OFFICIAL KEPLER "GTX680" Reviews

[RussianSensation]

Depends on which games you bench in a small list such as that, could vastly influence the results, which you also know is true.

Take a look at bigger summaries. TPU, Comp.de etc.

Gtx680 has a 8% advantage at 1080p, and 3% advantage at 1600p.

See, but when I actually did more digging and started going into more detail in reviews I see some incredible performance advantages in Batman AC, BF3, SKYRIM, Trackmania, Dirt 3. When HD7970 wins, it squeels by 3-5 fps in games such as Metro 2033 or Crysis 1. Metro 2033 needs 2 cards to have DOF and Tessellation + AA on. So that's a non-starter. When GTX680 wins though, it wins big. We are talking 20-30% at 1080P.

And then I came across Bjord3D review where a reference GTX680 hit 1300mhz without any voltage modding. At 1080P it blows away HD6990 and pushes a massive lead against a stock HD7970 in some games. I can't even imagine what happens when there are $550 GTX680s with 8 power phases and better cooling.

Then I read more and I saw that Kepler has 60% faster FP16 texture performance against HD7970 and 2x over GTX580 and has 2x the Tessellation performance of HD7970. Just when HD7970 caught up in Tessellation to GTX580, Kepler again moves it 1 generation ahead. Basically if games get more Tessellation heavy or more texture heavy in the future, Kepler will pull away even more. Based on these 2 things, Kepler architecture is so impressive for the future, when GK110 launches we are going to be mind-blown. If GTX680 can do all this in a 195W power envelope, a 250W TDP GK110 with 30% more performance is no stretch of imagination. However, GK110 will likely have wider memory bandwidth bus addressing the penalty hit GTX680 has with 8xMSAA and with higher resolutions.

Now obviously cream of the crop after market HD7970s can be overclocked to 1250mhz. But that pretty much means paying $50-100 more and gambling that your card hits that on air. GTX680 can do 1200-1300mhz on air with dynamic voltages in Precision X in 15 seconds by moving the slider.

I am becoming more and more convinced HD7970 needs to be $450 to even be considered at this point. $499 for all the "uber" editions such as Direct CUII, MSI Lightning, Windforce, etc.

We also know HD7970 eat power like no tomorrow at 1.25-1.3V @ 1250mhz. I personally don't care about power consumption when a card is much faster, but that's just not the case this time.

At 1305mhz overclock, 85% fan speed, a reference GTX680 runs at 62*C in Metro 2033. I want to see a reference HD7970 pull that off at 1200mhz overclock.

Remember all these overclocks of 1200-1300 we are seeing are done on 4-power phase, reference cooled 680s.

 

[badb0y]

See, but when I actually did more digging and started going into more detail in reviews I see some incredible performance advantages in Batman AC, BF3, SKYRIM, Trackmania, Dirt 3. When HD7970 wins, it squeels by 3-5 fps in games such as Metro 2033 or Crysis 1. Metro 2033 needs 2 cards to have DOF and Tessellation + AA on. So that's a non-starter. When GTX680 wins though, it wins big. We are talking 20-30% at 1080P.

And then I came across Bjord3D review where a reference GTX680 hit 1300mhz without any voltage modding. At 1080P it blows away HD6990 and pushes a massive lead against a stock HD7970 in some games. I can't even imagine what happens when there are $550 GTX680s with 8 power phases and better cooling.

Then I read more and I saw that Kepler has 60% faster FP16 texture performance against HD7970 and 2x over GTX580 and has 2x the Tessellation performance of HD7970. Just when HD7970 caught up in Tessellation to GTX580, Kepler again moves it 1 generation ahead. Basically if games get more Tessellation heavy or more texture heavy in the future, Kepler will pull away even more. Based on these 2 things, Kepler architecture is so impressive for the future, when GK110 launches we are going to be mind-blown. If GTX680 can do all this in a 195W power envelope, a 250W TDP GK110 with 30% more performance is no stretch of imagination. However, GK110 will likely have wider memory bandwidth bus addressing the penalty hit GTX680 has with 8xMSAA and with higher resolutions.

Now obviously cream of the crop after market HD7970s can be overclocked to 1250mhz. But that pretty much means paying $50-100 more and gambling that your card hits that on air. GTX680 can do 1200-1300mhz on air with dynamic voltages in Precision X in 15 seconds by moving the slider.

I am becoming more and more convinced HD7970 needs to be $450 to even be considered at this point. $499 for all the "uber" editions such as Direct CUII, MSI Lightning, Windforce, etc.

We also know HD7970 eat power like no tomorrow at 1.25-1.3V @ 1250mhz. I personally don't care about power consumption when a card is much faster, but that's just not the case this time.

At 1305mhz overclock, 85% fan speed, a reference GTX680 runs at 62*C in Metro 2033. I want to see a reference HD7970 pull that off at 1200mhz overclock.

Remember all these overclocks of 1200-1300 we are seeing are done on 4-power phase, reference cooled 680s.

I see this being repeated again and again. Correct me if I am wrong but the GTX 680 dynamically overclocks and overvolts correct? If so then all this talk of no voltage adjustment is nonsense because the card is doing the volting for you.

At least that's the way I read about it.

 

[dust]

I see this being repeated again and again. Correct me if I am wrong but the GTX 680 dynamically overclocks and overvolts correct? If so then all this talk of no voltage adjustment is nonsense because the card is doing the volting for you.

At least that's the way I read about it.

I don't see the whole point of this discussion anyway, both AMD and Nvidia played their cards, Nvidia came on top this time, and they're both terrible at price/performance. Probably a 7890 with a ~300mm die and a 400$ price tag would smoke both of them at the above game.

 

[mv2devnull]

Not worth much here, but anyway:

GTX 680 review with SLI, in swedish

GTX 680 review, in finnish

 

[MrK6]

See, but when I actually did more digging and started going into more detail in reviews I see some incredible performance advantages in Batman AC, BF3, SKYRIM, Trackmania, Dirt 3. When HD7970 wins, it squeels by 3-5 fps in games such as Metro 2033 or Crysis 1. Metro 2033 needs 2 cards to have DOF and Tessellation + AA on. So that's a non-starter. When GTX680 wins though, it wins big. We are talking 20-30% at 1080P.

And if the overall average is 8%, then that would mean the 7970 is the same or faster in more games then, doesn't it? That's how averages work - you need more wins on the 7970's end to offset those games where the GTX 680 has a big advantage. So then what would be better to have - a card that's the same or a bit faster in most games or a card that's faster in a handful of games?

And then I came across Bjord3D review where a reference GTX680 hit 1300mhz without any voltage modding. At 1080P it blows away HD6990 and pushes a massive lead against a stock HD7970 in some games. I can't even imagine what happens when there are $550 GTX680s with 8 power phases and better cooling.

That seems to be just about the most nvidia-biased review I've seen. You really think the 7970 uses 40W more on idle than a GTX 580, even though it has Zero Core tech? It's interesting that you take it as Gospel though, even though it contradicts the results found on the rest of the internet.

Then I read more and I saw that Kepler has 60% faster FP16 texture performance against HD7970 and 2x over GTX580 and has 2x the Tessellation performance of HD7970. Just when HD7970 caught up in Tessellation to GTX580, Kepler again moves it 1 generation ahead. Basically if games get more Tessellation heavy or more texture heavy in the future, Kepler will pull away even more. Based on these 2 things, Kepler architecture is so impressive for the future, when GK110 launches we are going to be mind-blown. If GTX680 can do all this in a 195W power envelope, a 250W TDP GK110 with 30% more performance is no stretch of imagination. However, GK110 will likely have wider memory bandwidth bus addressing the penalty hit GTX680 has with 8xMSAA and with higher resolutions.

Tessellation power means nothing if they don't do anything with it. So far all nvidia has done is used it to pull underhanded tactics to "win" in benchmarks. I'm not supporting a company that pushes for a game to tessellate an entire ocean under the level or concrete barriers (like Crysis 2) or adds oodles of tessellation to a poor console port (like Batman: AC), just so they gain a few more FPS over the competition while making the game run poorly for everyone.

Now obviously cream of the crop after market HD7970s can be overclocked to 1250mhz. But that pretty much means paying $50-100 more and gambling that your card hits that on air. GTX680 can do 1200-1300mhz on air with dynamic voltages in Precision X in 15 seconds by moving the slider.

No, they can't. I would have suspected that in your "research" you would have discovered threads like this: http://www.overclock.net/t/1233434/680-overclocking-calling-all-owners/0_100#post_16792440 that detail overlcocking that actual GTX 680 users are getting and they're topping out in the +125-150 range (or 1175-1200MHz on the core) on average. However, one great GTX 680 sample got a 1300MHz overclock and that's somehow your average? Interesting. :sneaky: Also, the average air overclock for a 7970 is 1202MHz according to hwbot, and that's not discounting the stock "test" runs - http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_hd_7970/ . Interesting that your research didn't uncover that either. Therefore, when we reevaluate the situation with an unbiased viewpoint, we can see that 7970's should hit 1200Mhz on average, the same as a GTX 680, except that the GTX 680 is starting at 1006MHz and not 925MHz. Also you failed to mention that to get these top overclocks on a GTX 680, you have to run the GTX 680 at 80-100% fan speed because boost performance is entirely temperature dependent. So there goes any noise advantage the GTX 680 had.

I am becoming more and more convinced HD7970 needs to be $450 to even be considered at this point. $499 for all the "uber" editions such as Direct CUII, MSI Lightning, Windforce, etc.

When you do clearly biased research, I'm sure it does seem like that.

Honestly, it's like reading a nvidia marketing pamphlet.


Inflammatory rhetoric like this will only be taken as flamebaiting, and flaming will ensue.

Do not post flamebait, regardless your intent if it is inflammatory it will be a problem.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Keysplayr]

Honestly, it's like reading an nvidia marketing pamphlet when you're sitting in a cubicle at AMD headquarters in the marketing department waiting for your paycheck or pinkslip. Whichever comes first.

Fixed that for ya. Not saying you of course MrK6. Just in general. :thumbsup:


Inflammatory rhetoric like this will only be taken as flamebaiting, and flaming will ensue.

Multiple individuals did the right thing, they reported the post rather than take the bait and flame back.

Do not post flamebait, regardless your intent if it is inflammatory it will be a problem.

Administrator Idontcare

Edit: PS - my apologies to Keysplayr for unfairly selecting only his post for sanctioning when I initially read this portion of the thread.

At the time, I failed to read enough of the rest of the thread to realize his post was not the only inflammatory post contributing to the overall volatility in the thread at this juncture. I failed to realize that it was a rebuttal to a pre-existing inflammatory post.

Not that two wrongs make a right, this post is still too inflammatory and is a problem on its own in that regard, but the other party was equally culpable and that portion of justice was not carried out in a timely manner and that's on me. Sorry Keysplayr.

 

[gusther]

well, the only thing is wrong is the price

 

[Keysplayr]

gusther, post your source so I can add it to the OP. There are quite a few missing games there as well.

 

[Qbah]

gusther, post your source so I can add it to the OP. There are quite a few missing games there as well.

Graphs like that are quite recognizable I thought (I'm not gusther, just pointing out where they came from) - Xbitlabs

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680.html

 

[Keysplayr]

Graphs like that are quite recognizable I thought (I'm not gusther, just pointing out where they came from) - Xbitlabs

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680.html

Thanks Qbah. I didn't recognize them. I'll add it to the OP. :thumbsup:

 

[Silverforce11]

All i see is a 3-8% performance deficit for the stock 7970 vs a turbo stock gtx680. As it shows, a 7970 @ 1.15ghz is already matching or beating a gtx680 in a wide selection of games.

The only problem with 7970 pricing is its not attractive even if its faster OC, because it ends up using a lot more power for only a slight advantage. It's probably only worth it for people who SLI/CF and 3 monitors. For everyone else, gtx680 is just plain more value, period.

 

[Termie]

gusther, post your source so I can add it to the OP. There are quite a few missing games there as well.

Yup, Xbitlabs.

BTW, in Internet Explorer, the way gusther posted those graphs messes up the whole thread screen size. It's running way off the screen for me now. Works in Firefox though. Odd.

 

[MrK6]

Fixed that for ya. Not saying you of course MrK6. Just in general. :thumbsup:

I assume that since you resort to a personal attack, you have no real counterpoint.

All i see is a 3-8% performance deficit for the stock 7970 vs a turbo stock gtx680. As it shows, a 7970 @ 1.15ghz is already matching or beating a gtx680 in a wide selection of games.

The only problem with 7970 pricing is its not attractive even if its faster OC, because it ends up using a lot more power for only a slight advantage. It's probably only worth it for people who SLI/CF and 3 monitors. For everyone else, gtx680 is just plain more value, period.

Agreed. The 7970 base MSRP needs to come down to $500 to be competitive. Extras like 3GB of vRAM mean little to the vast majority of the market, and although the 7970 ends up being faster, you do have to work for it.

 

[Keysplayr]

I assume that since you resort to a personal attack, you have no real counterpoint.

Personal attack.. Yeahok.

 

[maddie]

Fixed that for ya. Not saying you of course MrK6. Just in general. :thumbsup:

Noticing how you totally ignored his arguments and concentrated on trivia

MrK6 said:

1)
And if the overall average is 8%, then that would mean the 7970 is the same or faster in more games then, doesn't it? That's how averages work - you need more wins on the 7970's end to offset those games where the GTX 680 has a big advantage. So then what would be better to have - a card that's the same or a bit faster in most games or a card that's faster in a handful of games?

This is simple math.

2)
That seems to be just about the most nvidia-biased review I've seen. You really think the 7970 uses 40W more on idle than a GTX 580, even though it has Zero Core tech? It's interesting that you take it as Gospel though, even though it contradicts the results found on the rest of the internet.

No reply.


All these arguments advocating questionable reviews once they reinforce our 'side' and ignoring valid points really devalue this forum.

To clarify any misconceptions, I think the 680 is the best buy right now, just as the 7970 was until recently, for the top single GPU card.

 

[Keysplayr]

Noticing how you totally ignored his arguments and concentrated on trivia

MrK6 said:

1)
And if the overall average is 8%, then that would mean the 7970 is the same or faster in more games then, doesn't it? That's how averages work - you need more wins on the 7970's end to offset those games where the GTX 680 has a big advantage. So then what would be better to have - a card that's the same or a bit faster in most games or a card that's faster in a handful of games?

This is simple math.

2)
That seems to be just about the most nvidia-biased review I've seen. You really think the 7970 uses 40W more on idle than a GTX 580, even though it has Zero Core tech? It's interesting that you take it as Gospel though, even though it contradicts the results found on the rest of the internet.

No reply.


All these arguments advocating questionable reviews once they reinforce our 'side' and ignoring valid points really devalue this forum.

To clarify any misconceptions, I think the 680 is the best buy right now, just as the 7970 was until recently, for the top single GPU card.

Notice how I don't need to when it's already been addressed 87 times in this thread already? Color me un-motivated to beat a dead horse. TYVM. Very concerning when people try so damn hard to find a nitch argument, they start believing in it all that much more.

 

[Termie]

Keys - have you posted the link to the new Toms article on SLI/overclocking?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli-overclock-surround,3162.html

 

[exar333]

http://www.arctic.ac/en/p/detail/index/sArticle/502/sCategory/2182

Just in case,the Accelero Xtreme vga cooler

Beefy and damn sure to get you to 1300+,my card has already hit 1250@ 1.25v and stayed stable...but damn does it get hot,unless i ramp the fan to 75% then its loud.:\

That's the thing. I don't want a card running at 75% fan speed just to be competitive.

 

[Vesku]

GK110 might look a little off when compared to this 680, assuming the big chip has full GPGPU capability.

Years of pushing CUDA and then they gut it for the 680, hehe.

 

[skipsneeky2]

That's the thing. I don't want a card running at 75% fan speed just to be competitive.

Never posted that as a means of saying the 7970 was better in any way or suggesting you buy one over the gtx680.

Just expressing how well this card in general overclocks in case some people get all nervous and wanna sell their cards,one guy in one of these threads told me the 7970 simply doesn't scale well,hell using the HARDOCP msi lightning review of the 7970,i added a pinch of voltage to reach my final clock of 1200/1575.

This is the first card i ever owned i felt safe applying a voltage overclock to,as i never took overclocking seriously before,but the 7970 isn't stubborn at all.

 

[Keysplayr]

Keys - have you posted the link to the new Toms article on SLI/overclocking?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-sli-overclock-surround,3162.html

It's there now. Thanks! Great read!

 

[antef]

Okay, being mostly an FPS guy, I'm looking at the BF3 benchmarks. I know that is a strong NVIDIA title, but even still, is it just me or does the AMD 7800 series totally suck? 1920x1200 FXAA 7870 only SIX FPS over the 560 Ti? Is that really what a new generation bought us? Meanwhile the GTX 680 is 48% faster than the GTX 580. Does that mean I could expect a similar jump from the 560 Ti to the 660 Ti? If so, it makes me think even if the 7870 drops in price significantly it still isn't worth my money. I've been waiting to buy a $250 card for months now...am I really going to have to wait another 6 months for NVIDIA to fill out their lineup?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Okay, being mostly an FPS guy, I'm looking at the BF3 benchmarks. I know that is a strong NVIDIA title, but even still, is it just me or does the AMD 7800 series totally suck? 1920x1200 FXAA 7870 only SIX FPS over the 560 Ti? Is that really what a new generation bought us? Meanwhile the GTX 680 is 48% faster than the GTX 580. Does that mean I could expect a similar jump from the 560 Ti to the 660 Ti? If so, it makes me think even if the 7870 drops in price significantly it still isn't worth my money. I've been waiting to buy a $250 card for months now...am I really going to have to wait another 6 months for NVIDIA to fill out their lineup?

The 680 is a highly clocked 560TI replacement, you're basically seeing the evolution of the 560ti to the 680, that's the actual generation increase.

With that in mind there is really no way to know how things will play out below the 680 since it's already a doubling of the GTX 560 TI. We haven't actually seen the successor to the GTX 580/GF110 yet.


With Nvidia's new boost technology they have supreme control over performance in a way we haven't seen before. They could simply release the 680 as a 670 with a lower TDP limit but the same exact specs.

 

[chimaxi83]

With Nvidia's new boost technology they have supreme control over performance in a way we haven't seen before. They could simply release the 680 as a 670 with a lower TDP limit but the same exact specs.

Lol for them to purposely gimp TDP (even more than this boost part time overclocking crap) just to release the same card at a lower spec would equal a supremely douchebag move, wouldn't put it past em though.

 

[antef]

The 680 is a highly clocked 560TI replacement, you're basically seeing the evolution of the 560ti to the 680, that's the actual generation increase.

With that in mind there is really no way to know how things will play out below the 680 since it's already a doubling of the GTX 560 TI. We haven't actually seen the successor to the GTX 580/GF110 yet.


With Nvidia's new boost technology they have supreme control over performance in a way we haven't seen before. They could simply release the 680 as a 670 with a lower TDP limit but the same exact specs.

I'm sorry, if this is a 560 Ti replacement but branded as a 680, does that mean NVIDIA could've unleashed way more but didn't simply because they didn't have to? And, what exactly does it *mean* for this to be a 560 Ti replacement when it's branded as a 680? I don't see how you can call one part a replacement for another when it costs twice as much. As a consumer I look at price brackets...whatever costs the same as the 560 Ti but from the next generation of products is the true 560 replacement to me.

In the end are you confirming or denying that the 7800 series is currently a horrible buy right now? Should a shopper in the $250 range do anything except for wait for the 660 Ti at this point?