recommend buying a Radeon HD 7950 over a GeForce GTX 680?

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Op: 7770 is more expensive than the 6850 AND slower, 6850 is THE entry level gaming card (also quicker and cheaper than 550ti)

above that
560gtx
7850
7870
& 680gtx
are also good value

7870 being my pick of the bunch, its like $75 cheaper than 580gtx for simmilar spec

At launch, yes, the 7770 was more expensive than the 6850.  But since then, the 6850 has been discontinued, and prices on it have risen as stocks dwindle.  Meanwhile, AMD has had adequate capacity to justify slashing prices on the 7770.  Today, the 7770 is the cheaper card.  As for faster, the 6850 was a bit faster at launch.  But with AMD heavily working on performance improvements for GCN and not VLIW5, I'd bet on the 7770 being faster a year from now.

The GeForce GTX 560 has basically never been a good value.  The Radeon HD 6870 gives about the same performance, and was nearly always cheaper.  That might change as both cards disappear; the 6870 is surely discontinued, and if the GTX 560 isn't yet, it will be soon.

The problem with the GeForce GTX 680 is that it's nearly a paper launch.  It doesn't matter how it performs if you can't buy it.  The GeForce GTX 670 has somewhat spotty availability, but you can find one at a decent price if you want it.

Originally posted by caremuchless

Originally posted by Coman

Well I do not dislike the card, but the card seems to be getting hot rather quickly. It has a hard time even in a game like Just Cause 2 and in ARMA2 it can reach up to 80C (I think it hit 82C once) and that is with an extra fan on the side of the panel blowing air in. Without it, the card would most likely reset itself all the time. 

Then again it is rather hot outside as well right now. So giving it the benifit of the doubt. Overall an ok card though for the price. 

 

Just a side note  - Every ATI card I have owned put out way too much heat.

 

And everytime I have seen someone build a full system, and they go with a ATI card, they replace the stock cooler for an aftermarket cooler.

In terms of putting out heat, AMD was a lot better than Nvidia that generation.  It is possible to put an inadequate cooler on a video card (which can make nearly anything overheat), but that's handled by board partners, not AMD or Nvidia.  I don't see any plausible reason why board partners would systematically put inadequate coolers on one vendor's cards and not another's.

Besides, 82 C isn't really a problem.

Originally posted by Woopin

Once I find anything that can slow down my Overclocked watercooled MSI GTX580 then I will upgrade. But I have found nothing that bogs it down as of yet. But when I upgrade and I will be going for the top card at the time buying a water block and overclocking as I always do.

I love the GTX cards if I am honest so I would of gone for the GTX680 for sure.

If you've already got a nice card today, then sure, keep it.  But that doesn't mean it makes sense to buy new today.

To answer the posts about high temperature ATI cards.

The heat generated by a card is stricky dependent of its power consumption - higher power consumption more heat generated.The temperature your card reports only talk about the efficiency of the cooler at dissipating that heat.

Now the problem is, even though a higher consumption card can keep its temperature cooler, the heat generated has to go somewhere - the case and the room, and it will increase the temperature of its surroundings.

So a case with a 50ºC GTX480 will be warmer than the same case with a 80ºC 4850 (since the GTX480 consumes much more power but apparently it has a much more powerful and expensive cooler and probably noisier as well unless it is a water block), increasing the temperature of the other components like the CPU.

The bottom line:

- graphic card GPUs can operate normally at temperatures as high as 90+ºC ;

- temperature and heat are not the same thing;

- a lower temperature operating card can raise the temperature of a case/room more than a higher temperature operating card if it consumes more power;

- temperature of the GPU is dependant of both the cooling system and its power consumption.

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo Plus heat isn't an issue with AMD cards since 6000 series, if anything they eat less power / make less heat than equivelent nvidias. High end 4000 were massive power hogs though.

---

The 4800 series were still comparable to NVIDIA cards of similar performance at load but were quite worse at idle (although that won't create much heat).

And 5000 series were much more efficient in therms of performance/W than the GTX400 series.

With the GTX600 vs the 7900/7800 series things are a bit closer in performance/W.

Originally posted by bigsmiff

Originally posted by caremuchless

Just a side note  - Every ATI card I have owned put out way too much heat.

 

And everytime I have seen someone build a full system, and they go with a ATI card, they replace the stock cooler for an aftermarket cooler.

I agree with you. My 5770 HD used to run very hot. I had to upgrade my case just for SWTOR. The overheating issues were crazy. I never had any heating issues with my 8800GT alpha dog.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying it to bash the card. But every builder I saw that went this route, knew the cards would need an aftermarket cooler and built accordingly. 

Just when I was building my pc, an article like this is made.  How convenient!

I was thinking of getting a GTX 570 (because it's cheaper) while spending my money on a gen2 i7 2600.

What do you think: save money on the GPX card and spend it on the cpu?  Or spend money on the GPX card and save money on the CPU?  (I'm not in the budget of spending huge amounts on both.)

Originally posted by caremuchless

Originally posted by bigsmiff

Originally posted by caremuchless

Just a side note  - Every ATI card I have owned put out way too much heat.

 

And everytime I have seen someone build a full system, and they go with a ATI card, they replace the stock cooler for an aftermarket cooler.

I agree with you. My 5770 HD used to run very hot. I had to upgrade my case just for SWTOR. The overheating issues were crazy. I never had any heating issues with my 8800GT alpha dog.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying it to bash the card. But every builder I saw that went this route, knew the cards would need an aftermarket cooler and built accordingly. 

Do you mean "non-reference cooler" (which would include most cards, whether AMD or Nvidia), "non-reference card with a premium cooler" (e.g., MSI Twin Frozr or Sapphire Toxic), or "buy a card and buy a heatsink separately and then replace the heatsink that came with the card"?  It makes a big difference.  Thinking you need the last of those three is silly.

Originally posted by Edeus

Just when I was building my pc, an article like this is made.  How convenient!

I was thinking of getting a GTX 570 (because it's cheaper) while spending my money on a gen2 i7 2600.

 

What do you think: save money on the GPX card and spend it on the cpu?  Or spend money on the GPX card and save money on the CPU?  (I'm not in the budget of spending huge amounts on both.)

 

I'd sooner save money up front on the video card, because a video card is easier to upgrade later.

But it looks like you're confused about processors and could probably do both.  Get a Core i5-3570K, not a Core i7-2600K.  For gaming purposes, that's both better and cheaper.

Then the question is whether you can fit a GeForce GTX 670 into your budget or not.

Make sure you get a good SSD, though, as it definitely fits your budget if you were looking at a Core i7 processor.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by caremuchless

Originally posted by bigsmiff

Originally posted by caremuchless

Just a side note  - Every ATI card I have owned put out way too much heat.

 

And everytime I have seen someone build a full system, and they go with a ATI card, they replace the stock cooler for an aftermarket cooler.

I agree with you. My 5770 HD used to run very hot. I had to upgrade my case just for SWTOR. The overheating issues were crazy. I never had any heating issues with my 8800GT alpha dog.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying it to bash the card. But every builder I saw that went this route, knew the cards would need an aftermarket cooler and built accordingly. 

Do you mean "non-reference cooler" (which would include most cards, whether AMD or Nvidia), "non-reference card with a premium cooler" (e.g., MSI Twin Frozr or Sapphire Toxic), or "buy a card and buy a heatsink separately and then replace the heatsink that came with the card"?  It makes a big difference.  Thinking you need the last of those three is silly.

At the time, the card I was looking at that ATI made (can't remember exactly which one) was notorious for having cooling issues. Most of the posters at maximumpc.com that went this route replaced the stock cooler and replaced it with an aftermarket cooler. But they are pc enthusiasts.

If a specific card is known for heat issues and having poor stock cooling, it is entirely reasonable to replace the aftermarket cooler. A lot of those guys like to overclock to so, yeah. It makes sense.

Was some great deals.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18407205

Moved it over for you.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Edeus

Just when I was building my pc, an article like this is made.  How convenient!

I was thinking of getting a GTX 570 (because it's cheaper) while spending my money on a gen2 i7 2600.

 

What do you think: save money on the GPX card and spend it on the cpu?  Or spend money on the GPX card and save money on the CPU?  (I'm not in the budget of spending huge amounts on both.)

 

I'd sooner save money up front on the video card, because a video card is easier to upgrade later.

But it looks like you're confused about processors and could probably do both.  Get a Core i5-3570K, not a Core i7-2600K.  For gaming purposes, that's both better and cheaper.

Then the question is whether you can fit a GeForce GTX 670 into your budget or not.

Make sure you get a good SSD, though, as it definitely fits your budget if you were looking at a Core i7 processor.

Ah thanks!  the i5-3570k IS cheaper!  With saving 100$ on the CPU I should be able to fit the 670 in.  Thanks for the tip.

And yep!  you're other article about SSD's made me realize I needed one, already have a samsung 128gb SSD 6gb/s. 

670 is not a bad card indeed but im to much AMD RADEON fan so i stick with 7970 card.

Originally posted by StrangeEyes

670 is not a bad card indeed but im to much AMD RADEON fan so i stick with 7970 card.

I'm glad it's your money that is being spent, not mine.

There are some non-fanboy cases to be made for the 7970, such as if you want the particular free games that come with it, need AMD-only vendor-specific features, or need it for double-precision OpenCL computations.  But on a purely price/performance basis, or even taking into account power consumption (where the GTX 670 is better) and feature sets, I'd sooner go with a GTX 670.

Higher clocked 7750 and 7770's getting released soon. 7750 is going to need a 6 pin power connector now but means it'll overclock better, the newer 7770 will apparently also overclock better.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5881/amd-announces-a-new-900mhz-radeon-hd-7750

http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/AMD-June-Update-Catalyst-monthly-drops-gone-higher-clocked-7700-more-free-games

Originally posted by Quizzical

There are really only two good values on desktop video cards today:

Radeon HD 7770 for $130

GeForce GTX 670 for $400

Yes, that's a huge chasm between the two, but nothing between them is a good value relative to those two cards.  I do expect that to change soon, however.  AMD has tons of Pitcairn chips to sell, and surely they want to sell something higher end than $130 cards.  A Radeon HD 7870 for $300 or a Radeon HD 7850 for $200 would be a good value, and should still be profitable for AMD.  I do expect to see the 7870 approach $300 soon.

Whether the 7850 falls so far depends largely on yields.  If 2/3 of Pitcairn chips can meet the 7870 specs, then the 7850 doesn't have to be that good of a value for AMD to sell off all that they need.  It is likely that this is essentially the reason why the 7750 isn't a good value:  too many Cape Verde dies can meet 7770 specs, so AMD would rather sell a 7770 for more.  If far more dies go in the 7850 bin than the 7870, then I'd expect to see the 7850 going for $200 sooner rather than later.

Nvidia will presumably shake things up with new cards, too.  But GK106 is still nowhere to be found, and GK107 is very much taking its time in coming to desktops.  GK107 will probably be quite a bit slower than a Radeon HD 7770, but could still be a compelling value at $100 if Nvidia prices it appropriately.

-----

Edit:  I meant to put this in the hardware section, not The Pub.  Sorry.  My mistake.

 Abit of a strange post, as good value is determined by compairing them to the rest of the market. Seems as if OP implys all cards could have been best price/performance. Since this is obviously not the case, he finds in the budget and in the highend two cards that stand out.

Could have been two mid cards that were the best value, happens to not be the case .But all the cards can't be the best at the same time. That he finds two is subjective, he could have picked "best one" or "best three".