XFX Double D HD 7970 GHz Edition Video Card Review @ [H]

[Seiuchi]

Considering the modest 14% price increase a for 3GB rather than 2GB card, together with superior performance at 2560x1600 wouldn't the XFX card be a better purchase overall? After all at this resolution the GTX 670 had to have lower settings selected to maintain a playable FPS. Or do we only care about 1080p gaming now?

This is exactly what I have been complaining about. Are these cards scaling in a linear fashion when going up to 5040x1050 or 5760x1080.

This review makes the 670 look like the better deal but if one plays at multi screen resolution how do I know if the nvidia card or the amd card stand up or lag out. Maybe at higher resolutions the 3 gb card holds a higher frame rate...or maybe it doesnt. WE dont know because it wasnt tested.

 

[ebduncan]

This is exactly what I have been complaining about. Are these cards scaling in a linear fashion when going up to 5040x1050 or 5760x1080.

This review makes the 670 look like the better deal but if one plays at multi screen resolution how do I know if the nvidia card or the amd card stand up or lag out. Maybe at higher resolutions the 3 gb card holds a higher frame rate...or maybe it doesnt. WE dont know because it wasnt tested.

a 7970 ghz edition beats a 670 with out a doubt. The real competition is the 680. Which with the new 12.11 drivers the 7970 ghz holds a advantage over the 680.

 

[ICDP]

One thing that you cannot dispute, and in my opinion sets the nvidia card above the AMD card is physx.

Now in the past I would have given two shits about physx and call it a gimmick.

Until Borderlands2.

I have two top end systems running AMD and nvidia cards, and I have to say, the gameplay using an nvidia card setup is striking in Borderlands. the gameplay is night and day different.
For that simple matter I'd give the nod to nvidia cards if the two were on equal ground otherwise.

I also think the turmoil about drivers is nonsense here. Both company's cards were run with the latest drivers available at the time.....it's apples to apples no matter if there are different driver sets out currently or not.

I have tried Borderlands 2 PhysX on my GTX 680 and found it to be nothing special. All that debris coming from non-destructable structures etc looks very silly. Go shoot a wall and watch how much debris goes flying about even though the wall shows only a small bullet hole texture. With the amount of debris flying the wall should be practically gone. In fact with heavy combat it becomes a hindrance as it is harder to see enemies. I prefer playing with it on low or medium settings myself.

I would prefer to play Withcer 2 at 2560x1600 with Ultra graphics and far LoD enabled than play with clearly lower settings. Though if Witcher 2 isn't your poison then that won't matter to you. The salient point here is one game should not be the sole reason for purchasing a $400 graphics card. Expecially a card that is proven in this very review to be slower overall at higher resolutions.

Right now as of this date the AMD cards at every level give better price/performance than their equivelant Nvidia card (GTX 690 excluded of course). Not only are they cheaper but in more cases than not they are faster also. I generally like the [H] reviews, but when the conclusions and the graphs presented contradict each other, it raises eyebrows.

7870 > GTX 660
7950 > GTC 660Ti
7970 > GTX 670
7970 GHz > GTX 680

 

[Derangel]

One thing that you cannot dispute, and in my opinion sets the nvidia card above the AMD card is physx.

Now in the past I would have given two shits about physx and call it a gimmick.

Until Borderlands2.

I have two top end systems running AMD and nvidia cards, and I have to say, the gameplay using an nvidia card setup is striking in Borderlands. the gameplay is night and day different.
For that simple matter I'd give the nod to nvidia cards if the two were on equal ground otherwise.

I also think the turmoil about drivers is nonsense here. Both company's cards were run with the latest drivers available at the time.....it's apples to apples no matter if there are different driver sets out currently or not.

PhsyX in Borderlands 2 is just like it is in the Batman games. Some neat effects but over-all it's just visual flare and doesn't impact gameplay one way or the other.

 

[Relayer]

One thing that you cannot dispute, and in my opinion sets the nvidia card above the AMD card is physx.

Now in the past I would have given two shits about physx and call it a gimmick.

Until Borderlands2.

I have two top end systems running AMD and nvidia cards, and I have to say, the gameplay using an nvidia card setup is striking in Borderlands. the gameplay is night and day different.
For that simple matter I'd give the nod to nvidia cards if the two were on equal ground otherwise.

