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

Brent you call the 7970 over priced? Its cheaper than a 680 and gives you the same performance... I don't know what you're talking about. This generation has become the most oddly reviewed generation by the (h)
 
wow a dual GPU card thats actually worth owning over buying 2 single gpu cards, holy crap never thought i'd see the day this would ever happen.
 
Brent_Justice said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's one certain instance I can see a backplate being of use and that is in SFF systems where the card will be in close proximity to larger cpu heatsinks. This is the case for my NH-D14 and any GPU I put onto my Maxmius V Gene, I had to insulate the fan clips from the NH-D14 just in case as it was touching componentry on the back of the card.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Brent you call the 7970 over priced? Its cheaper than a 680 and gives you the same performance... I don't know what you're talking about. This generation has become the most oddly reviewed generation by the (h)
Click to expand...

They're cheaper NOW, when they launched they were $550, and you forgot "almost" between "you" and "the".
 
Brent_Justice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you can say the 7970 is overpriced, when its lower then the 680 GTX, and in stock, and the same performance?

Did you not mean to say that or something? Or did you forget about the price drop?
 
DASHlT said:
Not sure how you can say the 7970 is overpriced, when its lower then the 680 GTX, and in stock, and the same performance?

Did you not mean to say that or something? Or did you forget about the price drop?
Click to expand...

It's not exactly "the same" performance, but yeah, the price has dropped accordingly. It was overpriced.
 
MavericK96 said:
It's not exactly "the same" performance, but yeah, the price has dropped accordingly. It was overpriced.
Click to expand...

Eh its so damn close you could call it the same man.

Some games it wins, Some games the 680 GTX wins..
 
Great review.

Now on the card, this is what I like to see, a company who has the technological edge, and doesn't hold it back! I only wish we could see releases like this in every generation.
 
Yeah, the 7970 in crossfire at 925mhz losing to a GTX 690 at 1058mhz makes the GTX 690 amazing!

I'm sure you'd love to benchmark 7970s in crossfire at the same speeds (1058mhz as you said GPU boost was running at for you) and see who the winner is, but you're too busy bending over for JHH as he slides you checks. Too bad he never gives you a good night kiss. =[

performance advantage with HD 7970 CFX versus the GTX 690, but that is negated with the smoother feeling SLI has in gaming compared to CrossFireX.
Click to expand...

Really? That's what you have to say? There's no empirical evidence to support what I'm saying (and in fact the evidence contradicts what I'm saying) but believe me guys!

Seriously, you sound like a disgruntled Phenom I owner who is butthurt that his Phenom is getting trounced by Intels, so you run into forums and reviews and just say it "feels smoother." Remember when Phenom I owners were running around saying "it just feels smoother on AMD"? Well congrats, now you've reached the fanboy level that they have. The only difference is you get free video cards and money for doing it and people on forums just stroke their e-peens.

GTX 690 having a 15% clockspeed advantage and losing or doing 5-10% faster is not something the celebrate, let alone act like the $999 price tag is justified. 7970s in crossfire would not only be significantly faster at the same clocks (which is pretty much guaranteed when you overclock), but it would cost nearly $100 less. That's 10% cheaper for faster performance. And you're calling the GTX 690 a solid product?

I was going to make a joke about the only [H]ard thing at this site revolving around someone bending over for a certain company when review time comes along, but I'm sure the clever readers here can plug the holes.
 
sdlvx said:
Yeah, the 7970 in crossfire at 925mhz losing to a GTX 690 at 1058mhz makes the GTX 690 amazing!

I'm sure you'd love to benchmark 7970s in crossfire at the same speeds (1058mhz as you said GPU boost was running at for you) and see who the winner is, but you're too busy bending over for JHH as he slides you checks. Too bad he never gives you a good night kiss. =[



Really? That's what you have to say? There's no empirical evidence to support what I'm saying (and in fact the evidence contradicts what I'm saying) but believe me guys!

Seriously, you sound like a disgruntled Phenom I owner who is butthurt that his Phenom is getting trounced by Intels, so you run into forums and reviews and just say it "feels smoother." Remember when Phenom I owners were running around saying "it just feels smoother on AMD"? Well congrats, now you've reached the fanboy level that they have. The only difference is you get free video cards and money for doing it and people on forums just stroke their e-peens.

GTX 690 having a 15% clockspeed advantage and losing or doing 5-10% faster is not something the celebrate, let alone act like the $999 price tag is justified. 7970s in crossfire would not only be significantly faster at the same clocks (which is pretty much guaranteed when you overclock), but it would cost nearly $100 less. That's 10% cheaper for faster performance. And you're calling the GTX 690 a solid product?

I was going to make a joke about the only [H]ard thing at this site revolving around someone bending over for a certain company when review time comes along, but I'm sure the clever readers here can plug the holes.
Click to expand...

when you buy a GTX 690 what speed does it run at ? and same for the 7970? the way the company ships the product to you, the 690 is faster, period. Even oc'd it will be faster and use less power, so your point doesn't hold any ground.

BTW, when the 6970 came out it had a 150mhz clock speed advantage over the GTX580, did you complain about that?
 
DASHlT said:
They have a horrible reputation to not being neutral at all when it comes to reviews of Video cards.
Click to expand...

That's possible. You choose who you want to believe. Personally, I'm never buying an AMD card again.
 
fomoz said:
That's possible. You choose who you want to believe. Personally, I'm never buying an AMD card again.
Click to expand...

Single config AMD cards are pretty good.

It's when you start to crossfire, the drivers fail AMD, and are usually months behind....This is accually why I left AMD for Nvidia. Drivers Drivers Drivers.....always a problem with Drivers.

When you spend more time troubleshooting a game to get it to run right....then you know its time to switch camps.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Brent you call the 7970 over priced? Its cheaper than a 680 and gives you the same performance... I don't know what you're talking about. This generation has become the most oddly reviewed generation by the (h)
Click to expand...

Price at launch. 7970 price drops are only recent.
 
DASHlT said:
Single config AMD cards are pretty good.

It's when you start to crossfire, the drivers fail AMD, and are usually months behind....This is accually why I left AMD for Nvidia. Drivers Drivers Drivers.....always a problem with Drivers.

When you spend more time troubleshooting a game to get it to run right....then you know its time to switch camps.
Click to expand...
I'm coming from crossfire 6870's :)

I agree with you regarding single-card setups, especially since AMD historically offered better value. Unfortunately, I don't see my screen setup running on a single-card any time soon. In the end, you and I are exactly on the same page.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Price at launch. 7970 price drops are only recent.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the price drops were before you even received the 690 GTX and reviewed it.

Did you not know of the price drops or something? They have been dropped for almost 2 weeks now.
 
DASHlT said:
Yes, but the price drops were before you even received the 690 GTX and reviewed it.

Did you not know of the price drops or something? They have been dropped for almost 2 weeks now.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the price drops.
 
Anyone want to buy my 3GB 580's for maybe 350-375 each. I want a 690 :(

Then I wish to watercool it, instead of two cards. And I'm on a single 30, so 2GB will work just dandy.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
when you buy a GTX 690 what speed does it run at ? and same for the 7970? the way the company ships the product to you, the 690 is faster, period. Even oc'd it will be faster and use less power, so your point doesn't hold any ground.

BTW, when the 6970 came out it had a 150mhz clock speed advantage over the GTX580, did you complain about that?
Click to expand...

First of all, 880mhz - 772mhz is 108mhz, not 150mhz. Not a good way to start your argument off.

Who doesn't buy a high end GPU and overclock it? Are you not an enthusiast? If you spent the money on a 7970 or a GTX 680 or GTX 690, you'd be an idiot to not overclock it. These are enthusiast parts, they're meant to be overclocked. If enthusiasts didn't overclock, this forum would be full of people recommending non-K intel CPUs to save money. Not to mention if power was a huge concern, people wouldn't be overclocking in general. It's completely retarded to be concerned about saving 20w on your GPU under load when you turn around and overclock your CPU and raise the voltages.

The only complaining I did about it was with your math. GTX 580 had an MSRP of $500 while 6970 was $370. Two cards with that big of a price difference shouldn't even be compared. GTX 580 cost almost 40% more than 6970. I should probably remind you that the difference in price between a factory overclocked 7970 and a GT 690 is 49%.

Not to mention 6970 was slower and had higher clocks. 6970 had lower clock performance that fermi. Kepler is faster than the competition and higher clocks. Do you see the difference?

Usually, NV was faster at lower clocks. Now, NV is faster at higher clocks and the same or slower at the same clocks. A GTX 580 at 6970 speeds would have destroyed a 6970. A GTX 680 at the same clocks as a 7970 doesn't win.

If this review wasn't shit, they would have compared a 1ghz 7970 in crossfire. A 1ghz 7970 costs the same as a GTX 680 and crossfiring two 1ghz 7970s would cost the same as a GTX 690.
 
DASHlT said:
There is no microstutter. Both companies have it i guess.

This is from a former 6990+6970 users as well.

Stop spreading bullshit lol
Click to expand...

Um microstutter is definitely real. My 6950cfx in bf3 averages 60-70fps, but it feels like much less at times due to the uneven display of frames. It doesn't always do it, but when it does (I'd guesstimate 40% of the time) it's noticeable and quite annoying.
 
cesium666 said:
Um microstutter is definitely real. My 6950cfx in bf3 averages 60-70fps, but it feels like much less at times due to the uneven display of frames. It doesn't always do it, but when it does (I'd guesstimate 40% of the time) it's noticeable and quite annoying.
Click to expand...

Are you use that isnt a Crossfire problem? (which AMD has lots of).

Sometimes people mistake driver problems with Microstutter.

If someone has a game stutter, they instantly think (GOD this is that horrible microstutter people talk about).
 
sdlvx said:
First of all, 880mhz - 772mhz is 108mhz, not 150mhz. Not a good way to start your argument off.

Who doesn't buy a high end GPU and overclock it? Are you not an enthusiast? If you spent the money on a 7970 or a GTX 680 or GTX 690, you'd be an idiot to not overclock it. These are enthusiast parts, they're meant to be overclocked. If enthusiasts didn't overclock, this forum would be full of people recommending non-K intel CPUs to save money. Not to mention if power was a huge concern, people wouldn't be overclocking in general. It's completely retarded to be concerned about saving 20w on your GPU under load when you turn around and overclock your CPU and raise the voltages.

The only complaining I did about it was with your math. GTX 580 had an MSRP of $500 while 6970 was $370. Two cards with that big of a price difference shouldn't even be compared. GTX 580 cost almost 40% more than 6970. I should probably remind you that the difference in price between a factory overclocked 7970 and a GT 690 is 49%.

Not to mention 6970 was slower and had higher clocks. 6970 had lower clock performance that fermi. Kepler is faster than the competition and higher clocks. Do you see the difference?

Usually, NV was faster at lower clocks. Now, NV is faster at higher clocks and the same or slower at the same clocks. A GTX 580 at 6970 speeds would have destroyed a 6970. A GTX 680 at the same clocks as a 7970 doesn't win.

If this review wasn't shit, they would have compared a 1ghz 7970 in crossfire. A 1ghz 7970 costs the same as a GTX 680 and crossfiring two 1ghz 7970s would cost the same as a GTX 690.
Click to expand...

my point was, the 6970 is clocked higher, why not complain then? you can't say oh they're not the same mhz, they are different cards with different technolagy, as can be clearly seen by the 680 walking all over the 7970 with less cores, less power usage, and less memory bandwidth.

