GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 970 vs 670 among Desktop GPUs

Gaming

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more

Graphics

T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more

Computing

Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Value

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more

7.7

Overall Score

Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 

GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970  based on its benchmarks, compute performance and noise and power.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of GeForce GTX 970

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970

Report a correction
Significantly better PassMark score 8,563 vs 5,374 Around 60% better PassMark score
More memory 4,096 MB vs 2,048 MB 2x more memory
Higher clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 915 MHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Significantly higher pixel rate 58.8 GPixel/s vs 25.62 GPixel/s More than 2.2x higher pixel rate
Higher effective memory clock speed 7,012 MHz vs 6,008 MHz More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed
Higher memory bandwidth 224.4 GB/s vs 192.3 GB/s More than 15% higher memory bandwidth
Better floating-point performance 3,494 GFLOPS vs 2,459.5 GFLOPS More than 40% better floating-point performance
Significantly more render output processors 56 vs 32 24 more render output processors
Better fire strike factor score 72.7 vs 56.13 Around 30% better fire strike factor score
Higher turbo clock speed 1,178 MHz vs 980 MHz More than 20% higher turbo clock speed
Significantly better PassMark direct compute score 4,375 vs 2,578 Around 70% better PassMark direct compute score
Higher battlefield 4 framerate 88.6 vs 52 More than 70% higher battlefield 4 framerate
Higher BioShock infinite framerate 107.6 fps vs 83.7 fps Around 30% higher BioShock infinite framerate
Higher memory clock speed 1,753 MHz vs 1,502 MHz More than 15% higher memory clock speed
More shading units 1,664 vs 1,344 320 more shading units
Lower TDP 148W vs 170W Around 15% lower TDP
Front view of GeForce GTX 670

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Report a correction
Much better 3DMark06 score 29,150 vs 15,071 Around 95% better 3DMark06 score
Better video composition score 69.27 frames/s vs 36.64 frames/s Around 90% better video composition score
Higher crysis 3 framerate 59.9 fps vs 50.6 fps Around 20% higher crysis 3 framerate

Benchmarks Real world tests of GeForce GTX 970 vs 670

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 970
212.39 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 670
97.36 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 970
105.04 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 670
42.55 mPixels/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 970
3,358.38
GeForce GTX 670
3,358.68

Manhattan (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

GeForce GTX 970
3,715.92
GeForce GTX 670
3,710.86

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Battlefield 4

Crysis 3

Reviews Word on the street

Comments

Showing 25 comments.
considering there is not a huge jump the 670 is fine for now.
6 Months late to this argument lol. Yes you are correct but I still stand by my initial statement. RtooDtu described his 2560x1080 monitor as being a 1080p. And seeing as his monitor has no more and no less than 1080 horizontal lines that are rendered Progressively technically he isn't exactly wrong. There was nothing said about it being a standard HD monitor or anything. His monitor doesn't match the traditional 1080p description but he never said it did. Peace and love!!
2560x1080 is not a valid definition of HD resolution as per the HD standards...2560x1080 may be a valid RESOLUTION, but not 1080p as per the standard which is 1920x1080 progressive line display
yup
yes yes yes it is. I gave an exact reason as to why to. To counter argue you need to give exact reason why it isn't
no its not
my 670 do not handle my 3440x1440 screen, i'll maybe buy this one... :D
Yes
What resolution are you running? I'm on 2560x1600 and I've got the GTX 670 thinking of getting the 970. Wouldn't the higher VRAM be beneficial in this case?
Maybe the reference GTX 680, but definitely not the EVGA GTX 680 FTW+ 4GB that I can overclock beyond any GTX 670 and since it had all ROP units compared to the lesser amount on the 670, at 1440p, the 680 became the clear champion over the 670. I do however own a EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked SLI setup now and that EVGA GTX 680 FTW+ 4gb then became my current PhysX card, even though it's a bit overkill, but I can at least crank up all the beautiful PhysX settings to Ultra in Metro Last Light for example, or the Borderlands and I get about 15+ FPS average over just my SLI GTX 970's when I crank up the PhysX settings to max. I do plan to upgrade to the GTX 1080 or whatever they call it since I want a GPU that has a 384 bit memory bus, not the joke 256 bit we got with the 970 and the VRAM is now 3.5GB as well too. I will sell both the 680 and one of the 970's to recoup the cost of at least a single GTX 1080 and I will buy another to SLI, then my remaining GTX 970 will then become my new PhysX card, lol. Because of the joke 256 bit memory bus, that's why I went with the 970 SLI as it was cheaper and now I can enjoy playing at 4K on my HDMI 2.0 10 bit true 4:4:4 Chroma LG 55UB8500 2160p TV at 60 FPS. The newest Batman game looks awesome and since my GTX 680 does all the PhysX work, then I easily get over 15+ FPS at 4K over just the SLI 970's would and that is a HUGE deal since I can now play around 50-60 FPS at 4K with Ultra settings and PhysX set to Ultra as well, lol. The GTX 680 with the EK waterblock still sells for $300+ today and by next year, I should be able to get around $200 for the card with the EK waterblock.
The EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB was a great card for the time, I had upgraded from SLI GTX 560 Ti 1GB cards. I upgraded because I wanted the 2GB of VRAM for comfortable 60+ FPS Ultra gaming at 1080p. I immediately sold one of the GTX 560's for $220 locally on Craigslist so that alone paid for half the cost of the GTX 670 and thus, the purchase was well worth the upgrade and the other spare GTX 560 ti I had left became my PhysX card and that was my beast when it came to the PhysX goodness of Borderlands and the Batman games, those games look awesome with all their PhysX settings ticked to Ultra and my main GPU doesn't have to worry about it. My old EVGA GTX 670 FTW 2GB then became my PhysX card for a while before I sold it when I bought a cheap EVGA GTX 680 FTW+ 4GB for $100 because the fan broke on the factory cooler and the guy also gave me an EK water block specifically for the 680 FTW+ 4GB (EK FC680 FTW waterblock) because he didn't get the rest of the loop and gave up and was happy with his then new air cooled Titan when it first came out, so the GTX 680 I bought for cheap was less than half a year old then. Craigslist local gold find FTW!
I actually went against all the advice that it is not worth it and upgraded from the gtx 670 to the gtx 970. And now I can actually concur, this is not worth it at all. My gtx 670 runs perfectly fine for most games on ultra, high and medium for newer games and they all look great regardless. If you dont have either and have something lower than the gtx 670, grab the 670 for less money and almost the exact same performance. I really could not tell the difference on some games.
1080p means there are 1080 horizontal lines that are rendered Progressively. 2560x1080 is still 1080p
I'm planning to upgrade to two ASUS STRIX GTX 970s when they come in back in stock at Newegg. Once I've left 1080p @120 Hz and moved to 1440p @100Hz (I've overclocked a 1440p Korean panel.), I've been finding myself turning settings down. EVGA's GTX 670 SC 4GB has been a very good card in the time I've had it.
Got two EVGA GTX 670 FTW in my machine and I'm playing mostly everything near maxed out still on my 2560 x 1440 monitor. I fail to see much of a reason to switch over unless they come out with a 980 Ti...
I got a single 670, do you figure its worth grabbing another 670, or should I wait for the next gen Radeon cards to come out?
That isn't actually 1080p. 1080p is 1920x1080.
I have the GTX 970 STRIX on my wishlist on Amazon. I currently have a EVGA GTX 670 FTW edition card. I play almost all my games on ULTRA with no problems. I am going to upgrade because recommended system requirements for games are now creeping upwards into the 670 range. I run a single monitor @ 144Hz, so a little more 'oomph' will be nice. Plus GTA-V coming in a few months.
People are saying it's a waste of money. That may be true if you have a 770 or above including SLI+, but I have an EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC. While this card is absolutely AWESOME. I will DEFINITELY see a noticeable change in performance in most games actually. I can run most games on high, but some games and some older games have upgraded graphics options like Star Wars: The Old Republic. I can run it on high and it's smooth but recently they added more specific shader and shadow options along with view distances etc. Now I can still run it with everything maxed, but now it's slightly choppy while doing this. The same goes for The Elder Scrolls Online, which is a newer game of course, but they recently added more shader options with a patch and now it too is a little choppy. Both games are not bad at all and completely playable but I can notice it. The 970 will fix all of that along with any future games for at least the next 2 years to be able to run on max settings. This is especially true if you were to get EVGA's GeForce GTX 970 FTW ACX 2.0. When looking at reviews for that version of the 970, it's nearly as fast at the base GTX 980. So, you can save $180 by getting the 970 FTW ACX 2.0 over the base 980. Sorry, didn't mean for this to become a buy EVGA thread but all of the 6 or 7 EVGA cards I've had, they'll all been awesome. The only other companies I'd buy from if I didn't go EVGA would be MSI and Gigabyte. Anyway, the bottom line is the 970 is well worth your money unless you have a 770 or above!
i got a 760ti (OEM) same as 670 . i can probably sell my 760 for around 100$ ..question is would it be worth much to change now to 970??? by these numbers there's not much of a change but it is a New Chip ;)
I was seriously thinking of upgrading, however, I've decided to hold off. I am probably going to wait till next year then grab the next generation as well as a 4k monitor. As it stands my 670 can sill play most (if not all) games on High/Ultra and since I am still running a 1080p monitor (2560x1080) there is no reason for me to upgrade my video card.
waste of money only if u play full hd, u don't need much for run games full on 1920x1024...but if u like to play 4K like me 670 on sli is not enough...i got them only tho on 2gb but still even on 4gb version on sli is not enough run every game full detail on 3840x2140 resolution...still i have to say that 670sli 2gb runs suprising well games on 4K...they run between almost full details to meduim...not bad for such old cards...for me 970 as sli will be more than enough gaming full details on 4K for now at least and on under 800€ as sli i do not keep it expensive...that's the price if u wanna play 4K my monitor pay 650€ so about 1,2-1,5k u get ready to play on 4K and i can say it's worth it...ofc your's other components have to be at least decent but mainly it's all about graphic cards and monitor...
..still having asus gtx670 4gb sli and every game is on ultra..waste of money..wait one more year,this is not worth to upgrade..
Got a 670 as well and still plays most games on ultra mode so I'll still wait before I buy a new GPU card. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Is it worth it?, already have gtx 670 on ebay :)
comments powered by Disqus