Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Nvidia Strikes Back: GeForce GTX 680 2 GB on “Kepler” Graphics Architecture

Started by: mmstick | Date 03/22/12 06:39:15 AM
Comments: 71 | Last Comment:  12/27/13 08:19:43 PM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-16]

1. 
Several months late and this is all it can do? I am very disappointed in NVIDIA. They were just blowing hot air earlier when they were badmouthing AMD.
6 6 [Posted by: mmstick  | Date: 03/22/12 06:39:15 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
It is only 2 months late
3 4 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 03/22/12 07:28:29 AM]
Reply
 
Check your calendar..... 7970 released on December of last year.
3 4 [Posted by: mmstick  | Date: 03/22/12 07:40:19 AM]
Reply
 
show the post
2 7 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 08:32:53 AM]
Reply
 
HD7970 wasn't on sale until January 9.
HD7950 wasn't on sale until January 31.

$499 GTX680 is on average 30-35% faster than a $449 HD7950, has a quieter coooler and consumes less power than an overlcocked HD7970 while still beating it on air and costing less!
2 3 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 12:57:50 PM]
Reply
 
Cause theres no way ATI is just milking the $550 price while it lasts, Im sure 3 years from now it will sitll be $550. /sarcasm

Theyll probably drop the price of the 7970 to $480 in 2 weeks or whenever the keplers are stably on the shelf and not sold out. At $480 vs $500 for the nvidia it will still probably be a slight better deal to buy the nvidia, but it will be a fairly close price per performance ratio at that point.
1 2 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 03/22/12 02:04:15 PM]
Reply
 
show the post
1 4 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 03:43:00 PM]
Reply
 
Fair enough assessment on where you think the price should / will go.

When you remove the ridicously 1 sided benchmarks (outliers), and focus on 2560x1600, I'd say there is about a 10% advantage for the nvidia card at stock clocks, and only a 5% advantage when overclocked. (just based on guessing while looking at the performance summary, though i did read the whole article), at 450 vs 500 the cards would be 100% equal price per performance, at $460 i think they can get people who lean towards ATI, (In other words youve swayed me from 480 to 460 as being what they might go down to.)

I think the cards being this close is great for competition, as the prices right now are pretty ridiculous. Hopefully when the dual gpu cards show up well finally see these priced where i think the best gaming cards should be ~ 350.
1 0 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 03/22/12 03:57:54 PM]
Reply
 
I think it's even worse than it seems. Both AMD and NV are taking us for a ride this round.

There are plenty of rumors of why GTX680 is really just a GTX670Ti that was renamed to GTX680 at the last minute:

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/12-03-22/241b.jpg

and

http://www.techpowerup.co...s/showthread.php?t=162901

- 256-bit 192GB/sec memory bandwidth
- Only 294mm^2 die vs. the usual 500mm^2+
- Double precision performance 1/24th of SP (!!) (This doesn't matter for us gamers but this isn't characteristic of the flagship chip in NV's consumer lineup)
- 2GB of VRAM instead of 3-4GB

The way the SMX clusters are setup with 192 SPs is similar to GF114. GF104 codename is a logical codename evolution of that chip.

So $499 for an upper end mid-range Kepler chip only looks like a great deal because HD7970 is not fast. Do you remember the last time NV released a next generation high-end card that was only 35% faster than its previous flagship (i.e., GTX580)? Seems unimpressive even for them.
2 3 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 04:54:50 PM]
Reply
 
Thank you.
It's not sad to see amd fans having lost everything they preached for years and more with a new set of lacking features added to the old missing set amd suffered little for due to their fans denials and misplaced blame. Add in the lower price for Nvidia's better card and you have the amd fan machinations spinning out of control more than usual if that were possible.
Beaten severely at their own talking points game including price must be extremely painful, and I am so happy and delirious to witness it.
I don't mind being a fan of anything, but one I respect doesn't need lies, spin, and crazy contradictions and massive blind spots to support their fan favorite.
I would appreciate amd fans much more if they just admitted defeat then told us they are glad to pay $80 more (no buying the cheapest at $50 more) for the amd card because it has represented everything they've us told they believe in for a card and a company the past number of years.
Sadly for amd, I have not seen this happen a single time. I haven't seen a single one uphold their claimed virtues in another fashion and switch to the Nvidia card because it has delivered what they have been preaching about for so long.
I trust all of them even less now, and they've absolutely and undeniably earned it.
1 3 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/24/12 04:48:45 PM]
Reply
 
LOL " In this graph we have 8X MSAA turned on in the game plus NVIDIA's 8X TR SSAA and AMD's Adaptive SSAA. This graph just blows our minds, something is severely bottlenecking the Radeon HD 7970 and we don't know what. The Radeon HD 7970 has 3GB of RAM and a very high memory bandwidth compared to the GTX 680. Yet, the GTX 680 is 208% faster!

Whatever the cause is, its clear the GTX 680 allows a better experience right now by allowing 8X MSAA + 8X TR SSAA to be enabled in this game and deliver above 60 FPS average performance with phenomenal image quality."
http://hardocp.com/articl...x_680_video_card_review/6

In this graph we have 4X MSAA turned on in the game, and then we turned on 4X TR SSAA from the NVIDIA control panel and Adaptive SSAA from the AMD control panel. This is as close to the same Transparency Supersampling AA samples we can get to compare.

The GeForce GTX 680 just blows the Radeon HD 7970 away in Transparency AA performance. The GTX 680 is 94% faster than the Radeon HD 7970, and both are producing similar visual quality at these settings! This is amazing, and not what we expected.

---
Same old story, amd can't hang
1 2 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/24/12 07:40:33 PM]
Reply
 
Proof that it is 30-35% faster? According from benchmarks and actual testing with my own cards, the difference is either 1-3FPS, or AMD wins. Both nonoverclocked, the GTX 680 doesn't OC as well as the 7950 and 7970 too, so whenever it is a battle between two overclocked cards AMD wins every single time.

Did you even look at the charts?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/i...gtx-680/21_oc1980_big.png
1 0 [Posted by: mmstick  | Date: 03/25/12 08:19:40 AM]
Reply

2. 
I like the card but not the price and am slightly disappointed that they removed one of the power vrm phases. It is like having a big V8 engine but only running with 7 enabled. A little less power than the true thing but Nvidia did say or at least the rumor that there is going to be another later version of this card with higher stock clocks from nvidia (Ti) so it looks obviously why they removed the phase and left a third 6pin connector unused (see board pics).
1 3 [Posted by: nforce4max  | Date: 03/22/12 07:23:46 AM]
Reply

3. 
3 to 5 times faster then a 580? LOL Wow Nvidia way to over hype your product
8 5 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 03/22/12 08:07:18 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
That's not at all what NV said.
http://cdn.techiser.com/w...-Q4-2011-28nm-614x460.jpg

"3-4x the Double-Precision GFlops performance/watt from Fermi."

Let's not make up information out of thin air and pass it on as fact.

5 2 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:00:52 PM]
Reply
 
making up things out of thin air?

Nvidia Hints That Kepler is 3x Faster Than Fermi

http://www.tomshardware.c...n-kepler-fermi,14966.html
1 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 03/24/12 12:54:31 AM]
Reply
 
from your Tom's link, and you should know sensationalized headlines are not truths but sensations exaggerated for effect, and you bit hard...
" It was unclear which Kepler chip was used "
Hence we can say the giant supercore not yet out is 3x near faster, if we must, can't we...
0 0 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/24/12 04:56:00 PM]
Reply

4. 
show the post
3 9 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 08:43:32 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
overclocked really well? i saw like 10 to 15% that's mediocre at best.

the hd7970 can reach 25% easily.

and the gk110 will have the same problems all of nvidia's big GPU's have had. too big, too power hungry, too expensive, outperformed and out-priced by dual-gpu solutions.

and what do you mean with maxed out? there is no reason why AMD couldn't make a much larger version of the hd7970s chip. they just dont want too for the reason i just laid out.
btw, be the time the gk110 come out... the hd8xxx series will be around the corner.

this is the first time in a while that nvidia is competitive again in terms of performance per transistor and performance per watt. so I'll give them that, even if they did have to cut back on GPGPU performance to do it.
10 5 [Posted by: Countess  | Date: 03/22/12 08:53:08 AM]
Reply
 
What a stupid argument. So AMD shipped an insanely factory underclocked 925mhz card and you are claiming it's a better overclocker? No...really? So if Intel was selling you a 4.5ghz factory clocked 2500K, you'd rather get a 3.3ghz 2500K and manually overclock it for fun? It would have been 100x better if HD7970 actually shipped with 1050 clocks out of the box so we wouldn't have to sit there and waste our time overclocking it just to match a stock GTX680.

The whole point of a premium card is to get premium performance out of the box. Whatever else you net with overclocking is a nice bonus. In HD7970's case, it practically needed to be overclocked to 1100mhz+ to make it impressive; and it is at those speeds.

Ok genius, what would you rather take a $50 cheaper card that beats a factory preoverclocked 1050mhz HD7970s or play the lottery trying to find a 1% bin of HD7970s that can do 1250mhz on air?

Also, last time I checked most aftermarket cooled HD7970s are > $550. So your advice is to pay more $, to buy a card that consumes more power at stock load and at load in overclocked states, that needs overvolting of 1.25-1.3V to get to 1250mhz to convincingly beat a reference overclocked 680? Also, a card that has none of the cool features such as TXAA, Advaptive Vsync, native AO in the drivers, etc. You don't sound at all like an enthusiast that welcome new hardware and features that makes older hardware obsolete. Most of us would want GTX680 to beat HD7970 by as much as possible and then HD8790 to beat GTX680 by as much as possible.

Here we have Nvidia bringing out a much better single-GPU card that makes AMD's current products look overpriced, it brings a bunch of cool new features, factory GPU boost for everyone, cards hitting 1200mhz on air with GPU boost, and you are trying to defend HD7970 as a better card and GTX680 not worth? LOL.

And honestly, AMD users now using GPGPU compute performance as some *key* advantage are really hypocritical about GPGPU performance. Nvidia had that in spades since G80 for 3 generations while HD4870/4890/5870/6970 were horrible in compute (but were excellent gaming chips). That didn't stop many of us from picking up Evergreen, Cayman and Cypress series because they were leading in performance/$ and performance/watt. So honestly, don't even go there with GPGPU as an advantage before you look even more biased.

Were were all of your people's voices for all of those generations when NV was laying the smack down in GPGPU compute, and especially so in the last 2 years with Fermi? Oh right, it didn't count because AMD's cards were a no-show in compute or Tessellation.

I remember, the AMD fanboys were shouting how hot and power hungry of a chip GTX480 was while conveniently ignoring the GPGPU performance advantage it had. Now the higher power consumption and slower performance of HD7970 is justified because it has GPGPU compute advantage? Grasping for straws much? What an inconsistent viewpoint on things.

GK104 was never meant to be a GPGPU card since most gamers don't care for those features. It was built as a gaming card from the ground-up. Actually most people who care for GPGPU compute wouldn't use HD7970 anyway due to lack of real world support/apps. For people who actually need computational performance in professional, financial and scientific applications buy Quadro cards. People who do distributed computing projects also buy NVidia cards (i.e. Folding@Home). No one cares about GPGPU compute in some artificial Civ5 or other nonsense synthetic SiSoftware Sandra DP benches.

I love people using worthless synthetic GPGPU benchmarks to try to claim superiority of HD7970 in compute but in real world tasks such as encoding video via CUDA, running professional, financial or scientific applications, the professionals are using Quadro cards. Nvidia has > 90% market share in that space for a reason - class leading performance and software support.

It's sad that so many AMD fanboys give the rest of us AMD users such a bad image with their incoherent and illogical arguments.
5 6 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:10:24 PM]
Reply
 
It's sad that so many AMD fanboys give the rest of us AMD users such a bad image with their incoherent and illogical arguments.


