bit-tech.net

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 2GB Windforce 3X review

Comments 1 to 25 of 29

Reply
TheDodoKiller 12th November 2012, 10:20 Quote
Still don't like the blue PCB.

What is it with companies designing a great looking cooler, and putting it on a crap looking PCB. I want a nice, clean matte black PCB with a black backplate and a decent cooler.

This is the thing- I can see the PCB of my graphics card when I use my PC- So my Asus reference 6970 looks, ballin'.
GeorgeK 12th November 2012, 10:37 Quote
Conclusion - "which east cost £50 more"...

Agree with TDK - I put a backplate on my 680 to improve the looks :D

This is a kick-ass card though... I did however look at it initially and, remembering the size of the reference card's PCB, thought to myself "looks like they've taken two 670s and stuck them end-to-end..." Would make sense if they've taken the stuff off the back and put it on the front though!
Hustler 12th November 2012, 10:49 Quote
Nice card, but overpriced (as all Gfx cards are these days)...£250 should be what the 670's cost.
CrapBag 12th November 2012, 11:06 Quote
Would like to know how this card compares to the msi 670 power edition.
Elton 12th November 2012, 11:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Nice card, but overpriced (as all Gfx cards are these days)...£250 should be what the 670's cost.

In all fairness, they cost a fair deal less in the US just because of conversion rates.

That said, I doubt there will ever be the anomalous HD48xx era ever again..
Baz 12th November 2012, 11:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Nice card, but overpriced (as all Gfx cards are these days)...£250 should be what the 670's cost.

A card that's 5-10% slower than a GTX 680 should be £150 cheaper? On my price/performance calcs, the 670 is easily the strongest card out right now (bar 7970s on super special offers).
rollo 12th November 2012, 13:12 Quote
The past cheap graphics card era is long over at least in the high end market, 670 680 will maintain a £300 - £350 price barrier with the 7970 in a similar thing they may see a reduction once the next gen is out but id expect similar high prices once its out.
Hustler 12th November 2012, 15:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz


A card that's 5-10% slower than a GTX 680 should be £150 cheaper?

Well, obviously I meant such price reductions should be across the whole range, so as to keep the relative costs at the same level between cards.

My point was that ALL gfx cards are way overpriced these days..
xxxsonic1971 12th November 2012, 16:25 Quote
Value 28/30!
rocknroll237 12th November 2012, 18:50 Quote
If I were to get a new card it would be this or a GTX 670 Direct CU II (which is on Amazon for £307)... :D
S1W1 12th November 2012, 19:08 Quote
You've made me immensely happy - I bought this Gigabyte card about 3 months ago for £315 :D
dolphie 13th November 2012, 00:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Nice card, but overpriced (as all Gfx cards are these days)...£250 should be what the 670's cost.

In all fairness, they cost a fair deal less in the US just because of conversion rates.

That said, I doubt there will ever be the anomalous HD48xx era ever again..

Yep, rip off Britain strikes again. Although my dad has been getting some great treatment from the NHS recently so I shouldn't complain...

Love this card though, similar speeds to the HD 7970 yet with physx which I have kinda missed on my current card. I'm looking to upgrade early next year sometime and it should be a huge step up.

p.s. I wish you still included Arma2 in the tables, and also a noise/volume chart somewhere, or something.
SchizoFrog 13th November 2012, 06:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphie


p.s. I wish you still included Arma2 in the tables, and also a noise/volume chart somewhere, or something.

Surely the noise/volume chart you request is pointless as it is down to too many variables... Such as chosen case, how many case fans, sound proofing used if any, location of case in room, ambient temp of room etc... I wouldn't want Bit-Tech to waste hours taking readings that in the end would not reveal any scientific provable results anyway.
IT Troll 13th November 2012, 08:14 Quote
Nice to see a full and detailed review, but isn't about 6 months too late?
Timorous 13th November 2012, 11:41 Quote
I still do not understand why you are not using the latest drivers. There is a huge bump in performance in BF3 and nice 5-10% increases in other games for the 12.11 driver. That is the same as the difference between a 670 and a 680. It also makes your conclusion skewed because this card does not offer the same performance as the 7970 ghz edition for less money.
maverik-sg1 13th November 2012, 14:27 Quote
I'll not buy this generation of either AMD or Nvidia cards - over-priced for what they are and no real reason to move from my GTX570 right now (I play at 1920*1080 and only have room for one display).

That as an aside - this is just the sort of non-oem model I would like, good price with cooler and quieter operation, the ram on this model looks a bit special too.

Roll on GTX 770 or 780
GeordieGoose 13th November 2012, 15:36 Quote
I got this exact card 2 weeks ago. I absolutely love it!

massive jump from my 460.

I mainly chose the gigabyte card due to my 460 overclocking like a dream and still keeping very cool.
raghu78 14th November 2012, 15:47 Quote
the review is a fail. the performance conclusions are wrong. the GTX 680 loses to HD 7970 Ghz and GTX 670 loses to HD 7970 (925 Mhz) . Use the latest drivers. the 12.11 has been available for 3 weeks.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup/3
dolphie 14th November 2012, 20:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
Surely the noise/volume chart you request is pointless as it is down to too many variables... Such as chosen case, how many case fans, sound proofing used if any, location of case in room, ambient temp of room etc... I wouldn't want Bit-Tech to waste hours taking readings that in the end would not reveal any scientific provable results anyway.

What? Most sites already do this, you use the same components and then record the volume with different graphics cards. Knowing how noisy a card is, is just as important to some people as the speed, and arguably, even more important than the temps.
BlueFalcon 14th November 2012, 20:55 Quote
Nice cooler on that 670 card.

Very disappointed that such obsolete drivers have been used, especially for AMD's cards. Looking at other reviews on the net, GTX670 has no chance at all to come anywhere near HD7970 Ghz with the latest drivers.

HardOCP (Cats 12.11)
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup

Legion Hardware (Cats 12.11)
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_7970_iceq_xsup2_ghz_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,4.html

TechPowerUp (Cats 12.11)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/23.html

This review is more or less irrelevant for measuring performance standing between NV and AMD cards at this point in time.
dolphie 15th November 2012, 14:44 Quote
Wow that 7970 does seem to have jumped ahead. Still no Physx though would be a concern for me.
CrapBag 15th November 2012, 14:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueFalcon
Nice cooler on that 670 card.

Very disappointed that such obsolete drivers have been used, especially for AMD's cards. Looking at other reviews on the net, GTX670 has no chance at all to come anywhere near HD7970 Ghz with the latest drivers.

HardOCP (Cats 12.11)
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/11/12/fall_2012_gpu_driver_comparison_roundup

Legion Hardware (Cats 12.11)
http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/his_7970_iceq_xsup2_ghz_edition_7950_iceq_xsup2_boost_clock,4.html

TechPowerUp (Cats 12.11)
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Catalyst_12.11_Performance/23.html

This review is more or less irrelevant for measuring performance standing between NV and AMD cards at this point in time.

Aren't all 3 of those benchmarks comparing a 7970 GHZ against stock 670's though, not really comparable seeing as bits review is using a high clocked 670?

7970 ghz's seem to be about £50 dearer too.

I think older drivers may have been used so that you can compare new cards to cards in other bit-tech reviews, that's my take on it anyways.
BlueFalcon 15th November 2012, 22:17 Quote
CrapBag,

The main point I was making is that with latest drivers, AMD cards gained 7-10% boost, and 20-25% in Frostbite 2.0 games (Battlefield 3, Medal of Honor Warfighter)

The relative improvements for each card with Catalyst 12.11 are:
HD 7750: +4%
HD 7770: +5%
HD 7850: +4%
HD 7870: +10%
HD 7950: +7%
HD 7970: +7%
HD 7970 GHz: +7%

If you look at the reviews I linked they all show that HD7970Ghz is now easily faster than GTX680, HD7970 beats GTX670 and HD7950 Boost / V2 beats GTX660Ti.

Also, TechPowerUp, has a performance summary that shows that HD7970 is faster than GTX670. If you look at Legion Hardware's write-up, HD7970 Ghz beat GTX680 in 10 of 14 games, tied in 2, lost in 2. HD7950 Boost beats GTX660Ti in 12 of 14 games, lost in 2. That's at stock speeds.

Legion Hardware also has an overclocking section where HD7950 OCed beats HD7970 Ghz and GTX680. That makes it a way better value than GTX670 in this review. Cards like MSI TwinFrozr III 7950 or Gigabyte Windforce 3x HD7950 or Sapphire Dual-X HD7950 overclock to 1100-1150mhz without much trouble and at 1100mhz, HD7950 is already as fast as a GTX680.

This is why it's questionable why GTX670 got such an amazing rating in this review:
1) Enthusiast consider overclocking, and that's what makes i5-2500k/i5-3570K stellar;
2) Even without overclocking, HD7970 is now nearly as fast as a GTX670, yet in this review it's slower -- because they used outdated drivers.

I am not cherry-picking either. Other reviews now show even HD7970 beating GTX680 and HD7970 Ghz 10-15% faster than GTX680 at 2560x1600:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/57413-amd-12-11-never-settle-driver-performance-17.html

I don't think this review tells the real story of current performance.
dolphie 16th November 2012, 04:38 Quote
Now I don't know what to think!
maverik-sg1 17th November 2012, 17:59 Quote
I think this is still a good choice of card for those looking to upgrade, price is reasonable, cooling and quiteness are in line with worth paying a little extra for and they suck up a lot less energy than comparitive Radeon cards.

All I say is that not many people play at 2560x1440 let alone 2560x1600 (less than 1% at guess), anything over 70fps is a waste (the human eye can't process above 60hz, unless you're opting for 3D?

1920x1080 or lower is where most people are at right now.

Whilst I take on board what BlueFalcon has said and backed up with some numbers, those stellar settings are for the people who believe in multi monitor set-ups or have £1200 30" monitors.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums