NVIDIA Kepler GeForce GTX 680 SLI Video Card Review @ [H]

[FaRKle0079]

Was looking for a review with the title like: “Which monitors best serve the power house cards of the day?”
Know the (H) can do it and is very relevant (in my mind at least).

What's your definition of a monitor serving a graphics card better? Traits like max refresh rate, color accuracy, panel type, brightness, viewing angle, input lag, response time, and native resolution are all tied to the monitor alone. If monitor A performs better than monitor B on graphics card X, then A should also perform better than B on graphics card Y as well. For gamers, response time and input lag are probably the two most important factors, but there are also a good deal of us that want the absolute best picture too.

 

[Forceman]

Stock vs stock is the best comparison for reviews, but I disagree that OC vs OC isn't useful. It definitely shows how the 2 scale with additional clockspeed, so its useful data to have.

But stock vs stock is generally the accepted barometer.

I didn't say, and don't think, that OC vs OC isn't useful (I think I said good info to have) - it totally is, just not as the sole basis for which card is best. We're on the same page there.

 

[siliconnerd]

It looks to me like a lot of the problem is AMD's Crossfire scaling is just bad. Of the three games where the settings are the same between the single 680 review and the SLI review, the 7970 shows less than a 50% performance improvement.

 

[xoleras]

It looks to me like a lot of the problem is AMD's Crossfire scaling is just bad. Of the three games where the settings are the same between the single 680 review and the SLI review, the 7970 shows less than a 50% performance improvement.

Not quite true, depends on the game pretty much, bf3 scales very well on crossfire, skyrim has always been sort of a NV centric game (as in performing better on the nv side). Unreal engine games tend to scale very well on nv hardware. (Batman, ME3)

On the other hand, games not tested are complete opposite, scaling better on AMD - witcher 2, all crysis games, Alan Wake and metro 2033, all of which are faster on 7970 xfire. Myself and digital viper (maybe he can chime in here?) have found similar results in this respect - 7970 xfire is definitely better in some titles. Although I was very pleased with the 680s, they are great cards - dont' misunderstand me.

I guess I kind of see them as even (this is just my opinion), but you can make the argument that NV plays the most popular games better which is true. This is why I was kind of curious as to why the relatively few titles tested, but the reasoning is completely valid - test what games people are playing the most, that makes sense. Skyrim is still played by a ton of people, and so is bf3 - and they are fantastic on the 680. So for most people, 680 sli will produce a better experience. On top of this you get nvidia's great software support. Personally, it would be great to see testing of a ton of games (like 15 or so) but that is just unrealistic and would take way too much time.

 

[marzzez]

What's your definition of a monitor serving a graphics card better? Traits like max refresh rate, color accuracy, panel type, brightness, viewing angle, input lag, response time, and native resolution are all tied to the monitor alone. If monitor A performs better than monitor B on graphics card X, then A should also perform better than B on graphics card Y as well. For gamers, response time and input lag are probably the two most important factors, but there are also a good deal of us that want the absolute best picture too.

Hell, all of the above! Might even throw in price per tech/traits; frustrating when trying to sort through manufacturers, tech/traits and size (not to mention most are 1920 x 1080) to compliment my hardware.
Just think the (H) falls short in that regard, an article once or twice a year would help considerably (at least for me).

 

[heatlesssun]

I guess I kind of see them as even, but you can make the argument that NV plays the most popular games better which is true. Skyrim is still played by a ton of people. So for most people, 680 sli will produce a better experience.

But the other issue is "smoothness" which even Viper said he though was smoother with SLI, which was a big point also in the [H] 680 SLI review. Bottom line is that both the 680 and 7970 are going to give you very much the same amount of noticeable performance and IQ. I just think that nVidia created a more elegant solution with the 680 and while I understand the topic of AMD's driver quality is controversial, there's an AWFUL lot of AMD driver complaints out there, just sold one of my 580s to a guy that had enough of AMD drivers, his words not mine. I rarely see people buy AMD cards because of nVidia driver issues.

