Azeem's Discussion on GPU

I would say the 7970 but you could still get the same levels with 7950 but the 7970 is still better.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5476 [...] 950-review

You'll get more, but it won't appear on your screen. Your monitor, unless it's a very new and expensive model, refreshes at 60Hz, so it can only display 60 fps, ever. Turning on Vertical Sync matches your GPU's output to the monitor's refresh rate, so it never tries to display half each of two consecutive frames (screen tearing).
I think you might be able to get close to 60fps on Ultra, with drops to around 45fps. You can decide whether or not that matters, whether you'd rather have an imperfect framerate on Ultra or a perfect one on High.

^+1
Is it true if you trun on your AA it locks the frame rate in not to exceed 60? I think I just herd or read this in the past week I am just curious.

No, I don't think AA has to do with that.
The 7950 should get you 60fps on high settings, yes.

No such thing as "too high"
Yes, you can underclock, but it would only be useful to save a little power.

Your welcome azeem40 I wasn't much help. I had questions also. Good luck to ya

@kajabla thank you for your answers.

Yeah the 7970 is really only better if you have a use for the extra Stream Cores since both can max out basically every game.

I usually say "max out" when I mean high settings. I'm not a huge ultra guy, but then again, I've never had a card that could actually hit ultra on a big name game.

Yeah, I am not really interested in ultra settings because high is good enough for me. As long as the image quality is alright and there is no lag, which is less likely to happen (the lag being more) on high settings; and yes, I did mean out of low-medium-high-ultra.

Is the Antec Earthwatts's 750W unit good as well?

EDIT: Just as an fyi, the reason I am building a gaming computer is because I have heard so much about all these titles but never got to play console games, so I am a complete beginner for any type of "gaming" (Runescape doesn't really count as gaming to me ). My current computer is a Toshiba Satellite P105-S6024, which can't even run Runescape on min settings, let alone any gaming title out atm lol. Even when browsing the web, I lag and freeze up, and it's not even my internet (the upstairs computer my mom has can load pages quickly). So that is why I am building this gaming computer and have asked SO MANY questions on the parts and how to get into gaming and whatnot.

Yeah. However, when I ask in New Builds, I get brushed aside. I know others are important, but after my first two topics in late-December, I have barely gotten any responses in my threads.

Yeah, well, I don't think I will need to ask for more advice in New Builds section as I am set on the components I want.

lol not big on the ultra game eh? rofl.

i feel that there is no such thing as "not being into ultra settings". Lets cut through the bs and get to the real issue.

"I'm not a guy who is dumb enough to pay $600 for a g. card just so that I can bump high settings to ultra". THAT is totally fine...if thats the case.

I agree that the difference between high settings and ultra in most any game is barely noticeable.

It is nice that at current it does NOT take a $2k computer to run ultra settings...in fact it costs less than $800. Loving it.

After rebates. If the OP doesn't think the rebate hassle is worth $15, so be it.

the whole point of my statement was that you dont need a $600 card to hit ultra settings these days, which is great.

I dont get the PSU arguement guys...just dont buy a friggin rosewill powersupply and you will be fine haha. Kidding, but really...plenty of great, reliable psu's out there. Corsair is a safe bet in the psu department. I have been running mine for 2+ years with no complaints. I have had cheaper psu's decay and begin killing components...spend the extra $20-$40 on a good psu.

the 7950 can run all the games listed on ultra with more than 60 fps 99% of the time.

A few points I didn't see addressed above:

• Skyrim is very CPU-dependent. With such high-end GPUs your choice will make no real difference: whenever you fail to hit 60fps it'll be because of a CPU bottleneck.

• Dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 3 isn't a PC game, so I'm assuming you're running the disc (Wii version?) on an emulator. (perhaps Dolphin?) Again, the bottleneck there, if any, will be on the CPU, so the GPU choice is irrelevant.

• The human eye CAN see well past 60fps; at least 300-500 is the capability of most human eyes. The use of 60 fps is just the result of the old ATSC television standard in North America being pegged to the 60 Hz AC standard for electricity. (this is the same reason why PAL television is 50 Hz: their AC standard is 50 Hz as well) The REAL impact here is that a lot of displays tend to not refresh any more rapidly than this, so a lot of games will also cap the framerate here, too.

Obviously, Battlefield 3 will be the main "benchmark/bottleneck" application we've got to look at here, as all the other posts implied. Curiously, I noticed you never once made a mention of your resolution. That makes just as huge an impact on what kind of graphics card you need as does your settings. If your monitor doesn't go above 1920x1200 or so, that can mean a big difference compared to trying to run at 2560x1600 like you would if you had, say, a huge 30" screen.

Ok. Personally, I'd take High with AA over Ultra without, but it's the OP's preference.

Wow, I never knew I'd still get replies after my last reply lol.

Wow, I didn't know Skyrim and DBZ were CPU-dependent; thought they were GPU-dependent. My resolution is 1920x1080 on a Dell UltraSharp U2312HM. All the features and the .6ms input lag appealed to me big time.

Any thoughts?