NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Dual GPU Video Card Review @ [H]

No mention of those very low MIN FPS scores on Skyrim? IMO that would make the game unplayable at those settings as 2 FPS is well beyond unplayable and immersion breaking.
 
Very impressive. A quick query though: in the overclocking test, were the 7970s overclocked as well, and if so to what degree? And if they weren't, I think they should have been - sauce for the goose and all that.
 
Bojamijams said:
No mention of those very low MIN FPS scores on Skyrim? IMO that would make the game unplayable at those settings as 2 FPS is well beyond unplayable and immersion breaking.
Click to expand...

Yes, we did mention those. We even showed you a big graph of those as well.

We have no reason to think that this is nothing other than a driver issue at this point. I do not see any reason to think it is anything other than that.
 
Derangel said:
While its disappointing that it couldn't reach the OC levels Nvidia was claiming those power numbers are impressive. Good temps too, though I'd love to see what good waterblocks will do to the temps and overclocking ability. Still $1000...Yikes. Amazing performance, but way way way out of what I'd be willing to pay for a video card unless I win the lottery or something.
Click to expand...

yeah i too was hoping for 1300 but i saw a review with overvolting getting to 1250 butthe card is still plenty fast. thanks for the multi display res numbers and the review.

today is a great day: 690 review and then the avengers midnight showing
 
Thanks for the review!

Wow, what a card! Perfect for 5760x1200. If only it had 4 GB per GPU, I'd be looking to buy two right now.
 
When do we get to see a review of 2x690's in SLI if its even possible? I didn't fully read through the specs as I just wanted to see numbers compared to 680 sli :)
 
Obligatory grammar Nazi moment: first sentence, "excited excited." Jefe, we knew you were excited about this already. :)

Overall, thank you both--I'm impressed. This is a sweet piece of kit, if admittedly a pricey one. (And those power usage readings...niiiice.)
 
Kyle, with your 5760x1200 tests did you see any signs of the 2gb causing a problem?
 
[+Duracell-];1038682057 said:
Wow! I didn't expect the power utilization to be THAT low! Looks like you definitely get your money's worth if you get this card.

Still way out of my price range, but damn that's pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

There still people that think they need 850W PSUs to run dual gpu cards. A quality made 650W would do just fine.

Derangel said:
While its disappointing that it couldn't reach the OC levels Nvidia was claiming those power numbers are impressive. Good temps too, though I'd love to see what good waterblocks will do to the temps and overclocking ability. Still $1000...Yikes. Amazing performance, but way way way out of what I'd be willing to pay for a video card unless I win the lottery or something.
Click to expand...

To be fair to [H], I've OC my cards higher than most of their reviews have stated.
Remember, they have a review sample, the retail versions could be better clockers. I wouldn't rely on review sites to determine the highest possible OC.

I got 1310MHz out of my GTX 680.
 
Last edited:
Well, I wasn't fast enough to grab a reference card from EVGA so I submitted a pre-order for the signature series. Meh.. an extra 50 bucks for a t-shirt and mouse pad but at least I don't need to constantly hold down F5 on Newegg or Amazon.
 
Kyle, when you guys do these card reviews, your testing on a open bench station right?
(i dont see a case listed in the "test setup table", so i assume open bench)

Out of curiosity, I would be interested to know if you were to compare a 680sli setup, to a 690 setup within an enclosed case, if the differences in the cooling solutions would cause one setup to be superior/more efficient to the other, when it comes to heat generation and potential for overclocking, and overall noise?

I would expect that the 680sli setup will force all the hot air generated outside the box, while the 690 pushes half its heat generated into the computer box,(heating up other components in the process) and relies on case fans to push out the extra heat.

So is it not expected that this difference might change your temperature results?

Also would it not be safe to assume that one should factor in any extra case fans (or rpm speed bump on current case fans) required for a 690setup into the overall computer noise?
In other words is it not possible that a 690sli setup might actually be quieter in an enclosed case setup?
 
There are some really cool things with the 690, but the few areas it hit single digit frames per second make me cringe. For its price I would want more still.
 
So it still seems as if my original belief that crippled supply would be an issue for getting these in peoples hands proved true for the 680s. They are still hard to find and no end in sight to that. Popular or not, they good luck finding one. I'm glad I bought my 680 when I did, but I'm really curious as to what kind of increased limited availability these 690s are going to have. On top of that the low yield rumors are still circulating.

Is there any indication as to what size the initial shipment/release unit number is looking like?
 
A couple of things from Evga....

1. Pre-orders for the Signature wont ship until the end of the month according to Jacob the product manager at Evga.

2. Jacob also said backplates, high flow brackets are coming for those that want it.

3. There is a 690 Hydro-cooper coming, but no time frame.

Lastly, I screwed myself over when camping Evga. They put up the Pre-order version first, not knowing that they also had a regular version, I jumped at the pre-order...moments later the regular version appeared with the "buy now" and since they put a lock on 1 per household, I could not order my card. I logged in under another account, got all the way to the submit order and got an error stating -1 in inventory...so in short, I f'd myself because of them posting the pre-order one first. The bad thing is, even when you place the pre-order it does not say when it is coming. I had to ask in the forums...had they said "end of the month" I would of not done it because it would of triggered to me that another one was going to be posted because today was the sale date.

Even one of their web guys posted "lesson learned" on how they did this. As a customer, it sucks for me cause I could have my card tomorrow if it was not for the way they posted the item.

Anyways, I also called Newegg, they have no idea when they will have them.
 
Good review, lots of info as always.

Could be expect to see a Quad SLi review at some point?
 
From an engineering standpoint, this is an amazing piece of hardware.... wow.

For a SINGLE card solution - damn. Sure, 680s in SLI can be "faster" - but we're talking single card here. I did SLI back in the VooDoo days, was a PITA, and it made a difference but it was still a PITA. Agreed, it's much easier now days - but I'd rather stick with a single card solution ;) I don't see the price coming down much - this is not something that will be sold in mass quantities. Not sure many systems could handle it.

Back to the engineering perspective. As the designs get more complex, and built at smaller technologies, I think that the headroom we have been used to in terms of overclocking will shrink. The design engineers are pushing the performance limits. There will always be some headroom, but it's not going to be like has been in the past. This will likely change with the next die shrink and improvements in manufacturing. One camp says "MOAR HEADROOM" the other says there will be less. There is always intentional limits on speed for the sake of stability. We all know what happens when you push a system just past that point...

Still, a good review, and one hell of an impressive card.
 
I still don't understand the price complaints. This card puts in a single solution what you would be paying $1000+ for 2x GTX 680s anyway, with lower power usage in many cases, and equal performance if you bump the clocks up to 680 levels.

Great review, Brent & Kyle.
 
Good review, very nice card.

I find the price... is not relevant until there can be supply anyway. Surprised nvidia is not saying how many they will produce like Asus did with ther Mars cards, we are slowly reaching the same price point.

If I were in the market for a card, this one would be on my short list.
 
MavericK96 said:
I still don't understand the price complaints. This card puts in a single solution what you would be paying $1000+ for 2x GTX 680s anyway, with lower power usage in many cases, and equal performance if you bump the clocks up to 680 levels.
Click to expand...

I think the price complaint isn't that the 690 is the same price as 2 680's, but that the 680 is overpriced to start with, in the sense that it doesn't offer a substantial increase in performance/price ratio compared to the previous generation.

But due to limited availability people are lapping up the 680 so Nvidia don't have any incentive to cut its price. If consumers start ignoring their mid range Kepler because it doesn't offer much of an increase in performance/price then maybe we will see some downward price movement.
 
slh28 said:
I think the price complaint isn't that the 690 is the same price as 2 680's, but that the 680 is overpriced to start with, in the sense that it doesn't offer a substantial increase in performance/price ratio compared to the previous generation.
Click to expand...
Seriously why do people keep saying this? The 680 is like 50% faster than the 580 in most tests, and uses way less power, last I checked 50% from one generation to the next at the same price point was a really good bump, and less power to boot? When has that ever happened.
 
Bojamijams said:
No mention of those very low MIN FPS scores on Skyrim? IMO that would make the game unplayable at those settings as 2 FPS is well beyond unplayable and immersion breaking.
Click to expand...

The first drop in framerate only happens at the very beginning right after we load the map, it happens on most cards, it's just the map loading textures and whatnot initially after it loads. The second dip is actually a loading screen as we transition from Whiterun to the outside world. Neither distract or take away from the gameplay experience. You'll notice there are no other dips in framerate througout the world. You only get dips upon initial load of the map, and at loading screens.
 
Wow that is 1 beast of a card. GREAT overclocking results and power and noise...

I guess there is absolutely nothing wrong at all with this card. This makes the 590 gtx a horrible memory!
 
Bojamijams said:
No mention of those very low MIN FPS scores on Skyrim? IMO that would make the game unplayable at those settings as 2 FPS is well beyond unplayable and immersion breaking.
Click to expand...

I've played a bit with fraps in skyrim before and i can tell you that those min are most likely when switching from indoor to outside or vice versa.
.... 2 fps on a loading screen won't break the immersion at all . :cool:

ninja'd!! >:O
 
demowhc said:
some early microstutter results for anyone interested

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...dia-geforce-gtx-690/8/#abschnitt_mikroruckler
Click to expand...

small_surprised%20koala.jpg
 
Reading the thread, commenting on a couple points I've noticed that are common to some posts. Thought I'd just make one post and cover these topics that have been asked to make my opinion clear.

Price - I understand some people feel the 680 was overpriced. Personally, I didn't see it that way. The GTX 680 is right at the price point GTX 580 was at at launch. The GTX 680 is faster, and provides more performance than GTX 580. Our 680 review shows the 680 performing better than a GTX 580. Therefore, NVIDIA has indeed moved up the performance level of the $499 price point. So some posts I've seen in this thread saying that 680 doesn't offer a better price/performance ratio than previous generation, I have to disagree with that statement, I've seen that it indeed has. In fact, it's a lot better on price/performance than the competition was at launch, you want an overpriced card, look toward the 7970. My point in the review about the price being "not overpriced" points to the fact that it's the same performance, and same price as two 680's. It won't cost you more than two 680's, it's price/performance matches what you can get with two separate 680's, therefore, it isn't overpriced compared to two separate 680 video cards. You also get an upgrade in power/efficiency as well, for free basically. Considering all the engineering that went into this card I'm surprised it isn't priced higher. I hope that fleshes out my opinion on pricing a bit more.

Bakplatce - I've heard a lot of people complaining about no backplate. My view on this is, why put one on if it isn't needed? A backplate can have two negative affects on a video card such as this. 1.) It can add weight 2.) It can actually act as an insulator, rather than a conductor of heat. If the card doesn't need it for stabality why have one? I haven't noticed any issues with there not being a backplate. The card is sturdy, the back is able to breathe, and it keeps the weight down. Having a backplate should not make or break the deal for you on this video card, it is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Microstutter/Smoothness - I feel GTX 690 to be smoother than CFX. I feel GTX 690 to be equal smoothness with 680 SLI. I detected no signs of microstutter or jerky behavior as I played games with it. If I had, I certainly would have reported it. The fact is, NVIDIA does employ framerate metering technology with SLI to smooth out framerates, this is real technology, and it really does help with "smoothness" as I often describe. It is a reality, and it makes for a better experience compared to CFX.

2GB per GPU limit - As mentioned in past GTX 680 SLI review, and this one, I did not feel 2GB was a limit for me gaming at 5760x1200. I was able to run BF3 single and multiplayer just fine at 5760x1200 with MAX in-game settings, and FXAA, and had a smooth experience as was shown. BF3 is the worse on memory usage, and I didn't get a hiccup from that game. I never got a hiccup from any other game either. Even Batman ran fine at 5760x1200 with max Tessellation and no less than 4X MSAA. Skyrim, also ran with 8X AA+FXAA+4X TR SSAA with no hiccups related to shortage of VRAM. Perhaps there are limits above 5760x1200 resolution. But on my three 24" displays at 5760x1200, 2GB per GPU was fine, as has been previously tested. Future Proof? Well no one knows the future. Some games might demand more memory like BF3, some may not. BF3 seems to be the one exception to high VRAM usage, most other games don't operate like it, and it was fine here.
 
Last edited:
Brent_Justice said:
2GB per GPU limit - As mentioned in past GTX 680 SLI review, and this one, I did not feel 2GB was a limit for me gaming at 5760x1200. I was able to run BF3 single and multiplayer just fine at 5760x1200 with MAX in-game settings, and FXAA, and had a smooth experience as was shown. BF3 is the worse on memory usage, and I didn't get a hiccup from that game. I never got a hiccup from any other game either. Even Batman ran fine at 5760x1200 with max Tessellation and no less than 4X MSAA. Skyrim, also ran with 8X AA+FXAA+4X TR SSAA with no hiccups related to shortage of VRAM. Perhaps there are limits above 5760x1200 resolution. But on my three 24" displays at 5760x1200, 2GB per GPU was fine, as has been previously tested. Future Proof? Well no one knows the future. Some games might demand more memory like BF3, some may not. BF3 seems to be the one exception to high VRAM usage, most other games don't operate like it, and it was fine here.
Click to expand...
Can you please speculate a bit on what the result would be like at 1.6x higher resolution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top