I first had a GTX 680. OC version from Gigabyte. It is one of the few with custom PCB in addition to its custom cooler.
When the GTX 670 was lunch last week I also bought the same OC version from Gigabyte. It uses the exact same PCB and cooler from the GTX 680. In fact it has a sticker on the PCB to cover the 680 model number that was printed by the PCIe connector.
First I considered myself lucky with the Gigabyte GTX 680, I was able to overclock it to 1293mhz (core clock) that is above average for that card. I have tested three GTX 680: (1). This gigabyte, (2)EVGA Superclocked that only reach 1202mhz, and (3) a MSI Twin Frozr OC that was able to get to 1254mhz.
INTRO
First a few clarifications regarding overclocking this cards (nothing new)
I will not report clock offsets, only max clock. I have found that under load, the max clock is very stable. If you are not power constrained (increase power target) every card will reach its max clock under load and stay there without fluctuation.
This max attainable clock is different for each card and independent of the “nominal boost clock” that you get in the specifications of the card. In my experience all GTX 6x0 that I have tested go over the nominal boost clock to a intrinsic max clock that is variable from card to card but it does not change under any load.
The rule of gold is to try to maintain temp lower than 70C. As soon it gets to that temperature your max clock is decreased by 13mhz, and another 13mhz at 80C
When you increase the offset the max clock is increased by the specified amount until it is not stable anymore. But you are actually forcing your intrinsic max clock to any clock you desire.
Don’t bother with volgate, when your card is under load at its max clock it will use its maximum available voltage automatically. You cannot force any higher voltage.
OVERCLOCKING RESULTS
Gigabyte GTX 680 OC
Max Clock: 1293Mhz (20.7% increase over its base clock 1071mhz –Factory OC)
Max Memory: 3204Mhz (6.6% increase over 3003mhz)
Gigabyte GTX 670 OC
Max clock 1354mhz (38.5% increase over base clock of 980Mhz- Factory OC)
Max Memory 3404Mhz (13.3% increase)
As it turns out that 670 is an good overclocker. Is the advantage in clocks enough to cover for its disable functional units in comparison with the 680? Let’s see.
BENCHMARKS RESULTS
For all tests I used the following HW and Drivers
Procesador: i7-930 @ 3.52Ghz. MB: Gigabyte X58A-UD3R, RAM 6GB, 1600Mhz CAS 7-8-7
Nvidia drivers 301.34
UNIGINE HEAVEN
Settings: Tessellation Extreme, Anisotropy 16x, AA 8x, Resolution 1920x1080. Windowed mode.
Heaven Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204[/I]
Average FPS 50.9
Scores 1281
Min FPS 31.9
Max FPS 132.6
Heaven Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
Average FPS 51
Scores 1286
Min FPS 32.7
Max FPS 131.3
3D Mark 11
Settings: “Basic” Performance test.
3DMark 11 Heaven Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204
3DMark Score P10101
Graphics Score 11204
3DMark 11 Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
3DMark Score P9862
Graphics Score 10799
BATTLEFIELD 3
Settings All Ultra except MSAA (disable) only FXAA en High. Resolution 2560x1440
BF3 Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204
Average FPS 68.6
Min FPS 43.7
Max FPS 113.4
BF3 Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
Average FPS 67.5
Min FPS 40.8
Max FPS 111.4
TEMPERATURE AND POWER CONSUMPTION
Not the best "load" test but for simplicity I will use "Heaven" to compare temperature and power consumption between the cards.
In both cases Heaven was running in its loop for at least 10 minutes (all max at 1080p windowed) After the temperatures had stabilized I ran the benchmark with the results shown above (both cards with similar scores)
It does not matter to the test as you will see, but it is important to mention 680 fan duty was limited @ 85% and for the 670 it was unlocked up to 100%.
Another unusual characteristic of this cards is that they have one 8 pin 6 pin power connectors, the reference cards have two 6 pin power connectors. That means this card can draw more power from the PSU, that is somehow reflected in the power adjustment you can make in afterburner. It only goes up to 111%. But it does not matter because overcloked and loaded they hardly ever reach 100% (and normally much lower).
`Power and temp Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204
Clock 1293mhz (no fluctuations thru the test)
Max power 83%
Max Temp 62C
Max fan duty 79%
System power consumption (max as read in a kill-a-watt) 353Watts
Comment: as I mentioned above the fan duty does not reach its limit of 85%
Power and temp. Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
Clock 1358Mhz (No fluctuations thru the test)
Max power 91%
Max Temp 69C
Max fan duty 93%
System power consumption (max as read in a kill-a-watt) 386Watts
Comment: It is close but in Heaven the temperature never reaches 70C and the clock is stable at 1358. Running greater loads as BF3 unfortunatelly the temperature can go up to 74C (even using 100% fan duty) so that game it gets down-clocked to 1345 most of the time.
What is interesting is that contrary to what I would expect, even without overclocking (only the factory overclocking) the GTX 670 always consumes more power than the 680. For example without overclocking (offset =0) the GTX 670 clocks itself to 1215Mhz and its max power is 85% in Heaven. The GTX 680 with offset=0 goes up to 1176Mhz and its power is only 77%.
CONCLUSIONS
From reviews we already knew that a Overclocked 670 could beat an stock 680. But comparing a good overclocked 680 with a good overclocked 670 shows that performance are very close.
Just check the forums to confirm that the 670 is a better overclocker than the 680. The difference in overclock overhead almost makes up for disabled SMX in the 670 providing 680 performance at a 80% of its price.
This specific Gigabyte 670 is a great deal because:
When the GTX 670 was lunch last week I also bought the same OC version from Gigabyte. It uses the exact same PCB and cooler from the GTX 680. In fact it has a sticker on the PCB to cover the 680 model number that was printed by the PCIe connector.
First I considered myself lucky with the Gigabyte GTX 680, I was able to overclock it to 1293mhz (core clock) that is above average for that card. I have tested three GTX 680: (1). This gigabyte, (2)EVGA Superclocked that only reach 1202mhz, and (3) a MSI Twin Frozr OC that was able to get to 1254mhz.
INTRO
First a few clarifications regarding overclocking this cards (nothing new)
I will not report clock offsets, only max clock. I have found that under load, the max clock is very stable. If you are not power constrained (increase power target) every card will reach its max clock under load and stay there without fluctuation.
This max attainable clock is different for each card and independent of the “nominal boost clock” that you get in the specifications of the card. In my experience all GTX 6x0 that I have tested go over the nominal boost clock to a intrinsic max clock that is variable from card to card but it does not change under any load.
The rule of gold is to try to maintain temp lower than 70C. As soon it gets to that temperature your max clock is decreased by 13mhz, and another 13mhz at 80C
When you increase the offset the max clock is increased by the specified amount until it is not stable anymore. But you are actually forcing your intrinsic max clock to any clock you desire.
Don’t bother with volgate, when your card is under load at its max clock it will use its maximum available voltage automatically. You cannot force any higher voltage.
OVERCLOCKING RESULTS
Gigabyte GTX 680 OC
Max Clock: 1293Mhz (20.7% increase over its base clock 1071mhz –Factory OC)
Max Memory: 3204Mhz (6.6% increase over 3003mhz)
Gigabyte GTX 670 OC
Max clock 1354mhz (38.5% increase over base clock of 980Mhz- Factory OC)
Max Memory 3404Mhz (13.3% increase)
As it turns out that 670 is an good overclocker. Is the advantage in clocks enough to cover for its disable functional units in comparison with the 680? Let’s see.
BENCHMARKS RESULTS
For all tests I used the following HW and Drivers
Procesador: i7-930 @ 3.52Ghz. MB: Gigabyte X58A-UD3R, RAM 6GB, 1600Mhz CAS 7-8-7
Nvidia drivers 301.34
UNIGINE HEAVEN
Settings: Tessellation Extreme, Anisotropy 16x, AA 8x, Resolution 1920x1080. Windowed mode.
Heaven Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204[/I]
Average FPS 50.9
Scores 1281
Min FPS 31.9
Max FPS 132.6
Heaven Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
Average FPS 51
Scores 1286
Min FPS 32.7
Max FPS 131.3
3D Mark 11
Settings: “Basic” Performance test.
3DMark 11 Heaven Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204
3DMark Score P10101
Graphics Score 11204
3DMark 11 Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
3DMark Score P9862
Graphics Score 10799
BATTLEFIELD 3
Settings All Ultra except MSAA (disable) only FXAA en High. Resolution 2560x1440
BF3 Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204
Average FPS 68.6
Min FPS 43.7
Max FPS 113.4
BF3 Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
Average FPS 67.5
Min FPS 40.8
Max FPS 111.4
TEMPERATURE AND POWER CONSUMPTION
Not the best "load" test but for simplicity I will use "Heaven" to compare temperature and power consumption between the cards.
In both cases Heaven was running in its loop for at least 10 minutes (all max at 1080p windowed) After the temperatures had stabilized I ran the benchmark with the results shown above (both cards with similar scores)
It does not matter to the test as you will see, but it is important to mention 680 fan duty was limited @ 85% and for the 670 it was unlocked up to 100%.
Another unusual characteristic of this cards is that they have one 8 pin 6 pin power connectors, the reference cards have two 6 pin power connectors. That means this card can draw more power from the PSU, that is somehow reflected in the power adjustment you can make in afterburner. It only goes up to 111%. But it does not matter because overcloked and loaded they hardly ever reach 100% (and normally much lower).
`Power and temp Results for GTX 680 @ 1293/3204
Clock 1293mhz (no fluctuations thru the test)
Max power 83%
Max Temp 62C
Max fan duty 79%
System power consumption (max as read in a kill-a-watt) 353Watts
Comment: as I mentioned above the fan duty does not reach its limit of 85%
Power and temp. Results for GTX 670 @ 1358/3404
Clock 1358Mhz (No fluctuations thru the test)
Max power 91%
Max Temp 69C
Max fan duty 93%
System power consumption (max as read in a kill-a-watt) 386Watts
Comment: It is close but in Heaven the temperature never reaches 70C and the clock is stable at 1358. Running greater loads as BF3 unfortunatelly the temperature can go up to 74C (even using 100% fan duty) so that game it gets down-clocked to 1345 most of the time.
What is interesting is that contrary to what I would expect, even without overclocking (only the factory overclocking) the GTX 670 always consumes more power than the 680. For example without overclocking (offset =0) the GTX 670 clocks itself to 1215Mhz and its max power is 85% in Heaven. The GTX 680 with offset=0 goes up to 1176Mhz and its power is only 77%.
CONCLUSIONS
From reviews we already knew that a Overclocked 670 could beat an stock 680. But comparing a good overclocked 680 with a good overclocked 670 shows that performance are very close.
Just check the forums to confirm that the 670 is a better overclocker than the 680. The difference in overclock overhead almost makes up for disabled SMX in the 670 providing 680 performance at a 80% of its price.
This specific Gigabyte 670 is a great deal because:
- It’s a custom design but it does not cost more than the reference cards
- It uses the same PCB design than its big brother. Just the better power delivery gives you better opportunity to attain a higher overclocks
- The cooler is better way better than reference, 10C to 20C cooler, a critical point if you don’t want to loose 13Mhz when reaching 70C. (unfurtunatelly I still reached up to 73C in BF3)
Last edited: