Gigabyte GTX680 retail pictures

[BallaTheFeared]

Woah, what just happened?


Also GPUz is showing "boost"... That's uh... what's the word? Nice?

And fillrate, 128.8 at stock?

 

[RussianSensation]

Seems the costs of 32nm/28nm are a lot higher and the whole cost thing does seem to be spiraling out of control. (BTW, I like the comment asking: "Now, I wonder what Intel’s costs are?" and wondered the same thing myself after all even Intel's pockets are not bottomless...)

While I'd love to either AMD or Nvidia to give a great bargain 28nm GPU, with yields poor and costs high I don't see that happening any time soon.

Ya, even Rory said that 28nm costs are much much higher than during the industry's transition to 40nm. So we won't be getting HD7970 performance at $350 for a while.

Woah, what just happened?

Also GPUz is showing "boost"... That's uh... what's the word? Nice?

And fillrate, 128.8 at stock?

Just got a tip from a knowledgeable tech guru . The guy using GTX680 with 706mhz clocks was running 300.65 disc drivers but Nvidia already has 300.99 drivers out there for reviewers. It's possible that the 300.65 drivers weren't working properly by not allowing the card to Turbo Boost to its max TDP.

Texture Fillrate = 128 TMUs x 1006 mhz GPU = 128.8 Texel fill-rate

I am pretty sure Fermi suffered significantly from lack of texture performance in higher 2560x1600 modes against Cayman. That's likely why HD6970 became looked more competitive at higher resolutions with larger texture sizes. Looks like Nvidia just may have fixed their 2560x1600 performance.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Does he have 3Dmark Vantage? I'd like to see the texture and pixel fillrates in action, if at all possible?

I figured it might have been an older driver, but from 54.1 to 78.4 - dat crazy.. It just smoked my 470's at 607MHz ... Is it legit though?

I would consider upgrading for that, haha.

 

[Lonyo]

So at the risk of quoting everyone's favourite rumour monger, has anyone seen that article about process costs from the Common Platform conference?
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/03/19/global-foundries-shares-the-cost-of-doing-business/

Seems the costs of 32nm/28nm are a lot higher and the whole cost thing does seem to be spiraling out of control. (BTW, I like the comment asking: "Now, I wonder what Intel’s costs are?" and wondered the same thing myself after all even Intel's pockets are not bottomless...)

While I'd love to either AMD or Nvidia to give a great bargain 28nm GPU, with yields poor and costs high I don't see that happening any time soon.

It's not spiraling out of control, based on those numbers.
If it was spiraling out of control, the increase in costs would be higher than the benefits from the improvement.

Going from 45->22nm (~4x as many transistors per mm^2), costs less than 2x as much for fab costs and process development cost, which is what GF/TSMC etc pay for.
The cost increase for chip development is more of an increase, 2.5x, but you're still getting 4x the transistor density.

The BENEFIT of this is that older processes still remain somewhat competitive, since they will be refined to the end of life, and customers may feel "good enough" is acceptable, while the bleeding edge players will still require the bleeding edge.

Of course, it requires some consolidation to enable players to have the capital budgets for the initial expenditures required, and it won't necessarily lead to the dramatic price drops we've seen historically, but for the actual fabs it's not exactly all negative.

 

[SolMiester]

Release date 22nd....a Thursday?

 

[tviceman]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/gigabyte-gtx-680-2gb-already-arrive-at-my-shop/430#post_16751424
Batman AC: 4x MSAA, 16xAF, Global Settings on very high, PhysX off (to compare to AMD)
112 FPS at 1300/6500 on 1920x1080.

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-graphics-card-review-batman-arkham-city.html

MSI Lightning 7970 with maxed out overclock at 1265/1505

Batman AC: 103 avg, 54 minimum

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's FXAA ;o

 

[tviceman]

Those scores make a lot more sense for a high-end GTX680 card but now they look almost too fast. What's a stock HD7970 getting? 55-57 fps? That's 37% faster than a stock HD7970.

It was ran in windowed mode. Might affect results as I am not sure if AA works in windowed mode.

The batman results are comparable though, look back to my last post.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

AA in Heaven 3.0 works in windowed mode.

Window mode:

0x AA

8x AA

 

[Grooveriding]

Those scores make a lot more sense for a high-end GTX680 card but now they look almost too fast. What's a stock HD7970 getting? 55-57 fps? That's 37% faster than a stock HD7970.

If 1058mhz clocks are activated, it's easy to imagine a 40% boost in performance (i.e., the score goes from 54 fps to 78). If true, mind-blown Or photoshopped...hehe

AA was not working for his bench. I don't know if that would account for that much of a performance jump though. No idea how intensive AA is in Heaven and I doubt Fermi's performance with it on/off would give a proper gauge.

Agreed 37% is pretty unrealistic though.

Just show me the real benches anand. If this is a true flagship increase in line with what nvidia has delivered in the past, I will buy two of them.

 

[MrTeal]

Looks like GPU-Z 0.6.0 was updated today with support for the 680GTX.

Still, 40% faster than a 7970 seems hard to believe.

 

[tviceman]

AA was not working for his bench.

I questioned this as well, but Balla's post shows that it does work. I don't know maybe some setting is off because yeah that seems like too big of a gap.