Us as in your a AMD user yourself? then why are you so hard on them all the time? Obviously you like certain aspects of AMD products over the competition to insinuate you spent money on their offerings. So ..... where are your pro AMD comments then cause I do not see any.
2 3 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 03/22/12 02:25:10 PM]
Reply
 
I agree with BestJinjo 100%. Nvidia has released a superior card here to the 7970 and it isn't even their flagship product yet. I just get thumbed down by rabid AMD fanboys who can't read the evidence right in front of their face.

This is coming from someone who is currently using an ATI 5850 in my gaming rig. It was nothing but a disappointment in terms of overclocking, heat, driver support, and performance. Should have bought a GTX 460. Wont be making that mistake again.
4 2 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 03:18:58 PM]
Reply
 
I am saying I bought HD6970s in CF because they were better bang for the buck than 2x GTX580s in my mind ($370x 2 vs. $500x2). It was great that AMD gave me a dedicated gaming chip without GPGPU compute features I didn't use. I knew that GTX580 was better in compute. If someone needed those features I'd recommend them a $350 GTX570 for example.

How come so many AMD users are only now touting compute performance as a key advantage? I bet they also purchased the awesome HD4870, HD4890, HD5850, 5870, HD6950, HD6970 cards in the past. If compute performance was so important to them, they would have been running NV's cards since 8800GTX. That's my point. So there isn't a lot of sense in trying to defend AMD here.

I actually saw much of the same when HD5870 was losing in Tessellation heavy benchmarks (Crysis 2, Lost Planet 2). When HD7970 launched and beat GTX580, suddenly Tessellation became important. Again, another inconsistency on AMD user's part that I find rather odd.

Now GTX680 beats HD7970 by 40% at 1080P in Batman AC with Tessellation.
http://hardocp.com/articl...x_680_video_card_review/4

Again, isn't that better for us gamers? 2.5 months after HD7970 launched, we can buy a $500 card that's faster than a $550 card when key DX11 features are enabled.

I wasn't defending GTX580 when that card consumed more power, cost more $ than HD6970 because it had GPGPU features only to turn around today and start defending HD7970 vs. GTX680 because HD7970 is a better compute card but a worse gaming card.

It seems this time GTX680 is more efficient for gaming. GTX680 is a dedicated gaming chip just like my HD6970 cards are. It also costs less than the 7970, has a quieter cooler and consumes less power.

HD7970 this round is like GTX580 last round in that it has plenty of GPGPU compute, consumes more power, but now it's actually slower and costs more. Why would I be defending AMD in that case? It seems NV now offers everything that made HD4800/5800/6900 series great - higher efficiency, lower price, more features and this time actually faster performance.

Either way, I think if this puts downward pricing pressure on AMD, that's also a great outcome because of GTX680.
3 4 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 03:53:30 PM]
Reply
 
Check again, if you look at 7970 the die size it is really conservative, and seeing that it can overclock by 30-50% suggests there is room for a better model. Meanwhile, GTX 680 does not outperform a stock clocked 7970, let alone an overclocked 7970, if you were to look at the performance charts, 7970 won in a huge fraction of games with significant lead over 680, even with 680 overclocked.

Even my 7950 with a 50% overclock has higher FPS rofl.

Proof is in the chart on this website:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/i...gtx-680/21_oc1980_big.png
2 4 [Posted by: mmstick  | Date: 03/22/12 08:55:01 AM]
Reply
 
HD7970 has a die size from 352m^2 to 365mm^2 depending on the source. GTX680 has a die size of 294mm^2.

HD7970 still loses despite a 20-24% large die size and 70GB/sec more memory bandwidth. Still, gamers don't really care for die sizes. Die sizes simply help engineers to focus on efficiency.

Regardless, if you want to use your die size argument, then if a 294mm^2 chip just beat a 365mm^2 7970, once 500mm^2 Kepler ships, AMD will be in serious trouble.

