Gigabyte GTX680 retail pictures

[3DVagabond]

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.

The spec is 225W, but 6 pin connectors are in no way limited to 75W in real life.

 

[Arzachel]

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.

They're both running dx9 unless lolitsallwrong confused very high with ultra, that kinda makes up for the performance discrepancy.

 

[Grooveriding]

Stopped feeling lazy and read more of the thread. So the one user's heaven results are 45% better than the other's. If the first user did indeed run those benches at 700, the second doing them at 1000 would be a 42% increase in core speed. So those two would be in line.

That thread is starting to feel more like an epeen bench fest than people providing data now though. Seen that happen before and people start pulling the scams using driver filtering changes, misrepresenting settings used and data omission for higher scores.

Also don't like that the first bench is from a long time member and the second, more positive, is from someone who just joined to debunk his numbers... Something stinks there, when something is too good to be true, it generally is. 294mm2 die crushing 340mm2 die where before the trend has been that the 340mm2 die producer has always performed better with the same amount of given die space.. Hate when fud gets spread to try and sway opinion like this, want real benches.

If the 680 can pull 40% better scores in Heaven at stock than a 7970 and similarly in games, and keep that performance at 1600P, I am in for two. Is this card coming out at midnight tonight ?

 

[Crap Daddy]

I can't think that a GTX680 will have less FPS than a 7970 IN BATMAN AC at whatever clocks you want WITH THE SAME SETTINGS. So I think something's messed up.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

GTX 680 might just have superior tess performance, 40% might not translate over as well to multitude of games that wouldn't benefit from that aspect of the 680's performance.

 

[tviceman]

The closer we get to official reviews, the more confusing the leaks become.

 

[blackened23]

Another few pics:

From here:http://www.overclock.net/t/1231113/gigabyte-gtx-680-2gb-already-arrive-at-my-shop/410#post_16751299

User says that it "can overclock far."

EDIT: 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.

1300mhz is 30% overclock on the core. If this is anything close to typical then it looks like GK104 will overclock as well as Tahiti. Anyone have links to Batman AC on an hd7970 DX11 @ 1080p at stock and overclocked?

Graphics device: Intel HD graphics family? From first pic. Either its BS or they're using the new lucent software. Whats up with that?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Intel HD graphics family? From first pic

??

z68 board... The Intel chip might be listed first. It does it with my 9800GT being listed in Heaven, and actually prevented me from running BM:AC in DX11 mode because it was the first listed in device manager.

Also:

 

[Crap Daddy]

Have you read the GPU-z?
294mm2 and release date: Mar. 22 2012. So it's close.

 

[blackened23]

??

z68 board... The Intel chip might be listed first. It does it with my 9800GT being listed in Heaven, and actually prevented me from running BM:AC in DX11 mode because it was the first listed in device manager.

Also:

Yeah, I have a z68 board and thats a bunch of crap. It will list your primary graphics device driver UNLESS you are using the onboard iGPU. So they are either doing a photoshop job or using the new Z77 lucent software, which combines iGPU and discrete cards to complement each other in 3d apps.

 

[chimaxi83]

Graphics device: Intel HD graphics family? From first pic. Either its BS or they're using the new lucent software. Whats up with that?

Saw that too, weird. Chalk it up to don't get anyones hopes up just yet. Beastly score, if true. I ran with same settings on my 7950 at 1250/1750 and hit 65.8 FPS and score of 1657. If true and indicative of gaming performance, bye bye 7900 lol

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah, I have a z68 board and thats a bunch of crap. It will list your primary graphics device driver UNLESS you are using the onboard iGPU. So they are either doing a photoshop job or using the new Z77 lucent software, which combines iGPU and discrete cards to complement each other in 3d apps.

His board is DX10.1, Z77 would be advertising DX11 since that's what IB is.

I have a p67 board and it lists a card in the x4 slot with no screens attached first?

 

[blackened23]

His board is DX10.1, Z77 would be advertising DX11 since that's what IB is.

I have a p67 board and it lists a card in the x4 slot with no screens attached first?