 

[RussianSensation]

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-graphics-card-review-batman-arkham-city.html

MSI Lightning 7970 with maxed out overclock at 1265/1505

Batman AC: 103 avg, 54 minimum

Wow, so the cream of the crop HD7970 that reached 1265mhz on air cooling can't touch a reference overclocked GTX680?

Agreed 37% is pretty unrealistic though.

Ya, that seems very high. There is no way GTX680 is on average that much faster than an HD7970 being a 294mm^2, 192GB/sec chip.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Wow, so the cream of the crop HD7970 that reached 1265mhz on air cooling can't touch a reference overclocked GTX680?

The 7970 is running FXAA, but the 680 was overclocked to 1300MHz running 4xAA.


If 54.1 fps was legit in Heaven, than how much would drivers affect performance as well as the additional 400MHz clock speed and if applicable, how much is the 680 boosting itself past 1000MHz in heaven 3.0 with the latest drivers?

Though I agree, from 54.1 to 70+ is quite insane.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

225w limit might actually be a bad thing.
It means the TDP should be low, but with the 7970 the "TDP" is 250w, but the typical power use is something like 190w or whatever.

By limiting the card to 225w power within spec, it might potentially limit overclocking. It would be nicer to see 300w potential power with below 225w TDP.

these are my thoughts exactly, hopefully there are some non reference designs that beef things up in this regard. Granted, if the 680 is already approaching some sort of thermal threshold for air cooling it might not matter either way

 

[Grooveriding]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/gigabyte-gtx-680-2gb-already-arrive-at-my-shop/480

Here is my result in batman:ac @1080p at very high setting with 4x msaa/ 16xaf with a reference 7970 @1125 core/ 1600 mem

lol. At this point I think they're all making up benchmarks now.

 

[tviceman]

The 7970 is running FXAA, but the 680 was overclocked to 1300MHz running 4xAA.


If 54.1 fps was legit in Heaven, than how much could bios affect performance as well as the additional 400MHz clock speed?

Though I agree, from 54.1 to 70+ is quite insane.

Wow nice catch. The lead gtx680 lead would get even bigger then.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/gigabyte-gtx-680-2gb-already-arrive-at-my-shop/480



lol. At this point I think they're all making up benchmarks now.

Results and settings you mean?

He scores higher when he down clocks to 1000MHz! It's crazy!



Here is a decent post...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/gigabyte-gtx-680-2gb-already-arrive-at-my-shop/470#post_16751691

lolitsallwrong is the one who posted the higher score in Heaven, Murlocke confirmed his buddy who also has a card but is under NDA gets those same results as lolitsallwrong showed (the 74~ fps at the settings the 7970 gets 54~).

Could mean something, could mean nothing... We'll just have to wait a few more days for official reviews If it is that fast though, I'll be upgrading.

 

[Olikan]

Those scores make a lot more sense for a high-end GTX680 card but now they look almost too fast. What's a stock HD7970 getting? 55-57 fps? That's 37% faster than a stock HD7970.

If 1058mhz clocks are activated, it's easy to imagine a 40% boost in performance (i.e., the score goes from 54 fps to 78). If true, mind-blown Or photoshopped...hehe

...drivers?

Heaven 3.0 is brand new....

 

[Arzachel]

I skimmed that thread, looks like the GTX680 is slower than the 7970?

I can run them; I didn't say I would. Too many people are going to be all "blah blah i don't believe you they're fake!" I just had to step in here and set the terrifying results from the OP straight. They are bogus. Just wait for launch. It's not far away.
Batman AC: 4x MSAA, 16xAF, Global Settings on very high, PhysX off (to compare to AMD)
112 FPS at 1300/6500 on 1920x1080.
Cheers

Here is my result in batman:ac @1080p at very high setting with 4x msaa/ 16xaf with a reference 7970 @1125 core/ 1600 mem

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah that user is getting 40% more fps than a higher clocked lighting card while running higher settings.

Did AMD release new drivers with a 60% performance increase in BM:AC since that review?

 

[SolMiester]

Ive read the entire thread, the 680 is way faster, however there is confusion on AC game settings...

 

[Arzachel]

Yeah that user is getting 40% more fps than a higher clocked lighting card while running higher settings.

They're running identical settings, but yeah.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

They're running identical settings, but yeah.

Are they?

Here are the results from an official review of the 7970 Lightning MaxOC...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33163706&postcount=75

It's 1080p, 16xAF, FXAA

The clocks are 1265/1505 for that card, the fps were 103 avg.

The 680 was running 1080p, 16xAF, 4xAA.



So did AMD release a driver since "AMD Catalyst "March 2012" with Latest CAP" that increase BM:AC performance by, what 60+ percent, or is there a problem with that users settings?

"lolitsallwrong said settings were on "very high" which is what i set my graphic options to also. pretty sure this is dx9 as it turned DX 11 features to OFF.


lemme do a bench with everything MAXED."


I'll update you once he actually DOES get the settings correct.

 

[sontin]

They're running identical settings, but yeah.

Not really. He wrote "very high" but i think he used "extreme". Because my GTX570@ stock gets 110 FPS with very high...