You can't overclock HD7970 by 50% on air BTW. Most max out at 1250mhz (35%) on air, with majority failing to reach 1200mhz. An 1150mhz HD7970 just lost by up 1-11% in this review to a reference overlcocked GTX680. That means it takes a 1200mhz+ HD7970 just to match that level of performance, with higher power consumption and $50-100 more expensive! And what happens when GTX680 is released using aftermarket 680s such as Direct CUII, MSI TwinFrozr and Gigabyte cards? HD7970 needs a price cut, immediately.

Also, HD7950 needs a 1200mhz overclock just to match a stock GTX680. Ya, let's save $40 to play the overclocking lottery or get a card that beats it by 30% out of the box. Good luck with selling that.
3 3 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:06:54 PM]
Reply
 
The 7970 would perhaps be an attractive option vs the 680 if it costs $450. I suspect we'll see a price cut to $499 and $20 rebates here and there and everyone who was the first on the 7000 series boat gets egg on their face.
1 1 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 03:22:39 PM]
Reply
 
show the post
0 5 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 04:17:23 PM]
Reply
 
Yes it's usually not a good idea to buy any product at launch unless you need it or have money to burn. And, let's be honest, the only people buying 7000 series chips up until now just wanted bragging rights.

I'm going to wait and see what happens when the GK110 gets released. I suspect NV is thinking right now they'll get $650+ for it but maybe AMD lowering their prices will make the 685 come out for $550 and the 680 drop top $450.
2 1 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 05:53:48 PM]
Reply
 
Wow, that's hilarious your post got downrated by 5 rabid AMD fanboys.

- $50 more than HD7950 for 30-35% more performance
- $50-100 less than any pre-factory overclocked HD7970 on the market that has any chance of equal performance
- Quieter reference blower than AMD's reference blower
- Beats HD7970 on air cooling at lower volts and power consumption in overclocked states.
- Active Vsync
- TXAA
- PhysX, CUDA
- 3D Surround gaming off 1 card
- 300 games support for 3D surround
- Native Ambient Occlusion in the drivers

Wow, so much damage control around.

HD7900 falling in price would be great for everyone. I know I'd ditch my 6970s in CF for 2 of those once they hit $399. Not sure why AMD fanboys are so upset. Insane. GTX680 makes HD7950 worthless and HD7970 needs a $50-100 price cut. That's a win-win for us consumers.
4 5 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:05:12 PM]
Reply
 
Wow dude your like so in bed with Nvidia, calm down AMD will counter and you will be crying again
3 4 [Posted by: redeemer  | Date: 03/22/12 01:16:23 PM]
Reply
 
You have no idea what you are talking about at all. I am actually running AMD cards. Why would I be crying if AMD beats GTX680? I would want that!

I am a hardware enthusiast. I want fastest cards all the time. I want more competition. I want price drops for consumers. I don't sit there defending HD7970 or its $550 price tag when it's no longer worth buying at $550. Who is the fanboy here exactly? People waiving $450 HD7950 as reasonable purchases against a $499 GTX680 or using unrealistic "guaranteed" 1200mhz overclocks that a handful of cards get on air to support their view that HD7970 is better?

The fanboys are people trying to scour the Internetz finding 1-3 benchmarks where HD7970 wins. Everyone else sees it how it is -- GTX680 is superior, it's time for AMD to lower prices and work on a more refined HD7970 to improve its efficiency to hopefully Pitcairn's levels.

I don't know about you but if HD7980 gave GPU Boost, 10-15% more performance, Active Vsync, etc, then I'd get that over the 680. That's cuz I am not a fanboy unlike some people here.
2 4 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:50:53 PM]
Reply
 
Again where are your pro AMD comments then. You claim you are a hardware enthusiast yet you don't stand behind your purchasing decisions? That makes no sense. All I see is your pro Nvidia rhetoric. Prove me wrong
2 3 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 03/22/12 02:29:04 PM]
Reply
 
"You claim you are a hardware enthusiast yet you don't stand behind your purchasing decisions?"

Just because you purchased one companies product once doesn't mean you're admitting defeat by purchasing a different companies product in the future. That's what separates fanboys from enthusiasts.
3 1 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 03:24:53 PM]
Reply
 
I agree, yet he never gives any positive evidence to why he liked his AMD purchase other than it was cheaper at the time. Which leads me to believe it was a last resort purchase on his part.

Fanboyism is a state of mind that is not always congruent with purchasing actions. You can do one thing and think something completely different. No one is completely devoid of bias thus a true enthusiast mindset can never really happen by your definition. And along the same vane we are all fanboys
0 0 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 03/26/12 08:48:49 AM]
Reply
 
I still am not understanding what you want me to prove. What "pro-AMD" comments would you like? I am not Pro-AMD or Pro-NV. I am pro performance/$, features and efficiency for gaming. So I look at it on a card by card basis. For example:

If you ask me if I think HD7870 is a better card than GTX580 at $350, I would say most definitely. HD7870 overclocks to surpass GTX580 speeds while consuming 100W less, has 4K display support, natively supports at least 4 displays vs. 2 on 580 (except for special Galaxy version of the 580) has 2GB of VRAM that helps with texture mods in games such as SKYRIM vs. 1.5GB for most 580s, etc.

HD6870 is the best bang for the buck budget gaming card right now, etc. I could go on and on. That's not me being "Pro-AMD" but that's because I think HD7870 is a better card than GTX580 is or that HD6870 is a better card than GTX560 or HD7770 are. I don't think 7900 series are better than GTX680, not at their current prices. So instead of calling me "Pro-NV", I am rather Pro GTX680 at the moment because it's simply better.

I don't understand why I have to pick sides. This is what's supposed to happen - newer cards are supposed to be better. We don't want another FX5800 Ultra disaster.
3 2 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 04:23:34 PM]
Reply
 
Very, very well-said, BestJingo!
0 0 [Posted by: Bo_Fox  | Date: 03/23/12 03:35:11 AM]
Reply
 
I am not Pro-AMD or Pro-NV


If you are a enthusiast as you say. Show me where you were building up the 7970 as the "best card money can buy" before the gtx680 came out. If you are truly brand agnostic it would make sense you would weight in on how good the 7970 is and how it was the best card out there until the 680 came out.

I would be willing to bet you bemoaned the price of the 7970 and instead exclaimed it would be better to wait till the 680 came out. Yet again showing your nvidia favoritism even though at the time the best card to get was the 7970

You can choose to not choose sides if you want. But your deluding yourself if you think most of your comments are not pro nvidia.
0 0 [Posted by: veli05  | Date: 03/26/12 08:59:29 AM]
Reply

5. 
Nvidia seems to have cut back on the GPGPU performance to be able to compete again in gaming performance. in soms tests is significantly slower then the gtx580, others about the same.

funny they do this at the time when AMD is doing the opposite, investing in GPGPU performance, at the expense of some gaming performance.
5 3 [Posted by: Countess  | Date: 03/22/12 08:46:54 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
You can't have it all, it seems.

1)Gaming performance
2)GPGPU performance
3)Reasonable power consumption.

Kepler kinda sacrifices on 2 to get 1 & 3. Fermi had 1 and 2, but not really 3. GCN Radeons are jacks of all trades. VLIW Radeons are like Kepler, but more extreme in sucking @2.
3 2 [Posted by: rrr  | Date: 03/22/12 09:10:18 AM]
Reply
 
Except real world support for GPGPU computing on AMD products is pretty much nil. A race car driver (experts) with a Camry (less GPGPU cores) will do better than a 16 year old (AMD) with a Ferrari (more GPGPU cores).
3 3 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 03/22/12 03:27:44 PM]
Reply

6. 
a nice thing is that this generation decreased the gap between the nVidia high end and the AMD high end, 680/7970<580/6970

a small loose but still better than nothing

plus, the 7970 has a high overclocking potential
3 3 [Posted by: madooo12  | Date: 03/22/12 11:28:08 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Partially true. GTX680 is not the hgih-end Kepler chip though. Right now it looks like the gap is smaller because Nvidia just took a GTX560Ti successor and pitted it against HD7970. No wonder NV said GCN was not impressive. Here they are selling what would have been a $350 card for $500 because HD7970 is not that fast.
2 2 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:33:11 PM]
Reply
 
There isnt any reliable info out on the gk110, it could be that adding back in the gpgpu performance, and going to a higher bit rate memory bus will take up a lot of the power headroom available on the gk104. I have a feeling hte gtx685, or whatever it will be called will just be 10% faster for games, but around 20-30% more power used. Of course thats just speculation. And im pleasantly surprised that Nvidia realized we dont all need gpgpu computing on the ethusiast parts, save that crap for the business customers.
2 0 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 03/22/12 04:31:13 PM]
Reply
 
But the reports are 80% faster, not 10% - some reports stretch it to 100% faster.
Since those of us who pay attention have seen these things the same time that GK104 reports were being denied by amd fans, it's plenty easy to make fairly accurate predictions.
50%+ faster is plenty reasonable.
0 0 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/25/12 03:40:36 AM]
Reply
 
So it's a nice thing that we're not seeing faster graphics cards than GTX 680?

I think I'd like to see technology progress faster rather than slower.
1 0 [Posted by: Bo_Fox  | Date: 03/23/12 02:42:34 AM]
Reply

7. 
I am pretty pleased that I got my 7950 OC a ways back for $460. Based on some reviews I have seen with overclocked performance, my 24/7 clock of 1200/1750 @ 1.2v should perform close to a OC'd 680 in most games. Sure I'll use a bit more power, but I can live with that. AMD was way to conservative with their stock clocks as all the cards seem to have tons of headroom, should have made 1050 the base clock. 680 is a great card though, AMD needs to drop their prices a bit I think to remain competitive to the average person that may not be willing to OC, maybe $50.
4 2 [Posted by: jhatfie  | Date: 03/22/12 12:11:03 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
show the post
1 4 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 03/22/12 01:35:49 PM]
Reply

8. 
Great article, Sergey. I like the fact that you compare GTX680 OC to HD7979 OC. Most people who spend that amount of money on video card(s) will probably OC anyway.

After OC, Kepler clearly wins out against Tahiti this time. Although not by as much as it looks without OC, but Kepler is still significantly faster and cheaper. This should push the prices down for consumers. Great news for all.

I would love to have an NVidia's $200-$250 range card. Too bad that will take a while to come to the market. I already ordered a HD7850, which is currently a bit overpriced. But hey, that is why we work hard, right? Waiting for 4 months to save $50 might be worth it for some folks. For me personally, HD7850 OC is the answer now. Happy gaming!
2 2 [Posted by: gamoniac  | Date: 03/22/12 10:15:06 PM]
Reply

9. 
I was right. Demer left AMD because he saw no perspectives there. He knew quite well that 28nm AMD GPUs are inferior to 28nm NV GPUs.

GPU division of AMD will turn in deep (and lasting long) red starting next quarter.
2 3 [Posted by: Azazel  | Date: 03/22/12 11:04:12 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Yeah, and Baumann himself said that AMD's priority was to get the 7970 out of the gate as quickly as possible just to enjoy a head-start once again on a new fab process node.

It's commendable, as it encourages Nvidia to work harder to push their technology also.

It's like getting a solid first punch in a boxing match, stunning the opponent for the rest of the first round. Everybody gets so excited and emotional, but then the opponent laughs it off and gives him a good beating for the rest of the boxing match. Contending for the underdog is fun and exciting, but the victor takes the prize home.
2 1 [Posted by: Bo_Fox  | Date: 03/23/12 02:59:08 AM]
Reply
 
We can look at Baumann's statement from other angle.
AMD knew that 7970 has no chances even versus mid range GTX 680 (aka GTX 670 Ti). If AMD had launched 7970 after 680, AMD'd have had very bleak outlook.
And prices of 7970 should had been much lower from the start.
2 1 [Posted by: Azazel  | Date: 03/23/12 06:33:50 AM]
Reply

10. 
It would have been nice to have included 1 or 2 benchmarks OpenGL benchmarks, next time maybe?
1 0 [Posted by: Kyrono  | Date: 03/23/12 07:50:52 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I suspect NV has split its GPU products into two path: game-oriented and GPGPU/professional-oriented (for HPC etc). Not bad idea. At least from now on professionals will know what they pay higher prices for.
0 0 [Posted by: Azazel  | Date: 03/23/12 09:59:58 PM]
Reply
 
Right, an excellent plan, near paper launch your slower flagship at a hugely inflated price and your base, rabid price/perf/power freaks will buy it up at any price willing to discount forever anything Nvidia said and anything after the Nvidia winning card launches.
Why not severely overcharge the amd fanboys ? Make them pay, and afterwards they will stil argue with every lie available to them the price is justified and it's all Nvidia's fault.
I hope they raise the price on the 7970 $50.
If they do, the amd fanboys will claim they won and that there is a giant driver fix coming that takes advantage of compute...
LOL
It's perfect - amd has a rabid fanboy base so they need to take big advantage of them.
1 0 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/24/12 07:25:05 PM]
Reply

11. 
I wish you kept the Crysis / Warhead results. This is still a demanding game, so the fps numbers won't be so high as to be meaningless. Also, we have a great deal of history with it and can compare what's available now to what we bought 3 years ago.

Finally - and this is merely preference - Crysis is still a lot more fun to play than most of what you did test. I don't care how claustrophobic linear consolized games like Metro 2033 perform! Or the Uniengine demo! How long do you sit watching that? And the graphics on these games, although good, are still inferior to what Crysis delivered on DX9. Yes, this all reflects the (abysmal) state of the PC games industry, but your testing shouldn't omit the one really outstanding example just because it's old.
1 1 [Posted by: Papoulka  | Date: 03/23/12 07:59:44 AM]
Reply

12. 
Well Tahiti XT just got sent on a vacation... to Tahiti.
3 1 [Posted by: DirectXtreme  | Date: 03/23/12 05:46:41 PM]
Reply

13. 
show the post
0 4 [Posted by: keysplayer  | Date: 03/23/12 09:46:05 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
""Last night, AMD told us that they intend to launch a GHz Edition of the Radeon HD 7970, without specifying exactly what it would be."

Ghz is 1,000.... not 1,300.

Zotac is releasing a 2GHZ GTX680...
I guess the grinnin and connin by amd boys does need to stop...
http://www.techpowerup.co...GHz-Core-Clock-Speed.html
1 0 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/24/12 07:32:22 PM]
Reply

14. 
Xbit labs, overclock3d, vrzone, nl.hardware and some others i missed FTW

These sites were not as biased as other were (AMD should pull the stick out on them) refuse advertising and any further review slots. otherwise AMD market needs anther chop (Share holders are watching AMD)
0 2 [Posted by: keysplayer  | Date: 03/23/12 10:04:54 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Or they are the most biased, and the other sites were fair.
0 0 [Posted by: SiliconDoc  | Date: 03/25/12 03:50:47 AM]
Reply

15. 
Really, I don't see how AMD is going to win this round when Nvidia has far superior performance/power/die size. AMD got completely outdid in every corner except first to market.
1 1 [Posted by: Randomguy  | Date: 03/26/12 08:57:07 AM]
Reply

16. 
Hi there,
Nvidia really gotten a winner on this GeForce GTX 680 graphic card.
However as the article said:Besides that, the 256-bit memory bus of the GeForce GTX 680 should be blamed once again. It is obviously too narrow as is indicated by the difference in performance growth between the FSAA on and off modes.
I wonder if the 256-bit memory bus holding back the true potential capability of the GeForce GTX 680 graphic card.
Maybe they should increase the memory bus to 384-bit like AMD Radeon HD 7970 graphic card.
THAT should really make things more interesting.
BUT I should point out. WHERE THE 2x to 3x the performance of the Geforce GTX 680 card compare to the Geforce GTX 580 card Nvidia was so fond of saying?
Just wondering./
thank
0 0 [Posted by: headloser  | Date: 03/31/12 11:03:00 PM]
Reply

[1-16]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment