[Kepler/GTX 680] Info's in... $400-450? + benches + thermals (56k warning)

eric66 said:
why the hell they are in trouble ? those results are pretty weak for gpu that comes 3 months behind.Amd can lower prices any time they want that isn't problem imho
Click to expand...

Hey, amd was 14 months behind the gtx 580 then. For slightly better perf. 10 weeks is nothing for the market. And yeah they will need to lower prices, their growing rep for bad drivers and their now low perf and other metrics will require them to.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Hey, amd was 14 months behind the gtx 580 then. For slightly better perf. 10 weeks is nothing for the market. And yeah they will need to lower prices, their growing rep for bad drivers and their now low perf and other metrics will require them to.
Click to expand...

So hang on, AMD are crap for being 14 months late with a single GPU card that beats a GTX 580. Nvidia are great for releasing a card at roughly the same speed as the HD 7970, at a similar price, but almost two months later.:confused:

Have I got your logic right?

Edit: If by your logic the HD 7970 is only slightly better than GTX 580, then obviously the GTX 680 is crap before it is released. After all, it has only slightly better performance than a GTX 580 and is 16 months late.

The truth is that if we remove the green or red tinted spectacles we see that the HD 7970 is an excellent card, as I am sure the GTX 680 will also be an excellent card.
 
Oops, sorry

It makes more sense when taken in the context of your reply to eric66 :)
 
So after reading all the slides I am seeing the 680 being about 10% faster than the 7970 at the same clock speed but sporting 1 gig less vram so assuming they both achieve similar clocks which seems likely it will be competitive if priced at $550 and a great deal at $500, I.E similar enough performance with Nvidia offering historically better driver support and better 3d but AMD offering better performance at 1600p + resolutions and better multi monitor support.

So yeah nothing to make 7970 owners feel bad but still a good showing on nvidia's part.
 
jaredpace said:
Yeah just look at graphics score and test framerates

I think the 680 sli tests may be flawed, and the solo test could also be flawed. It seems like the 680 clock is jumping up and down from above baseclock of 1006 to 700mhz range. It appears to jump from 1150 to 700. Strange. Could be a result of not liking the overclock. I wish these guys would do a stock run versus an overclocked run so we can know for sure.
Click to expand...

I think the 680 is using dynamic overclocking, so that is why the clockspeed is jumping around like that. I remember reading something like that somewhere.
 
I need the upgrade anyway,I hope that drops the price for the 7970 and if amd comes up with something decent with a cpu i would upgrade to that.Save some more money. :)
 
if 680 ends up costing like the 7970, i dont think it will be a better buy.

nvidia must price the 680 $100 dollars cheaper, otherwise whats the point geting the 680 over 7970's 3gb with 384bit bus?
 
TroyX said:
if 680 ends up costing like the 7970, i dont think it will be a better buy.

nvidia must price the 680 $100 dollars cheaper, otherwise whats the point geting the 680 over 7970's 3gb with 384bit bus?
Click to expand...

how is it not better? nvidia wins in every way possible, AMD is in trouble with their overpriced 7970, i own one. Every now and then i get driver stopped responding and desktop crashes, and this is with a WHQL 12.2/3 drivers, this card is being sold very soon.
 
GoldenTiger said:
I was ridiculing the logic. Post was sarcastic ;).
Click to expand...

So do you still feel the HKPC benchmarks are real? They show the 680 and 7970 the same speed in bf3 and mw3. If they're the same speed and the GK104 has 1gb less VRAM (which makes it less adequate for 3d surround) things will be interesting for sure.

600x437px-LL-61e93b33_600x437px-LL-12ef7d42_1702470727834307124.png


seusz.jpg


I don't think these graphs are real but since some here are really touting them, if this is how GTX 680 performs it will be a disappointment.
 
gar818 said:
how is it not better? nvidia wins in every way possible, AMD is in trouble with their overpriced 7970, i own one. Every now and then i get driver stopped responding and desktop crashes, and this is with a WHQL 12.2/3 drivers, this card is being sold very soon.
Click to expand...

i think 7970 is going to end up alot faster at higher resolutions due to a much higher memory bandwidth.

im just saying that if 680 doesnt end up cheaper than 7970, it wont be a better buy.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Hey, amd was 14 months behind the gtx 580 then. For slightly better perf. 10 weeks is nothing for the market. And yeah they will need to lower prices, their growing rep for bad drivers and their now low perf and other metrics will require them to.
Click to expand...
uhmm i don't remember amd trying to win on single gpu front so being behind in single gpu area means nothing to them since their double one is/was stong performer. Now 680 looks like a solid card but nothing to hype about sorry and as for drivers don't know about hd7xxx series but my hd6950 performs great in nearly every game so not gonna agree about bad drivers at least for old series
 
A poster at chiphell :
Running points, the clock frequency is stronger than 7970 with 680 by 5%.
However, battlefield 3,680 is slower by 15%.
Or 1080, running 1600, 680 is estimated to lose by 20%.
That is, run 3d11, 680 super, games have to wait for the driver.
Also note that, Why run eight times aa. Not open aa leading 580 afraid not.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
get real guys.
the 3dmark 11 scores for the 7970 are wrong anyway.it should be around 8210 at stock clocks.
Not to mention that on that picture with the 680 it shows that the cpu is clocked at 5 ghz
 
Last edited:
GoldenTiger said:
Hey, amd was 14 months behind the gtx 580 then. For slightly better perf. 10 weeks is nothing for the market. And yeah they will need to lower prices, their growing rep for bad drivers and their now low perf and other metrics will require them to.
Click to expand...

NV rep is growing for bad drivers and that's on hardware that's been around a while and issues that had still have not been fixed for 3 months or more on the NV forum.
 
I can agree with bad nVidia drivers. I'm on two GTX 260s and I get a computer lock up/ BSOD when I start up games, and some times Windows. Also BSODs when closing games. This has been since the 285+ drivers.
 
No scientific proof that isn't user error. Most likely is. And the GTX 260's ran hot as it was, but later drivers really ramped those cards up mega hot.
 
New poster here. I find it interesting that so many are touting this as Nvidias flagship, when the GK110 still hasn't shipped yet. Why, with speculation of the 110 shipping a month or so after this "680", have we seen nothing on it? Feels like Nvidia is winning the "naming" game by calling this a 680, which tells me the price will be super high due to the hype machine running at full speed.
 
what about gaming performence... 3DMARK vantage is nice but frankly I can't really care les sif it get 3k or 10k score I want to see Min fps in games I play.
 
Chaboi said:
This.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time believing that Nvidia would name the GK104 chip the GTX 680 if they knew they had the GK110 part coming out in a month or so. Everything I've seen points to a late summer release of the GK110, if then.
 
Can someone tell me what they've done with the CUDA cores? How do they triple the count and only get a small amount of extra performance? Have they nerfed individual cores so they could fit more in, or did they just change the way they're counting cores?

Also, what happened to GK100?
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
How do they triple the count and only get a small amount of extra performance?
Click to expand...

I see alot of performance from a simple 5 phase PCB with a relatively small 256bit memory interface. The gpu and ram is fast. I'm sure this isn't the GTX580 replacement card. Looks ilke a GTX560 replacement card that got named 680 to make people think they are buying the high end NVIDIA card.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
Can someone tell me what they've done with the CUDA cores? How do they triple the count and only get a small amount of extra performance? Have they nerfed individual cores so they could fit more in, or did they just change the way they're counting cores?

Also, what happened to GK100?
Click to expand...

nvidia changed the shader design, its like AMD's now.

680 has less shaders than 7970 and will end up slower when real bencmarks come out.

but 680 should be cheaper, run cooler, and have lower TDP.
 
TroyX said:
nvidia changed the shader design, its like AMD's now.

680 has less shaders than 7970 and will end up slower when real bencmarks come out.

but 680 should be cheaper, run cooler, and have lower TDP.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. Has there been anything in depth about the new architecture, or is that still forthcoming? And yeah, it's weird seeing NVidia have the smaller die and the lower TDP.
 
SonDa5 said:
I see alot of performance from a simple 5 phase PCB with a relatively small 256bit memory interface. The gpu and ram is fast. I'm sure this isn't the GTX580 replacement card. Looks ilke a GTX560 replacement card that got named 680 to make people think they are buying the high end NVIDIA card.
Click to expand...

Unless it is priced at mainstream level then it isn't a mainstream card. If Nvidia decide to call it GTX 680 and price it at premium GPU levels then by definition it is the GTX 580 replacement.

It is looking more and more like GTX 680 is priced like and performs like a HD 7970, give or take 5-10%.
 
The decision for me whether i'll sell my 7970 for this depends entirely on the GTX680's overclocking ability. I'm not sure how much faster my card @ 1125/1575 will be compared to a stock or overclocked 680.
 
Theultimateeye said:
The decision for me whether i'll sell my 7970 for this depends entirely on the GTX680's overclocking ability. I'm not sure how much faster my card @ 1125/1575 will be compared to a stock or overclocked 680.
Click to expand...

I would say it should depend on what resolution you use. All the benchmarks and games shown so far are at 1920x1080 where the lower bandwidth means nothing. At 2560x1440 or higher I would expect the higher bandwidth of the HD 7970 start to make a difference.

The 2GB VRAM should not be a problem unless you are going multi monitior or use high levels of AA.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
Ah, I see. Has there been anything in depth about the new architecture, or is that still forthcoming? And yeah, it's weird seeing NVidia have the smaller die and the lower TDP.
Click to expand...

all will be revealed when embargo lifts next week.
 
I just wish the damn card would come out soon. I want to upgrade badly,but I need some honest to god real reviews and numbers before I decide. I almost pulled the trigger on some of the deals I've been seeing on 580's,but I just don't like the temp and power issues them. The AMD cards look great performance wise,but the prices this time around are anything but great and they still seem behind with their drivers. If the 680 comes close in performance and matches AMD's temp and power usage at a more reasonable price,I'm sold.
 
TroyX said:
nvidia changed the shader design, its like AMD's now.

680 has less shaders than 7970 and will end up slower when real bencmarks come out.

but 680 should be cheaper, run cooler, and have lower TDP.
Click to expand...

Just plain wrong. AMD went the route of NVIDIAs shaders by going from vec4 to scalar in GCN. If NVIDIA has the shader counts it's rumored to, it doesn't mean they've gone away from scalar to vec4...

And you clearly dont know how it will perform. Stop pretending like you do.
 
BlueStorm said:
Just plain wrong. AMD went the route of NVIDIAs shaders by going from vec4 to scalar in GCN. If NVIDIA has the shader counts it's rumored to, it doesn't mean they've gone away from scalar to vec4...

And you clearly dont know how it will perform. Stop pretending like you do.
Click to expand...

i cant see 680 beating 7970 at very high resolution, im talking about beyond 1080p.
 
SonDa5 said:
I see alot of performance from a simple 5 phase PCB with a relatively small 256bit memory interface. The gpu and ram is fast. I'm sure this isn't the GTX580 replacement card. Looks ilke a GTX560 replacement card that got named 680 to make people think they are buying the high end NVIDIA card.
Click to expand...
And what if the chip is more efficient and doesn't need a stronger power supply?:rolleyes:

The small 256bit memory interface is a bullshit arguement, and has been debunked several times. There is zero need to over engineer a part and drive up costs. If you can feed enough bandwidth to a chip with a 256bit interface by either making the bus more efficient or using faster RAM, they will do it. If the chip could get all the bandwidth that it could use from a 64bit bus and the right kind of RAM, they would do it. This is the same reasoning that ATI used when they switched the 512bit bus on the 2900XT to a 256bit bus on the HD3870. It wasn't until the HD7000 series that the chips could make use of more bandwidth so they implemented a 384bit bus instead.

Just because certain specs are lower on paper doesn't mean they are any less advanced. I can think of twice in 10 years that Intel has resurrected older architectures to replace newer ones. First with the Core series that was an improved P6 architecture (last used in the pentium 3), and then again with the Atom which was created as an in-order architecture similar to the original Pentium to replace certain ULV versions of processors that were used for low power and embedded applications.
 
Would the extra 1GB of vram make a difference for 2560x1440 resolutions? I'm running 1080p now but will have a Catleap monitor in about a week.
 
Theultimateeye said:
Would the extra 1GB of vram make a difference for 2560x1440 resolutions? I'm running 1080p now but will have a Catleap monitor in about a week.
Click to expand...

i doubt the extra 1gb will make a difference at that res.

only at extreme res is where you will see the need for extra vram, something like 3x 1080p/2560p displays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top