Leaked GeForce GTX 680 2GB Benchmarks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking forward to OC results from a respectable review site like [H].
 
The 7970 still has the edge IMO. Ability to power 3 monitors with 1 card whereas Nvidia needs 2.
 
Slightly underwhelmed by the response from Team Green, maybe it'll work its way out eventually.

That being said, it's about time they removed their heads from the sand on the VRAM issue, especially after the 500 series debacle.
 
JL6speed said:
The 7970 still has the edge IMO. Ability to power 3 monitors with 1 card whereas Nvidia needs 2.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure nVidia will do surround on one card with the GTX 600 series. Kyle said as much a while back and all rumors have pointed to this.
 
thebski said:
I LOVE THIS!! Finally a review that recognizes some people have graduated from 1920. Will these reviews include Crossfire and SLI comparisons?

I realize you probably can't say, but I thought it might be worth asking.
Click to expand...

Key word there is "some". A good majority of PC gamers are probably in the 1680x1050 to 2560x1600 range, which includes 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 as the growing majority I think. Those reviews will be entirely relevant. Just because they aren't on the [H]ard edge with 3-5monitor setups doesn't mean they should be discounted from reviews. Its nice to see the higher stuff though as you can apply the logic that better at higher settings is better at lower settings (to a degree).
 
Well so far I don't feel bad about buying a 7970 (does 1250@1275mv)..Since I game at 2560x1600. Can't wait to See the [H] review. There is hoping that it comes out wensday night. :)...And if your spending 500+ you should be at least gaming at 1920x1080 if not higher. You going to keep your monitor a long time in most people's cases I don't know why people spend a 100 bucks on somthing they are looking at no matter what there doing on there PC.
 
wasteomind said:
Key word there is "some". A good majority of PC gamers are probably in the 1680x1050 to 2560x1600 range, which includes 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 as the growing majority I think. Those reviews will be entirely relevant. Just because they aren't on the [H]ard edge with 3-5monitor setups doesn't mean they should be discounted from reviews. Its nice to see the higher stuff though as you can apply the logic that better at higher settings is better at lower settings (to a degree).
Click to expand...

No I agree. Single monitor is still incredibly relevant and obviously the majority.

I realize we are a minority, but we are here. I didn't mean they should replace the single screen benches. I'm just glad we'll be getting these in addition to the regular review because it's not something I've seen before.
 
Phishy714 said:
This is what I am worried about and seems to be happening with these damn reviews -

IDIOT REVIEWERS OUT THERE are simply copy/pasting the results that they got when they reviewed the 7970 at launch with SHITTY ASS DRIVERS. While this is no excuse and SHAME ON YOU AMD for releasing these cards with shitty drivers, it paints a COMPLETELY different story now that the drivers are more mature. Therefore - you do get these stupid results of a 7970 running 80 fps on Dirt 3 @1080p. Hell, my old 6950 could do that in its sleep.

So KYLE - Here's hoping you don't follow that trend and actually re-benchmark these AMD cards with current drivers. Yes, its a pain in the ass, but it will paint a better picture than all these other review sites, cause - who the hell wants to see how a non-optimized card benches against another? And no - this does not mean that you shouldn't do a review altogether cause it would be a "mature" card against another - It will just paint a good picture of WHAT IS AVAILABLE HERE AND NOW.
Click to expand...

Nice use of caps... As if your post wasn't obnoxious enough.
 
Considering that most monitors sold on Newegg and other sites are 1080p I think that resolution is very relevant. If higher resolution monitors were more mainstream, then they would be cheaper. I'm interested in the higher resolution reviews but they won't be relevant to me.
 
On a single monitor, avg. fps has to be above 80fps, to minimize or eliminate any dips below 60fps.
If a card provides an average of 60fps, it's still not enough because at certain points in a game, fps will be under 50fps or even at 30fps.

In SP games, you can get by with 30-40fps, but MP games, 80fps+ is perferred for me to have an enjoyable experience. Two 480s OC dipped to 63fps at times in BF3.
That's why so many people SLI/CF. The GTX 680 is giving 77fps avg @ 1080p. Yeah, that's worth $500 because two cards aren't needed anymore, especially after a good OC.
 
LOL Just to stir shit up, anyone else notice Steve titled thread 'GTX 680 2GB Benchmarks'? Makes no sense to put 2GB in there unless there is more than one version... ;)
 
Adelante said:
Slightly underwhelmed by the response from Team Green, maybe it'll work its way out eventually.

That being said, it's about time they removed their heads from the sand on the VRAM issue, especially after the 500 series debacle.
Click to expand...

Wat.

1) They are releasing a better-performing card for the same or less as the 7970.

2) How was the 500 series a "debacle"? Last time I checked nVidia had the fastest single-GPU card last generation.
 
I just realized that when a guru3d review got leaked in a similar manner that other review sites published their reviews that night. I wonder if that could happen here too.
 
JMCB said:
Anyone else not impressed? With no AA/AF, the GTX680 is faster at 1080P, but in other situations like adding max AA/AF, or higher resolutions, the 7970 is on par or better. Must be the 2GB of memory. 4GB probably won't be much of an improvement because of that memory bus.
Click to expand...

We need to have a broader reevaluation of the benefits of traditional anti-aliasing. MSAA - the memory-intensive method - has slowly fallen to something approaching irrelevance over the past few years. Most games offer or rely on post-processing AA. We first saw AMD's MLAA, which could make text blurry, but now there are all kinds of post-processing AA methods that work much better than MSAA from both a visual and performance standpoint. Nvidia has an FXAA tool that can be applied to almost any game.

Bottom line, why do I need a huge amount of vRAM if MSAA is obsolete?
 
Nvidia seems to waiting longer and longer between card refreshes much less all new architecture...the 580 will be an absolute steal once the 680 is released
 
Matrices said:
We need to have a broader reevaluation of the benefits of traditional anti-aliasing. MSAA - the memory-intensive method - has slowly fallen to something approaching irrelevance over the past few years. Most games offer or rely on post-processing AA. We first saw AMD's MLAA, which could make text blurry, but now there are all kinds of post-processing AA methods that work much better than MSAA from both a visual and performance standpoint. Nvidia has an FXAA tool that can be applied to almost any game.

Bottom line, why do I need a huge amount of vRAM if MSAA is obsolete?
Click to expand...

FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.

MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Lookin' mighty good. Many thanks to the leaker. ;)

Unless I'm reading incorrectly, the 680 > 7970 in 3 of the 4 games tested at 2560x1600. Good news to 30" LCD owners... like me.
Click to expand...

Which you are. It was 2 for 2 at 2560x1600.

On a side note I'm happy I bought my 7970 on release day. Seems like they are only going to trade blows at my resolution.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.

MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
Click to expand...

I agree that those earlier techniques do look pretty bad, however the more recent SMAA post process is damn good and doesn't suffer anywhere near the same problems that you get with ML and FX.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.

MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
Click to expand...

I guess we can wait and see what this new "TXAA" that nVidia is making brings. But I agree, shader-based methods are not quite there yet. But my guess is within a year or two (maybe less) they probably will be.
 
Kor said:
I agree that those earlier techniques do look pretty bad, however the more recent SMAA post process is damn good and doesn't suffer anywhere near the same problems that you get with ML and FX.
Click to expand...

No, I think that SMAA looks great. I'm completely content using it for transparency aliasing. My gripe is that the edges that MSAA would normally take care of still crawl more than they would with just 4x MSAA. I find SMAA and even 2x MSAA to be a great combo. I really hope that someone implements SMAA into their control panel.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
FXAA and MLAA look horrific. They blur the textures to an unacceptable extent. It just might not be as blatantly obvious in console ports with shitty textures. SMAA is the only post process method that I've seen that doesn't diminish image quality. Ok, then on top of that with MLAA, FXAA, and even SMAA edges still crawl more than they do with just 4x msaa. I still have to combine SMAA with some MSAA for it to look good.

MSAA is far from obsolete and I have to question anyone's vision who thinks that FXAA's IQ is on par with traditional anti-aliasing techniques.
Click to expand...

My vision is 20/20 with my corrective lenses, so that's not the issue. "Horrific" is simply hyperbole here. Battlefield 3 looks smudged, but everything else I've tried - Trine 2, Skyrim, others - look great with it.

The problem with MSAA, regardless of the merits of post-processing AA, is that it does nothing to shaders or alpha textures, which developers now use all the time.

Post-proc AA is a much more reasonable alternative to these problems than cranking supersampling, which is a performance hog on every level. I can't even imagine trying SSAA on an Eyefinity display.

In any event, if you're using a combo you can get away with 2x MSAA, and anything above 4x MSAA is a waste unless you go with supersampling, which is not feasible. So again, I don't see vRAM amount as a crucial consideration anymore - so long as it's beyond a certain base level, it's going to be fine.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
No, I think that SMAA looks great. I'm completely content using it for transparency aliasing. My gripe is that the edges that MSAA would normally take care of still crawl more than they would with just 4x MSAA. I find SMAA and even 2x MSAA to be a great combo. I really hope that someone implements SMAA into their control panel.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Never mind, for some reason by "crawl" I thought you meant performance-wise.

I've been using the injector on several titles (and actually in the latest ArmA 2 OA betas it is built into the game) and the performance is outstanding compared to MSAA. I do also use MSAA because some edges (primarily distant ones) and distant thin objects (like power lines, etc.) are still jaggy otherwise, but performance-wise there is very little difference between SMAA on or off for me.

MSAA is great, and while not obsolete, is also outdated and a brute-force method of AA. Shader-based AA are going to be the future from here on in. They will continue to improve and I don't think it's too long before they achieve unity with MSAA quality.
 
does anyone know what resolution H is going to use in their benchmarks?
 
TroyX said:
does anyone know what resolution H is going to use in their benchmarks?
Click to expand...

You can probably use their previous reviews as an example.

So my guess is 1920x1200, 2560x1600, and probably some 5760x1080 or 5760x1200.
 
TroyX said:
does anyone know what resolution H is going to use in their benchmarks?
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess.......several.

Kyle posted several posts back that they were going up to 3 x displays, aka 5760 and I'd guess they'd go as low as 1080, but no lower.
 
thebski said:
Jesus guys. I was just saying I was happy to see three screen benchmarks.

I did not mean to imply anything egotistical by the term "graduated." Moving to 5760 from 1080 is graduating, no matter how you slice it. That's not to say you can't graduate to something better than that. I didn't mean it like "hey, look at me I'm the best!"

I also never said or meant to imply in any way that the 1920 benchmarks were irrelevant.

Man you guys are touchy today.
Click to expand...

I would think being [H] also include people who like to flex their CPU muscle and do folding or computationally intensive processing, in addition to gaming on multiple screens. I'm sure there are quite a few people who have the money to buy 3 screens + associated GFX cards to properly drive them but choose not to, either a)No need for it or b)No space for it.

For one thing most games I see that even support 3 screens across are FPS which I don't really care about, I know I'd enjoy playing flight simulator 2012 on 3 screens or maybe SimRacingWorld but then I don't like them that much.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
I just realized that when a guru3d review got leaked in a similar manner that other review sites published their reviews that night. I wonder if that could happen here too.
Click to expand...

That is not going to happen to my knowledge.
 
Limahl said:
I'm going to guess.......several.

Kyle posted several posts back that they were going up to 3 x displays, aka 5760 and I'd guess they'd go as low as 1080, but no lower.
Click to expand...

Its not very often that [H] uses 1080p in their $500 video card reviews. I honestly don't think that well see it.
 
Well those #'s don't even make sense. the 7970 MSI review, the BF3 Ref 7970 had avg FPS of 45 with 2xMSAA on, yet the bench from TOMS has it at 42FPS with 4XAA on....rather odd start to this already.

and wow what an utter dissapointment, wait a few months for no gains and same price=Loss

there were a few big dips when FSAA was on too.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Its not very often that [H] uses 1080p in their $500 video card reviews. I honestly don't think that well see it.
Click to expand...

I doubt it too, 1600p and some surround setup. Then probably a follow up article specifically comparing 680 vs 7970, maybe even with sli vs cf, in surround. I think seen Kyle mention a couple times there is no point in testing 1080p and some other generic shit, as every site covers it and all gpus do fine with it. Also think if you check GenMay forum, eg pay for it, sometimes Kyle or whoever makes a thread asking what should get tested... never really read them, might just be solisiting suggesting for games to test, but I'd guess if you read through latest ones you might get a better idea what they might be testing for 680 release. I lost access tho, I guess my year subscription ran out or something and my paypal account is broken (and I hate paypal) so I can't sign up again, lol.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Its not very often that [H] uses 1080p in their $500 video card reviews. I honestly don't think that well see it.
Click to expand...

You will see some of it this time because we feel as though we are not telling the entire story if we fully leave 1080P out this time.
 
Wow...people are dumping their 580s already, in the last 24 hours alone over 18 ads have popped up on my local craigslist!
I'm off to buy a 580 for $275 WOO wooop!
 
Roadhog said:
how about posting the nvidia review guide like you did the amd one?
Click to expand...

I do not have the NVIDIA Review Guide. I have not signed an NDA, and did not attend the Reviewers' Day, but I do have a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to not expose information that I have gleaned from NVIDIA directly.
 
So other then small lead in a few games here and there look GeForce GTX 680 vs Radeon HD 7970 are petty close toss up now it going be who has the best price
I really wish they wouldn't add thoses dran 590 and 6990 dual GPU graphics card it dosen't belong in a single GPU graphics benchmarked

Now the upcoming dual-GPU monstrosity, Radeon HD 7990 vs GeForce GTX 690 should be sometimg to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top