Like I said I have a z68 and it always lists your actual discrete GPU driver with NO exceptions....there's no need to defend a picture that has questionable content. I'm obviously not the only one here with a z68 board so anyone else can verify, or I can upload screens when i'm at home.

Before anyone sees fit to troll/gloat/whatever, i'm just pointing out the obvious in that picture. If I showed you a picture with questionable content what would you do? It should not say intel HD graphics. It is either fake or possibly using the new Lucent Z77 software. If it is the true performance, I may have found something to use my tax return for and your earlier prediction will be true I dunno. The picture seems like BS though.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'm sure it lists it, but does it always list it first no matter what?

Because that's the difference here, if the HD3000 is listed first that's the only vga Heaven will show.

 

[Awkward]

Obviously fake

 

[SirPauly]

??

The drivers differ 300.99 from 300.65 -- that's quite the score and sounds too unbelievable considering its size. If the drivers exist -- how did this poster receive them?

 

[blackened23]

I'm sure it lists it, but does it always list it first no matter what?

Because that's the difference here, if the HD3000 is listed first that's the only vga Heaven will show.

What do you mean? Heaven DX11 will not show Intel HD graphics unless you are using the iGPU with no discrete graphics card. If you have a Z68 with a discrete it will show your discrete card information.

I'm sure numerous others can test and verify, there's an obvious problem with that picture because it shows intel HD graphics when it should not.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

This card only has 2GB of RAM. However I feel that is plenty for most setups.

If you are running a really fancy multi monitor setup then the 7970 looks like a better choice.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This is what I'm saying:

Is your HD3000 listed in your device manager?

The drivers differ 300.99 from 300.65 -- that's quite the score and sounds too unbelievable considering its size. If the drivers exist -- how did this poster receive them?

The first guy was using the cd drivers, the card was locked at 700MHz and had no boost. The second guy is using the same newer driver version in both tests and shows gpu-z with the latest version.

I dunno if it's legit or not, I'm just pointing things out.

 

[blackened23]

This is what I'm saying:

Is your HD3000 listed in your device manager?

No, lets clear something up. If you're using a Z68 board, HD3000 will not be in your device manager unless:

1) You're using Lucid Virtnu software
2) Don't have a discrete card.

If you have a discrete card, it (HD3000) will not be in your device manager. It (HD3000) is also not in the heaven benchmark results tab. Because of this I believe that this test (if real) was using the new Z77 lucid software which combines iGPU and discrete performance.

Good lord. Thursday needs to get here already, don't you agree balla?

 

[SirPauly]

This is what I'm saying:

Is your HD3000 listed in your device manager?

That was quite the driver update for the 9800GT!

 

[SolMiester]

I thought the whole point of the Z68 board was so you could use both HD3000 and discrete (encode with the former, game with the latter), and therefore the HD should show up in DM period!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

^What he said?

He can't be using Z77 + Lucid as pointed out he has a z68 board.

 

[SirPauly]

This is what I'm saying:

Is your HD3000 listed in your device manager?

The first guy was using the cd drivers, the card was locked at 700MHz and had no boost. The second guy is using the same newer driver version in both tests and shows gpu-z with the latest version.

I dunno if it's legit or not, I'm just pointing things out.

IT seems that the difference in numbers is based on maybe the clocking differential and earlier leaks with the 300.65 drivers didn't show the true power of the GTX-680 - possibly. Certainly interesting!

 

[blackened23]

I thought the whole point of the Z68 board was so you could use both HD3000 and discrete (encode with the former, game with the latter), and therefore the HD should show up in DM period!

Nobody uses lucid virtnu software because it cripples your GPU performance. I'm not even sure that HD3000 would appear in device manager with lucid virtnu, I haven't tried. What I do know is that it guts your GPU performance, you can read web reviews everywhere indicating this. Well I can't say nobody but the only reason to use it is for power savings.

Instead of attacking the messenger, just go and ask the guy who produced this result whats up. What gives? It should not say Hd3000. Period. If he was using Lucid Virtnu, his score would be substantially lower - because virtnu cripples your performance.

Someone ask the guy that produced the result, IMO