Why would you suggest that it's not a metric for me comparing the 7970 to the GTX 680? I never said that.

We never even talked about vram by the way.

Agreed. In your posting history, you never mentioned that the HD 7970 runs hotter and louder than the GTX 670/680; apparently it is not an issue for you that the HD 7970 uses more power. Yet suddenly it is an issue for you that the GTX 480 runs hotter and uses more power than a HD 7850?

What is there to talk about regarding vRAM? The GTX 480 has sufficient for its useful life at the resolution and settings that most end users will use.

How is $180 not a good deal for a GTX 480? What makes a thirty dollar more expensive and slower card for most that don't overclock, a better deal?

The power heat and noise issue between the 7970 and the GTX 680 is nowhere near the difference between the GTX 480 and the 7850.

I never even really compared the 7970 and the GTX 680 really. I have no interest in cards that expensive. I have conceded that the GTX 680 is the superior card.

You on the other hand have downplayed the 7970 right from its launch despite the fact that it was the fastest card available by a significant amount for several months. You're repeatedly painting AMD in a bad light.

I don't know what you're looking for here. If it's a flame war it's not interested and I'm done.

I have the right to my opinion that a GTX 480 for $180 is a warm deal at best. Even the newer revisions run hot loud and power hungry. They dump a ton of heat in your case. If I had one I would go straight to water cooling.

You have a right to hold the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, if you wish


You have no evidence that the newer revisions of the GTX 480 run "hot loud and power hungry". i have experience with GTX 480 - the original reference version - and the later editions, and they do not need watercooling.

The HD 7970 is what it is. My criticisms are valid that it is overpriced for its performance to begin with and although now it is priced right, it had to sacrifice power, heat and noise just to compete with Kepler. i have a Powercolor HD 7970 that we paid $550 for. It is a decent card that needs to be overclocked to match the GTX 680.

Fine, you know what, I just read this and it changed my mind somewhat:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/overclocking-tweaking-benchmarking/38047-gtx-480-overclocking.html

I would have been tempted by these GTX 480s if I did not already have the 7850.

I'm actually finding that I'm not gaming much at all even with my decent hardware.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=20800

i sent it to Dave for his desktop


The GTX 480 that released 6 months after the reference version had improved significantly. It could nearly catch the GTX 580 when overclocked. Yet there was a deliberate disinformation campaign that continually harped on how bad the thermals of Fermi were.

$180 is a very good deal for the performance.

I didn't realize Dave was a gamer.

Probably Angry Birds for the past couple of years.
-- he moved into a closet that passed for an apartment in Chicago and only recently got a larger place

i sent him a desktop a couple of months ago .. no idea if he set it up yet .. but he does have a very nice video card
-- the SOC is solidly faster than a GTX 570 and will further clock close to GTX 580 performance. Those Arctic-Cooling fans never need to ramp up unless you set the profile that way.

Also 480 has more ram than 570 for the record