 

[xoleras]

But the other issue is "smoothness" which even Viper said he though was smoother with SLI, which was a big point also in the [H] 680 SLI review. Bottom line is that both the 680 and 7970 are going to give you very much the same amount of noticeable performance and IQ. I just think that nVidia created a more elegant solution with the 680 and while I understand the topic of AMD's driver quality is controversial, there's an AWFUL lot of AMD driver complaints out there, just sold one of my 580s to a guy that had enough of AMD drivers, his words not mine. I rarely see people buy AMD cards because of nVidia driver issues.

I didn't see any smoothness issues. I don't run multi monitor though, so maybe things are different for eyefinity. Again, maybe digital viper can chime in with his experience. The games I play most are bf3 (about the same when oc the 7970s, nv maybe 3-4 fps faster on average), skyrim (680 sli faster), crysis games (I still play these alot, 7970 wins here), and starting to get into alan wake (7970 xfire wins), Batman: AC (680 sli wins), World of Warcraft (I think any hardware plays this great lol - old game) As always , just my opinion, I think the 680 is a killer card. The fact that the 680 is smaller, quieter and faster in roughly half of the games I play is pretty awesome, and its cheaper too. In short, no need to go on the offensive I like them both, and I acknowledge the fact the 680 is a much better buy. Anyway, I haven't had any smoothness or other such issues with etiher. I am running single monitor though, i'm not sure if multi monitor is different.

 

[Devistater]

Hell, all of the above! Might even throw in price per tech/traits; frustrating when trying to sort through manufacturers, tech/traits and size (not to mention most are 1920 x 1080) to compliment my hardware.
Just think the (H) falls short in that regard, an article once or twice a year would help considerably (at least for me).

But all of those factors, everyone wants something different. Some people insist on 120hz, some people insist on response time, some people want better color fidelity, some only want LED matrix backlighting, etc. If you really want to dig into this, there's some dedicated HDTV forums where videophiles discuss this stuff in great depth. All of the HDTV stuff should apply to gaming, except perhaps input lag. If you just want to see what a decent monitor would be, pick a few models out on newegg and check the reviews (reviews on newegg, reviews on amazon, and reviews from a google search on that model).

If [H] was going to offer monitor buying advice, IMHO it would be more useful to cover what features would be most desirable to gamers, like a feature overview guide, and perhaps a monitor or two thrown in to compare on some of those features.

 

[heatlesssun]

I didn't see any smoothness issues. I don't run multi monitor though, so maybe things are different for eyefinity. There is definitely no smoothness issues for me however, again, maybe digital viper can chime in with his experience. As always , just my opinion, I think the 680 is a killer card. The fact that the 680 is smaller, quieter and faster in roughly half of the games I play is pretty awesome, and its cheaper too. In short, no need to go on the offensive I like them both, haven't had any smoothness or other such issues.

And the 7970 is a great card also. Again, my point and a point that Brett seems to make pretty strongly in his review is that 680 SLI was a better experience than 7970 CF for him. How objective that is I do not know and never having had a CF solution I have no experience to speak from.

All I can say with certainty is that this review couldn't have sold too many 7970 CF solutions. But there's plenty of times that I buck professional reviews and opinions and find I don't have the same experience or opinion.

 

[fanboy]

Really getting old running the HD7970's tame vs the open clock 680GTX .. Nvidia knew this smoke and mirrors would gave there cards that WOW factor while they really can't show alot when you think of how far AMD has push there hardware from HD6970 to 7970..

Crank the 7970's up and report back..

 

[xoleras]

Really getting old running the HD7970's tame vs the open clock 680GTX .. Nvidia knew this smoke and mirrors would gave there cards that WOW factor while they really can't show alot when you think of how far AMD has push there hardware from HD6970 to 7970..

Crank the 7970's up and report back..

I agree, but its 100% amd's fault. They really should have aimed higher with the clockspeed IMO or have some type of GPU boost functionality.

AMD isn't known for making smart business decisions,

 

[heatlesssun]

Really getting old running the HD7970's tame vs the open clock 680GTX .. Nvidia knew this smoke and mirrors would gave there cards that WOW factor while they really can't show alot when you think of how far AMD has push there hardware from HD6970 to 7970..