You might want to overclock an enthusiast part, and even if you do, it's not guarantied, Guess what? I've had both 7970 CFX and 680SLI setups, and my 7970s won't oc over 1040mhz without a voltage bump, how does your argument hold to that? both the 680s hit 1200 without a voltage bump.

My point is, if AMD could have released the 7970 with a higher clock, then why didn't they? probably due to heat and power, btw the 7970s get pretty loud when OC'd on the stock fans, the 680s stay much quieter.
 
[+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...

Aye That's some incredible binning. Good product all-round.

....maybe that price, though :-S

Anyways, what about, you know, some more .....availability of anything else 'kepler' eh Nvidia? :(
 
Well I at least very much appreciate the work that goes into one of these write-ups, I am sure time constraints are a pain in the neck. Thanks for the review guys.
 
sdlvx said:
First of all, 880mhz - 772mhz is 108mhz, not 150mhz. Not a good way to start your argument off.

Who doesn't buy a high end GPU and overclock it? Are you not an enthusiast? If you spent the money on a 7970 or a GTX 680 or GTX 690, you'd be an idiot to not overclock it. These are enthusiast parts, they're meant to be overclocked. If enthusiasts didn't overclock, this forum would be full of people recommending non-K intel CPUs to save money. Not to mention if power was a huge concern, people wouldn't be overclocking in general. It's completely retarded to be concerned about saving 20w on your GPU under load when you turn around and overclock your CPU and raise the voltages.

The only complaining I did about it was with your math. GTX 580 had an MSRP of $500 while 6970 was $370. Two cards with that big of a price difference shouldn't even be compared. GTX 580 cost almost 40% more than 6970. I should probably remind you that the difference in price between a factory overclocked 7970 and a GT 690 is 49%.

Not to mention 6970 was slower and had higher clocks. 6970 had lower clock performance that fermi. Kepler is faster than the competition and higher clocks. Do you see the difference?

Usually, NV was faster at lower clocks. Now, NV is faster at higher clocks and the same or slower at the same clocks. A GTX 580 at 6970 speeds would have destroyed a 6970. A GTX 680 at the same clocks as a 7970 doesn't win.

If this review wasn't shit, they would have compared a 1ghz 7970 in crossfire. A 1ghz 7970 costs the same as a GTX 680 and crossfiring two 1ghz 7970s would cost the same as a GTX 690.
Click to expand...
Do you understand anything about GPU architecture at all? You can't compare clock speeds across brands or even generations. The clock speed bump on the GTX680 is because the card no longer has separate hotclocks on the shaders, and the shaders are different than on the previous generation Fermi cards.

They compared both cards at stock speeds. The GPU Boost feature is a stock, built-in function of the card that works even if the end-user doesn't know about it and never installs any overclocking tools. Your complaint is that they didn't test an overclocked 7970 against a non-overclocked 690? That makes absolutely no sense.
 
DASHlT said:
Are you use that isnt a Crossfire problem? (which AMD has lots of).

Sometimes people mistake driver problems with Microstutter.

If someone has a game stutter, they instantly think (GOD this is that horrible microstutter people talk about).
Click to expand...

It is related to Crossfire. People are not communicating well with one another. I don't think anyone is insinuating that a single card AMD 7-series solution is experiencing microstutter. If they are, that's a new accusation.

As for the price of the 7970:

Brent seems to be saying that at launch the 7970 was overpriced. If someone paid for the card at launch, then buying a 680gtx would have yielded greater value. For a consumer today, the 7970 is more comparable to the 680gtx in terms of value. Most consumers of the article who still have a buying decision to make should not consider the 7970 overpriced, but again, this doesn't seem to be the scenario that Brent was commenting on.
 
Paradoxex said:
It is related to Crossfire. People are not communicating well with one another. I don't think anyone is insinuating that a single card AMD 7-series solution is experiencing microstutter. If they are, that's a new accusation.

As for the price of the 7970:

Brent seems to be saying that at launch the 7970 was overpriced. If someone paid for the card at launch, then buying a 680gtx would have yielded greater value. For a consumer today, the 7970 is more comparable to the 680gtx in terms of value. Most consumers of the article who still have a buying decision to make should not consider the 7970 overpriced, but again, this doesn't seem to be the scenario that Brent was commenting on.
Click to expand...

Brents quote " you want an overpriced card, look toward the 7970"

That comment is wrong....The prices reflect the market right now. The 7970 is priced just right.

And that comment was made today after the price drops already happened.
 
DASHlT said:
Brents quote " you want an overpriced card, look toward the 7970"

That comment is wrong....The prices reflect the market right now. The 7970 is priced just right.

And that comment was made today after the price drops already happened.
Click to expand...
Don't quote people out of context and it might be clearer to you. What he said was:

" 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."
 
Rizen said:
Don't quote people out of context and it might be clearer to you. What he said was:

" 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."
Click to expand...

We aren't at launch, this is just like people wanting them to overclock the 7970 to match the speed of the 690/680.
 
darkangelamd said:
We aren't at launch, this is just like people wanting them to overclock the 7970 to match the speed of the 690/680.
Click to expand...
I realize, but he was commenting on people who were saying the 680 was overpriced AT LAUNCH, not current market prices.

Re-read what he wrote one more time:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
my point was, the 6970 is clocked higher, why not complain then? you can't say oh they're not the same mhz, they are different cards with different technolagy, as can be clearly seen by the 680 walking all over the 7970 with less cores, less power usage, and less memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Because it's not faster and it's slower and the GTX 680 is faster and has faster clocks. We finally do have a generation where performance is extremely similar clock to clock, which AFAIK hasn't really happened before. I would hardly call 5-10% faster walking all over.

Digital Viper-X- said:
You might want to overclock an enthusiast part, and even if you do, it's not guarantied, Guess what? I've had both 7970 CFX and 680SLI setups, and my 7970s won't oc over 1040mhz without a voltage bump, how does your argument hold to that? both the 680s hit 1200 without a voltage bump.
Click to expand...

So you have about the only 7970 I've ever heard of in a forum that hasn't gone much further beyond that. But guess what? That's still a 12% increase in clocks which should give 10-12% performance increase, which would make up the difference between GTX 690 and the 7970s used at stock speeds in this review. So, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than the fact that you don't comprehend simple math.

Digital Viper-X- said:
My point is, if AMD could have released the 7970 with a higher clock, then why didn't they? probably due to heat and power, btw the 7970s get pretty loud when OC'd on the stock fans, the 680s stay much quieter.
Click to expand...

Because yields are shit on 28nm and AMD wanted to be conservative with clocks because they put more emphasis on availability over absolute performance? GTX 680 came out nearly 5 weeks ago, and it's still very difficult to find. A look at newegg shows they're still not available. Compare that to availibility with 7970 now and it's obvious why AMD went with lower clocks. Not only that, but it helped them get their product out earlier than the GTX 680.

My 7970 runs 1225mhz and the fans don't spin up above 60% ever. You got a bum chip, but you know what? It's still capable of running at GTX 680 speeds. Yet even your awful overclocker can run at 1ghz+ which GTX 680 and GTX 690 all run at. Way to prove my point that 925mhz is far too low for 7970 and that even if you have an awful chip you can still match GTX 680 clockspeeds.
 
Rizen said:
I realize, but he was commenting on people who were saying the 680 was overpriced AT LAUNCH, not current market prices.
Click to expand...

How were they overpriced at launch, they sold every one right? From what I know they were sold out everywhere for a couple weeks at that price. That means they were priced right, just like the 690 is apparently priced right. When the supply/demand changed, they changed the price to match. If a 7990 comes out that out performs the 690 at $899 comes out then the 690 will probably come down in price, though I think that is unlikely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top