I also think the turmoil about drivers is nonsense here. Both company's cards were run with the latest drivers available at the time.....it's apples to apples no matter if there are different driver sets out currently or not.

Problem is that there's been only one game released in 2012 and only two in all of 2011 that use PhysX. Hardly worth plonking $400+ dollars down on for a card for PhysX. Then there's the performance hit to deal with. There's a reason you hardly ever see PhysX in reviews. The performance hit wouldn't be very appealing to many.

 

[Yakk]

Review was ok-ish, bit below the quality of other [H] reviews, mostly because of it being late & games selection I'd say.

With the latest drivers, which are much, much too late and should have been out when the cards were first launched, I guess it's just to see the new margin by which the 7970 is the fastest card.

 

[specops]

PhsyX in Borderlands 2 is just like it is in the Batman games. Some neat effects but over-all it's just visual flare and doesn't impact gameplay one way or the other.

This is true for every graphics quality setting in every title ever released. What's the point of AA, AF, tessellation, higher resolution etc. when the impact on gameplay is neglectable? Damn that visual flare...

 

[Derangel]

This is true for every graphics quality setting in every title ever released. What's the point of AA, AF, tessellation, higher resolution etc. when the impact on gameplay is neglectable? Damn that visual flare...

Read the post I responded to.

 

[specops]

Read the post I responded to.

I did. The point is: even if you don't think PhysX has an effect on gameplay, it don't mean it's true for everyone. For example, some people find that AA has a very profound effect on gameplay even to the extent that a game without proper AA is unplayable.

Visual flare is a part of gameplay, IMHO. Especially so for PC gaming.

 

[ICDP]

I did. The point is: even if you don't think PhysX has an effect on gameplay, it don't mean it's true for everyone. For example, some people find that AA has a very profound effect on gameplay even to the extent that a game without proper AA is unplayable.

Visual flare is a part of gameplay, IMHO. Especially so for PC gaming.

I'm sorry but it isn't a mater of opinion what constitutes gameplay, gameplay is how a games plot mechanics play out, graphical effects are incidental to gameplay experience. Visual flare is in no way a part of gameplay, it is purely an aesthetics thing.

Someone using a HD 7750 to play Borderlands 2 on low settings is still getting the exact same gameplay experience as someone who has a GTX 690 with the graphics and PhysX settings set to high/ultra. The essential experience does not change, the only thing that changes is the amount of graphical effects. Of course their overall experience is better for having extra graphical flare but the gameplay experience remains identical.

If on the other hand PhysX enabled the GTX 690 user to shoot through walls and open up areas unaccessable to the HD 7750 user, that would indeed improve gameplay. But we all know PhysX does nothing of the sort in any game.

Don't confuse gameplay with looks. I hate quotng Wiki but...

Gameplay is the specific way in which players interact with a game, and in particular with video games. Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules, connection between player and the game, challenges and overcoming them, plot and player's connection with it.. Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics, and audio elements

 

[specops]

Don't confuse gameplay with looks. I hate quotng Wiki but...

Gameplay is the specific way in which players interact with a game, and in particular with video games. Gameplay is the pattern defined through the game rules, connection between player and the game, challenges and overcoming them, plot and player's connection with it.. Video game gameplay is distinct from graphics, and audio elements

I hate quoting someone quoting Wikipedia, but if visual flare is a question of interacting or not interacting with a game, then it is by definition a part of gameplay.

To take it further, please read your Wikipedia article all the way through. Under playability you will find the following:

"Playability is the ease by which the game can be played or the quantity or duration that a game can be played and is a common measure of the quality of gameplay... Playability is characterized by different attributes and properties to measure the video game player experience

• Satisfaction: the degree of gratification or pleasure of the player for completing a video game or some aspect of it like: mechanism, graphics, user interface, story, etc."

 

[ICDP]

I hate quoting someone quoting Wikipedia, but if visual flare is a question of interacting or not interacting with a game, then it is by definition a part of gameplay.

To take it further, please read your Wikipedia article all the way through. Under playability you will find the following:

"Playability is the ease by which the game can be played or the quantity or duration that a game can be played and is a common measure of the quality of gameplay... Playability is characterized by different attributes and properties to measure the video game player experience

• Satisfaction: the degree of gratification or pleasure of the player for completing a video game or some aspect of it like: mechanism, graphics, user interface, story, etc."

Visual flare changes zero, zilch nada, none, not one iota of how you interact with a game. Turning my graphics to low in a game does not change my experience of the gameplay of that particular game, all it does is make it look like shit. I have been playing games since tennis on the Binatone, some white squares and lines on a black screen. Graphically it looked like shit and in no way resembled tennis, but for its time the gameplay was excellent. Or are you implying that games before fancy graphics had poor gameplay? By your logic all games prior to fancy graphics must have had crap gameplay, can you see where your logic falls down?

Example: IMHO System shock had better gameplay than Bioshock, but the graphics by comparison are not even on the same level. When you look at a screenshot you cannot get an idea of gameplay, not in a million years. You just get an idea of how a game looks. Having excellent graphics does not equate to having excellent gameplay, they are independent elements that go towards a single overall game experience.

 

[specops]

Visual flare changes zero, zilch nada, none, not one iota of how you interact with a game. Turning my graphics to low in a game does not change my experience of the gameplay of that particular game, all it does is make it look like shit. I have been playing games since tennis on the Binatone, some white squares and lines on a black screen. Graphically it looked like shit and in no way resembled tennis, but for its time the gameplay was excellent. Or are you implying that games before fancy graphics had poor gameplay? By your logic all games prior to fancy graphics must have had crap gameplay, can you see where your logic falls down?

Example: IMHO System shock had better gameplay than Bioshock, but the graphics by comparison are not even on the same level. When you look at a screenshot you cannot get an idea of gameplay, not in a million years. You just get an idea of how a game looks. Having excellent graphics does not equate to having excellent gameplay, they are independent elements that go towards a single overall game experience.

You seem like an academic who must set boundaries to simplify reality but even your academic friend, the Wikipedia, does include graphics in gameplay through the subjective experience of player satisfaction. And for PC player satisfaction, visual flare is a very important factor nowadays. Player satisfaction is also a moving target: what gave that "WOW" experience yesterday will not suffice tomorrow. If your tennis and Battlefield 3 were released at the same time, which would have got praise for better gameplay?

So you can keep your "logic", I'll stick to reality. In reality visual flare has an impact on all the aspects of PC gaming.

 

[funkydmunky]

Putting lipstick on a pig?
Still not gameplay.

 

[ICDP]

Putting lipstick on a pig?
Still not gameplay.

Well put, I could have saved myself a lot of typing had I took your approach

 

[specops]

So great graphics and great gameplay are mutually exclusive? Is this like the "good looks and brains don't go together" urban legend?

 

[ICDP]

So great graphics and great gameplay are mutually exclusive? Is this like the "good looks and brains don't go together" urban legend?

Who said anything about mutually exclusive? That is you attributing quotes that have not come up in this thread.

A game consists of many elements, none of which are mutually exclusive. Each one of these elements are developed independently and come together to make up the entire experience.

Graphics
Audio
Gameplay
GUI
Controls interface

Your earlier example of comparing BF3 gameplay vs Binatone tennis gamepley is utterly mind bogglingly obtuse. The gameplay for both types of games is so far removed that they cannot even remotely be compared. I'm not trying to change your mind on if graphics settings = gameplay. You state it is your opinion but this no more true than stating up is down and down is up and claiming it as a "valid opinion".

I'm through de-railing this thread.

 

[specops]

Who said anything about mutually exclusive? That is you attributing quotes that have not come up in this thread.

A game consists of many elements, none of which are mutually exclusive. Each one of these elements are developed independently and come together to make up the entire experience.

Graphics
Audio
Gameplay
GUI
Controls interface

Your earlier example of comparing BF3 gameplay vs Binatone tennis gamepley is utterly mind bogglingly obtuse. The gameplay for both types of games is so far removed that they cannot even remotely be compared. I'm not trying to change your mind on if graphics settings = gameplay. You state it is your opinion but this no more true than stating up is down and down is up and claiming it as a "valid opinion".

I'm through de-railing this thread.

Pig, lipstick, mutually exclusive? I know you have a deep inner need to disagree with me on everything in this thread but both you and funkydmunky have made a very distinct separation between looks and substance.

You've got yourself so tangled up with semantics that it really is time to end this. Your own source specifically put both graphics and user interface under gameplay, so now stating that graphics, audio, gameplay, GUI and controls are universally agreed to be totally separate elements is contradicting yourself. Maybe you should take a look at your own arguments before judging those of other people.