Crank the 7970's up and report back..

But you can crank the 680s up as well. You have to do a base comparison first because that's what the cards are GUARANTEED to do. If you can oc the 7970 and close the gap or pull ahead then great. But [H] knows these things, has played with this these things and is working on an oc review.

Again, you HAVE to start with the base product running in its default configuration and go from there as oc'ing ISN'T guaranteed no matter how likely it is that it can be done and even then different people will get different results.

 

[heatlesssun]

I agree, but its 100% amd's fault. They really should have aimed higher with the clockspeed IMO or have some type of GPU boost functionality.

AMD overplayed it's hand. I think they must have been thinking what a lot of folks were saying and that GK104 would be a mid-range card and that nVidia wouldn't have a 7970 competitor at least until Q3 2012, certainly not just 75 days after the retail launch of the 7970.

AMD was simply trying to cash in while they had the chance, nothing wrong with that but times up. They still have a competitive part, just need a slight price adjustment it all really.

 

[fanboy]

Yes you can but they don't scale like the HD7970 does.. If Nvidia could release a product on the same day or close to i would have that WOW factor but we all know what they do in the labs for those 3-4 month delays,,

 

[xoleras]

I think we all agree that AMD needs to

1) lower price

2) release a faster SKU, and name the SKU accordingly (xt or pro?)

3) be very aggressive with clocks, i'm talking 1100+ here.

4) perhaps release 1.5gb versions to save $

At least if they do all 4 and have a product clocked aggressively, they wouldn't look so stupid comparitively.

 

[fanboy]

They could release a bios update like EVGA did for the 460GTX which changed the clock rates or release the HD7980 with more shaders and higher clock rates which would look like the MSI Lighting HD7970 which seems to compare with even the overclocked 680GTX's

 

[heatlesssun]

Yes you can but they don't scale like the HD7970 does.. If Nvidia could release a product on the same day or close to i would have that WOW factor but we all know what they do in the labs for those 3-4 month delays,,

You might be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of the 7970 when oc'ed to max against a max oc'ed 680 but I don't think that would make the 7970 a superior card. The issue with the 7970 isn't performance really, it's the price and nVidia's attention to detail with the 680s power and acoustics and the nice little GPU Boost feature.

If you have 7970s there's really no upgrade in the 680. Again AMD just overplayed it's hand a bit I think believing that nVidia wouldn't have it's high end part out for at least another quarter. If the 7970 had launched at $500 at a 1Ghz clock I think things would be a lot different.

 

[ZoNe]

I never buy a $500 video card (poor price/performance, why buy a $500 card when $250 is 80% as fast, for half as much, bad math) but this is the first one I'm thinking about due to power stats mainly.

And yes I drive an accord instead of an F350 for same reason.

 

[heatlesssun]

why buy a $500 card when $250 is 80% as fast, for half as much

Because sometimes the 80% solution simply isn't good enough.

 

[Bahanime]

But you can crank the 680s up as well. You have to do a base comparison first because that's what the cards are GUARANTEED to do. If you can oc the 7970 and close the gap or pull ahead then great. But [H] knows these things, has played with this these things and is working on an oc review.

Again, you HAVE to start with the base product running in its default configuration and go from there as oc'ing ISN'T guaranteed no matter how likely it is that it can be done and even then different people will get different results.

Gtx680s once you OC them reach around 1.3ghz max, most are around the 1.2ghz mark, and performance scaling is very poor as in less responsive to OC.

7970s the reference air ones tend to reach 1.2ghz. Performance scaling is near linear. Thus when both cards are overclocked, the 7970s actually end up faster.

The only difference is at "stock", the gtx680 automatically OC and can reach 1.2ghz as noted by [H]'s review. In essence, it's already OC performance thats being measured because its not indicative of "stock", as different cards will boost to different speeds based on asic quality. NV only guarantees a ~50mhz turbo, any extra is a huge variable. So in [H]'s case, his cards reached 1.2ghz in gaming, that's quite an advantage.

As enthusiasts who buy ~$500 cards tend to be serial overclockers (look at people's rig here, if they have expensive GPUs, their entire system is OC), the only performance numbers that matter are OC vs OC. From other reviews, it only takes a 7970 @ 1.1ghz to match a "stock" gtx680 that turbos to 1.2ghz. A 7970 @ 1.25ghz was faster than a max gtx680 OC to 1.34ghz. As [H] is an "enthusiast" review site with high res gameplay bench, Kyle should really do an OC vs OC bench.

 

[noko]

Well if HardOCP does do an OC testing suite single and sli/cfx I hope/request:

• Clarification of driver settings such as Adaptive Multisampling setting was used in CCC vice Adaptive SuperSampling (which does not exist as an option) if driver is set to SSAA the whole screen is SuperSampled and not just transparent textures.
• Verify 8xMSAA on Nvidia is not using 8xCSAA, if so then AMD equivalence is 4xMSAA with EQ selected in the drivers for AA. In the past 8x MSAA for nvidia was 8xCSAA while 8xQ was the real 8xMSAA.
• Use AMD EQ/Nvidia CSAA settings for possible choices for IQ enhancements, for example 2xMSAA with EQ gives 2xMSAA samples and 4 aditional coverage samples which is ~4xMSAA quality.
• Probably a separate review compairing FXAA, TXAA? and MLAA2 quality and performance with performance impact and IQ.
• Include GPU clock speed graphs for both AMD and Nvidia to see if variations are causing lower clocks and lower fps at peak loading periods or high power parts of a game while OC. Both PowerTune(AMD) and Nvidia GPU Boost will limit peak power which may give a apparent higher average frame rate but could keep the lower frame rates similar or the same.
• Then the most important part, do what you guys always do and get into the game and see how it really feels .

.

 

[heatlesssun]

I think you're low balling the oc scaling of the 680, I've been seeing very linear performance increases, I'll be curious to see what [H] sees in its review. And there are plenty of people that don't oc their GPUs around here. Again, you HAVE to evaluate a cards default and guaranteed settings before trying to max out an oc that everyone will be able to achieve.

 

[noko]

I think you're low balling the oc scaling of the 680, I've been seeing very linear performance increases, I'll be curious to see what [H] sees in its review. And there are plenty of people that don't oc their GPUs around here. Again, you HAVE to evaluate a cards default and guaranteed settings before trying to max out an oc that everyone will be able to achieve.

The issue or could be one on the 680 is one does not have a set default with the 680, the GPU Boost does vary from card to card. It maybe 1058 or 1100mhz for a given game.

 

[marzzez]

But all of those factors, everyone wants something different. Some people insist on 120hz, some people insist on response time, some people want better color fidelity, some only want LED matrix backlighting, etc. If you really want to dig into this, there's some dedicated HDTV forums where videophiles discuss this stuff in great depth. All of the HDTV stuff should apply to gaming, except perhaps input lag. If you just want to see what a decent monitor would be, pick a few models out on newegg and check the reviews (reviews on newegg, reviews on amazon, and reviews from a google search on that model).

If [H] was going to offer monitor buying advice, IMHO it would be more useful to cover what features would be most desirable to gamers, like a feature overview guide, and perhaps a monitor or two thrown in to compare on some of those features.

Hahahaha, so it’s even hard for the (H) to define what qualities constitutes a descent monitor for these cards. Thanks for the advice, going back to the beer joint to play pool.

 

[Forceman]

I think you're low balling the oc scaling of the 680, I've been seeing very linear performance increases, I'll be curious to see what [H] sees in its review.

Mine was very nearly 1:1 on Heaven - from 42.7 to 47.6 with a +130 offset, so that's ~11% performance from ~12% overclock

 

[Bahanime]

Actual reviews of OC gtx680 have it scaling around 50-60% of clock speed increases in games, not synthetic such as 3d mark or heaven. Tahiti scales ~90% on clock speed increases, and often have a >30% OC headroom.

I would still prefer gtx680 simply due to the much lower TDP, but its not a huge loss to 79xx owners, this new card comes with great "stock" performance and pricing to be a better deal but once OC, the 79xx still retains their performance edge, just at a hugely increased power draw.

 

[dgz]

Yes, next article I'm working on is GPU Boost/Overclocking/Adaptive VSYNC all in one article, will be awesome, very excited.

Be sure to mention this tweet response by Carmack.

@mrklli yes, I am proud to have pushed for the sync-at-60-tear-below extension

The option was available in RAGE long before nvidia made it available in their drivers and it works great.

 

[xoleras]

Gtx680s once you OC them reach around 1.3ghz max, most are around the 1.2ghz mark, and performance scaling is very poor as in less responsive to OC.

7970s the reference air ones tend to reach 1.2ghz. Performance scaling is near linear. Thus when both cards are overclocked, the 7970s actually end up faster.

The only difference is at "stock", the gtx680 automatically OC and can reach 1.2ghz as noted by [H]'s review. In essence, it's already OC performance thats being measured because its not indicative of "stock", as different cards will boost to different speeds based on asic quality. NV only guarantees a ~50mhz turbo, any extra is a huge variable. So in [H]'s case, his cards reached 1.2ghz in gaming, that's quite an advantage.

As enthusiasts who buy ~$500 cards tend to be serial overclockers (look at people's rig here, if they have expensive GPUs, their entire system is OC), the only performance numbers that matter are OC vs OC. From other reviews, it only takes a 7970 @ 1.1ghz to match a "stock" gtx680 that turbos to 1.2ghz. A 7970 @ 1.25ghz was faster than a max gtx680 OC to 1.34ghz. As [H] is an "enthusiast" review site with high res gameplay bench, Kyle should really do an OC vs OC bench.

Scaling wise, my observance is that both tahiti and kepler scale well with overclocks, however the performance gain per MHz above stock was a little better with tahiti. Note i'm not talking about actualy MHZ overclock, rather the actual performance scaling with the overclock. Of course, while tahiti scales better generally this doesn't make it a better buy, the 680 is if you can find it.

 

[demingo]

As enthusiasts who buy ~$500 cards tend to be serial overclockers (look at people's rig here, if they have expensive GPUs, their entire system is OC), the only performance numbers that matter are OC vs OC.

I have been buying $500 cars for a while and NEVER overclock them. Not worth the headache for me.

 

[heatlesssun]

Actual reviews of OC gtx680 have it scaling around 50-60% of clock speed increases in games, not synthetic such as 3d mark or heaven. Tahiti scales ~90% on clock speed increases, and often have a >30% OC headroom.

I would still prefer gtx680 simply due to the much lower TDP, but its not a huge loss to 79xx owners, this new card comes with great "stock" performance and pricing to be a better deal but once OC, the 79xx still retains their performance edge, just at a hugely increased power draw.

Well in my actual game experience I'm seeing better than 50% to 60% percent scaling. Whatever the case, I just don't see maximum oc's making the 7970 that much better of a product as for at least any professional reviewer saying buy the 7970 and oc like crazy and then it's a much better card than an oc'ed 680.

 

[ivansoze1]

Still think these in SLI are awesome, though I bought my single card really for the sake of having a new more power-efficient KOMPuta in general - got a 'new' 2700K and mobo to go with, all is great, now I'm looking at getting 2 more 27" monitors to make this new toy really work, or even add a second GTX680 because I just want to be like K..
What is really funny is reading stuff I probably would have written 20 years ago, defending my choice of purchase - but the 7970 is really faster, @ 1300mhz!!!!! True, it's a wonderful chip with a great overclock potential, one that you can actually see for once - neither company can claim that in the past. Raging against my choice to wait and get the GTX680 is funny, please keep it up as yawl make some interesting points and add to [H] - good healthy discussion is good for the constitution!!




BTW, I'm selling my old HIS 5870, what are they worth these days????

 

[ivansoze1]

I have been buying $500 cars for a while and NEVER overclock them. Not worth the headache for me.

I'm pretty much in your club, reason I buy TOL GPU is so I don't have to overclock but many think differently and salivate at the prospect of wringing every last megapixel out of their setups - look at some of the extreme cooling, liquid nitro pots for instance, explain that to a KOMPUTA newb and they would say you're crazy, 'liquid nitrogen on a computer, no bloody way', yet here at [H] no1 batts an eyelid at the mention of LN..all so special

 

[heatlesssun]

I have been buying $500 cars for a while and NEVER overclock them. Not worth the headache for me.

GPU overclocking is much more temperamental and less reliable than CPU oc'ing and I totally agree. The oc'ing I've doing with these 680s is the the most I've ever done and thus far causing no problems. That's generally not been my experience.

 

[Astral Abyss]

At the moment I'm not that interested in overclocking my new 680s for one main reason... heat... and lots of it in southern Arizona. It's already pushing 90F here during the day and I sure do enjoy the extra power with the minimal amount of heat output.

I'm also loving the fairly quiet fans on these and don't want to increase the noise if I can avoid it.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

But the other issue is "smoothness" which even Viper said he though was smoother with SLI, which was a big point also in the [H] 680 SLI review. Bottom line is that both the 680 and 7970 are going to give you very much the same amount of noticeable performance and IQ. I just think that nVidia created a more elegant solution with the 680 and while I understand the topic of AMD's driver quality is controversial, there's an AWFUL lot of AMD driver complaints out there, just sold one of my 580s to a guy that had enough of AMD drivers, his words not mine. I rarely see people buy AMD cards because of nVidia driver issues.

To be more clear, SLI feels smoother when you're getting below 60fps , you don't feel the micro stutter as much, I can't describe it that well either. however in BF3 both were butter.

Gtx680s once you OC them reach around 1.3ghz max, most are around the 1.2ghz mark, and performance scaling is very poor as in less responsive to OC.

7970s the reference air ones tend to reach 1.2ghz. Performance scaling is near linear. Thus when both cards are overclocked, the 7970s actually end up faster.

The only difference is at "stock", the gtx680 automatically OC and can reach 1.2ghz as noted by [H]'s review. In essence, it's already OC performance thats being measured because its not indicative of "stock", as different cards will boost to different speeds based on asic quality. NV only guarantees a ~50mhz turbo, any extra is a huge variable. So in [H]'s case, his cards reached 1.2ghz in gaming, that's quite an advantage.

As enthusiasts who buy ~$500 cards tend to be serial overclockers (look at people's rig here, if they have expensive GPUs, their entire system is OC), the only performance numbers that matter are OC vs OC. From other reviews, it only takes a 7970 @ 1.1ghz to match a "stock" gtx680 that turbos to 1.2ghz. A 7970 @ 1.25ghz was faster than a max gtx680 OC to 1.34ghz. As [H] is an "enthusiast" review site with high res gameplay bench, Kyle should really do an OC vs OC bench.

Neither of my 7970s can go past 1160mhz, one is good to 1130(1.05v reference clock) the other 1160(1.12v reference) clock, so while some cards can hit 1200-1300mhz i'd say the majority are below, and both of my 680s topped out at around 1215mhz.

when OC'd both setups are hard to tell apart, i think once the clocks are close the 7970 is a lot closer in performance.

 

[Rizen]

Both my 680s hit 1.3GHz stable. I had average overclocking 580s, maybe this is my turn to get decent cards.

 

[heatlesssun]

when OC'd both setups are hard to tell apart, i think once the clocks are close the 7970 is a lot closer in performance.

But even at stock speeds it would more often than not hard to tell the performance difference between the 7970 and the 680.

 

[Rizen]

The thing that pushed me over to the 680s was mGPU driver stability, and the feature set of the 680 being superior (imo) than the 7970, with the GPU Boost tech, TXAA, adaptive vsync, etc.

 

[Astral Abyss]

The thing that pushed me over to the 680s was mGPU driver stability, and the feature set of the 680 being superior (imo) than the 7970, with the GPU Boost tech, TXAA, adaptive vsync, etc.

Forget the other stuff, simple SLI and Surround driver functionality won me over. I don't even really care about the speed differences.

 

[rinaldo00]

The 680 is just blowing my mind me, I can't wait get my third. And it's been difficult to get another one, more so than any nVidia card in over 5 years so I do not think I'm alone in the assessment of the 680.

What res are you running that needs three 680s?