Gtx 670 Reviews' final words/conclusions

[achoo]

85% performance? You kidding me bro? Most reviewers claim that performance difference is quite minimal... a mere 7 to 8 %cent

oh sorry, mene 7970 wala benchmark dekhlia tha. so 7% slower than 680 and 20% lower in price is pretty much a great deal.

 

[Bonhomie]

Zotac is presented very good gpu clock is more then any other brands,

love it...

That's not correct! it's ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II.

ASUS GeForce GTX 670 Direct CU II TOP is the first graphics card ever that I gave a perfect ten score. The stock GeForce GTX 670 provides already great performance, but ASUS has topped that by boosting it with a large overclock out of the box which catapults it beyond GTX 680 performance levels. Averaged over all our testing we see the card 1% faster than GTX 680 and 8% faster than GTX 670. The card does so without massive power consumption increase thanks to an efficient VRM design and low temperatures. ASUS has done away with NVIDIA's cheap voltage regulation circuitry and put a much better CHiL controller on the card, which also supports voltage control and monitoring.

The ASUS DC II cooler is a revelation on the GTX 670, it provides incredibly low noise levels. In both idle and load the card emits almost no noise, it is actually quieter under full load than most other cards on the market are at idle. Not only noise is low but temperatures are great, too. With only 74°C under load the card is quieter than most other GTX 670 cards tested today.

Manual overclocking works well too, especially memory, which is not overclocked out of the box, performs exceedingly well. We see well over 100 MHz extra memory overclocking potential compared to the NVIDIA reference design, thanks to the revamped PCB design. In the end the card reaches 1890 MHz memory, which is just 5 MHz shy of the highest memory clock ever recorded in a TPU review.

Overall the ASUS GTX 670 Direct CU II is the best card I ever tested. I simply can't find anything wrong with it. ASUS has sucessfully addressed all the shortcomings of NVIDIA's reference design, yet asks only a moderate $20 price premium for their card. This means that you can get faster than GTX 680 performance at $420. And the card manages all that with a dual slot cooler, that just screams "put me in SLI".

Source

 

[Baghi]

That's not correct! it's ASUS GeForce GTX 670 DirectCU II.

Yes! That sex bomb and stubborn overclocking beast.

By the way, did you noticed the first ever ten out of ten on TPU. :lol:

 

[hasanJ]

no one is giving two hoots to HD7950 ever since its launch
With GTX670 coming in at 400$ and forcing AMD to cut HD7970 to 400$ as well the HD7950 will come down to a mere 350$ :lol:

GTX580 stayed at the top with 500$ Price Tag for 1 Year but HD7970 got beat up within 4 months by GTX680 and then GTX670 xD

 

[Bonhomie]

Yes! That sex bomb and stubborn overclocking beast.

By the way, did you noticed the first ever ten out of ten on TPU. :lol:

by the 2nd last page of the review I was wondering now where they gonna deduct .5 like they usually do it was no surprise to see 10/10.

A close friend having hard time deciding whether to get 680 DCUII Top or this what say you?

 

[Baghi]

GTX 670 is an obvious choice now.

GeForce GTX 670 2 GB Review: Is It Already Time To Forget GTX 680? : Giving GK104 A Haircut

 

[Bonhomie]

well quote, agreed but don't you think the 680 DCUII Top is bit faster and would be more when OC'd?
Personally a better option as it seem would be an EVGA GTX 680 FTW 4 GB for $630

 

[achoo]

well quote, agreed but don't you think the 680 DCUII Top is bit faster and would be more when OC'd?
Personally a better option as it seem would be an EVGA GTX 680 FTW 4 GB for $630

get 4gb if you are using multi-monitor setup. Else it would be a waste of money and memory.

 

[hasanJ]

4GB will show its strength on 5760X1080 (3x 1920X1080 Displays)

 

[Baghi]

well quote, agreed but don't you think the 680 DCUII Top is bit faster and would be more when OC'd?
Personally a better option as it seem would be an EVGA GTX 680 FTW 4 GB for $630

Well, only YOU or YOUR friend can answer whether or not to spend extra 110 US$ more.

On a friendly note, if your friend can afford this:

I'm sure he can also afford this:

This:

And this:

 

[achoo]

[MENTION=32279]Baghi[/MENTION]: what's the name of that chassis?

 

[Baghi]

@Baghi: what's the name of that chassis?

NZXT Phantom

 

[Bonhomie]

Well, only YOU or YOUR friend can answer whether or not to spend extra 110 US$ more.

On a friendly note, if your friend can afford this:

I'm sure He can afford that much knowing what He spent already is topping over $3K
btw I liked that Cooler and can only suggest that reason because the Psu, Case are already bought.

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------

get 4gb if you are using multi-monitor setup. Else it would be a waste of money and memory.

4GB will show its strength on 5760X1080 (3x 1920X1080 Displays)

currently at 2560x1600p and no plans to go x2/x3 any soon but still even on 1600p I think it does make some difference especially in games like BF3 .. wouldn't it?

 

[achoo]

I'm sure He can afford that much knowing what He spent already is topping over $3K
btw I liked that Cooler and can only suggest that reason because the Psu, Case are already bought.

---------- Post added at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ----------





currently at 2560x1600p and no plans to go x2/x3 any soon but still even on 1600p I think it does make some difference especially in games like BF3 .. wouldn't it?

I think that 4gb will only going to affect if you cross the barrier of 1600p.

 

[Baghi]

Battlefield takes in between 1.25GB to 1.5GB vRAM.

 

[hasanJ]

Battlefield3 on 2560X1920 will never be able to fill up 2GB of VRAM

 

[Baghi]

On 2560x1600 4GB of vRAM would be overkill. Battlefield 3 is that game which can consume 3GB vRAM even when it's not needed.

 

[achoo]

On 2560x1600 4GB of vRAM would be overkill. Battlefield 3 is that game which can consume 3GB vRAM even when it's not needed.

10char/

 

[Baghi]

What I meant was Battlefield 3 is that kinda game if you've 1.5GB of vRAM in total even then it'll work just fine but if you've something like HD 7970 3GB it'll easily take over 2GB video memory. This game can hog whatever you through at it.

There is one interesting game to look at right now for video card memory usage, and that is Battlefield 3 multiplayer. There is a big difference between the VRAM usage in single player and multiplayer. When we cranked this game up in a 64 player server at the highest in-game settings we saw it get near to 5 GB of VRAM usage on Radeon HD 7970 at 4X AA at 5760x1200. This game seems certainly capable of maximizing VRAM usage on video cards in multiplayer in NV Surround or Eyefinity resolutions. It makes us really want to try out 4GB, or higher video cards. A couple of 4GB GTX 680 video cards are looking real interesting to us right now in this game, and from what rumors we have heard, Galaxy is very likely to make this happen for us.

Src

Even at that resolution is that even possible?

 

[achoo]

INNO3d ichill gtx 670 2GB OC

benches

Spoiler: show

Source: Inno3D iChill GEFORCE GTX 670 2GB OC Video Card Review :: TweakTown USA Edition

Shit! this thing is competing with pallit jetsream 4gb variant of 680 and even ahead of it in most of the game's benches
and look at those load temperatures
hoping its price be reasonable also. maybe 430-440$:dance: