Nvidia GTX 690 = 2 x Nvidia GTX 680!!

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I came in this thread to ask whether or not these dual-GPU cards suffer from the same issues as SLI/CF (driver issues, microstuttering, etc.).

Just from reading the last page, my guess is yes.

Dual-GPU cards are just SLI/CF on a single board, so the upside is it only takes up two slots in your motherboard.

 

[tonyjones]

yep it's all in the drivers

 

[-Slacker-]

You must be mistaken me for one of the loud "perff/watt" or "sweetspot" advocates.
I'm not.
Look through my posts.

I advocate performance...and don't care about the rest.
(only thing I dislike are stuff like Microstutter eg.)

But nice way of rasing doubts about my credibility :thumbsdown:

So let me repeat, since it didn't get through the last time:

*shrugs*

Yeah so it would seem. For now:sneaky:

 

[SickBeast]

$999 is waaaay higher than people thought this card would be priced.

IMO GTX 680 SLI is a better option.

 

[imaheadcase]

$999 is waaaay higher than people thought this card would be priced.

IMO GTX 680 SLI is a better option.

No one thought that, if they did they are insane.

 

[imaheadcase]

Um, ok. wrong.

First step is admitting it. Good for you.

 

[Subyman]

All this is true. But it'll still be slower than a GTX680 sli set up for the same price. My point is that it's price has nothing to do with a metal fan shroud.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic, hence the ellipsis in his post.

 

[Vesku]

$1000? Can the overpriced threads come please, this should be at least on par with the outrage over the 7970 release MSRP. Everyone wants to have their own Intel Extreme Edition gravy train, I guess.

 

[buckshot24]

I will never understand why anybody would defend those ridiculous AMD launch prices when looking at it from the consumers point of view.

Simple solution, don't buy them at those prices. AMD runs in a market and if they can sell product at the price they set then why should they lower prices?

If the consumer didn't like the price then they wouldn't buy at that price.

 

[Atreidin]

What are the odds of this actually selling at $1000 at launch anywhere, for any significant period of time? They will be in extremely short supply for a while. $1000 seems like an optimistic retail price to me. I could see this going for over $1200 easily.

 

[chimaxi83]

Ok, so at 7970 launch, the green team was all like:

"LOL AMD, 7970 is a $549 replacement to a $369 card, trololol"

Even though 7970 improves on 6970 by what, about 50% on average?

Where are they at now that 690 is a $999 replacement to a $699 card? Oh that's right, building up defenses Of course Nvidia is not subject to the same scrutiny and criticism. Pretty amazing watching the flip flopping in action though. Too bad this forum is full of this hypocrisy. If you all didn't see it before, look at it now. Yes I'm comparing single GPU AMD release to dual GPU NV release, but shouldn't matter. Check out that 43% price increase compared to 49% for AMD. Same bs if you ask me, and everyone else not clouded by green or red envy.

Yay, another gimped gual GPU card by Nvidia, hopefully these don't blow up too. Bet overclocking and TDP will be strictly limited and adhered to now that "GPU Boost" crap and locked voltage bs are all the rage.

 

[RussianSensation]

Pelase tell me that you don't suffer from it MUST be 60 FPS in all games...it's FUD..it's all ENGINE/game dependant...subpar post from you :thumbsdown:

EDIT:
What is sad that people use to enjoy games that pushed their hardware beyond the limit...as it drove progress...

Oh trust me I am all about games pushing the envelope. I just think Metro 2033 isn't good looking enough to warrant $2k of GPUs to barely get to 60 fps. That's unreasonable to me for a game that doesn't look any better than Crysis or Witcher 2 do.

Also, I am not saying that 60 fps is required for all games, however for FPS and racing games, I prefer at least 60 fps (although some FPS games run well in single player at 45-50 fps, such as Crysis). For racing games, 60 fps is a must for me. But that's a personal preference.

I was just pointing out that Metro 2033 is extremely demanding on hardware.

Nice find.... finally proof.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time. It's just a pig of a game. You can tell that engines like Frostbite 2 actually had thought planned into them as that game utilizes multiple CPU cores well--not something that happens by accident.

Also, in addition to DoF not adding much to 2033 as previously mentioned, tessellation adds nothing to that game either, but eats up tons of GPU resources.

Yup, tessellation is hardly noticeable in this game. Look at the PC version vs. Xbox 360. Does the difference in graphics look like it warrants $2k of PC GPUs? Sure, it looks better on the PC, but does it look 10x better ($200 Xbox vs. $2k 690 SLI)? It's daunting to even think that it will take a GPU 5x as powerful as a single 680 to max it out! That's unoptimized use of resources. It doesn't even have adaptive tessellation or volumetric fog, etc. that Crysis 3 will have.

30 fps on $1000 GTX680 SLI = absurd!

In my experience it's easier to sell them later and they sell for significantly more than the two single GPU cards they're based on while holding their value better. But yes they're noisy and usually a bit more problematic with drivers etc.

If where you live it's easier to sell dual-GPU cards, than $1000 690 / HD7990 might be a 'bargain' for you! Then again if you are freely dropping 1-2k on GPUs, I imagine resale value is the last thing on your mind

 

[KompuKare]

$1000? Can the overpriced threads come please, this should be at least on par with the outrage over the 7970 release MSRP. Everyone wants to have their own Intel Extreme Edition gravy train, I guess.

Where are they at now that 690 is a $999 replacement to a $699 card? Oh that's right, building up defenses Of course Nvidia is not subject to the same scrutiny and criticism.

Yes, there do seem to be two different rules on this (and other) forums. Nvidia seem to get away with a lot more regarding prices, poor (hardware) QA etc. As someone who was personally burnt by their bumpgate defects, I'm not likely to be buying Nvidia any time soon.

Thing is the 690 seems even worse value than the already overpriced 7970 releases, but somehow it doesn't seem to be getting the slack the 7970 did. About the only reasonable value 28nm so far is the 7850 when OC'ed like mad.

 

[Arzachel]

What is sad that people use to enjoy games that pushed their hardware beyond the limit...as it drove progress.

Kinda late to this thread, you could probably make an app that rendered a single cube so inefficiently that it would bring Sli/crossfire setups to their knees but I doubt anyone would get much enjoyment out of it. I'd rather see new features implemented in ways that bring meaningful improvement rather than selling me a new GPU so I could bring my fps out of the teens. MSAA in BF3, tessellation and Crysis 2 and DoF in Metro aren't even near anything I'd call significant, and when you disable these pointless features, any GPU around ~250$ can run the games on playable frame rates with everything else cranked to full unless you've got a 27" screen or you're running a multi monitor setup.

 

[Gikaseixas]

$1000? no thanks. Two 680 will be faster and cost the same. Who care's how fancy is the cooler??? Give me better performance any day.

 

[blastingcap]

Ok, so at 7970 launch, the green team was all like:

"LOL AMD, 7970 is a $549 replacement to a $369 card, trololol"

Even though 7970 improves on 6970 by what, about 50% on average?

Where are they at now that 690 is a $999 replacement to a $699 card? Oh that's right, building up defenses Of course Nvidia is not subject to the same scrutiny and criticism. Pretty amazing watching the flip flopping in action though. Too bad this forum is full of this hypocrisy. If you all didn't see it before, look at it now. Yes I'm comparing single GPU AMD release to dual GPU NV release, but shouldn't matter. Check out that 43% price increase compared to 49% for AMD. Same bs if you ask me, and everyone else not clouded by green or red envy.

Yay, another gimped gual GPU card by Nvidia, hopefully these don't blow up too. Bet overclocking and TDP will be strictly limited and adhered to now that "GPU Boost" crap and locked voltage bs are all the rage.

HD 7970 was priced at a worse price/perf ratio than the 6970 at launch vs launch.

Whereas NVIDIA at least improved price/perf, by launching the gtx 680 at the same price as the gtx 580's launch price, but with 35% faster performance.

 

[RussianSensation]

Think about it, single 6970 = ~250W. 6990 = ~350-400W. This time, single 7970 = ~210W. They have TDP to spare, therefore, crank up the clocks.

It's not just about TDP but ultimately actual power consumption. HD7970 consumes about the same power as a single 6970. Anandtech actually had their 7970 consuming more power than a single 6970 did. Thus, even putting binned 2x 7970s @ 925mhz may result in a card just as hot and loud as the jet engine 6990, which many thought was a fail of a card on air cooling. However, even if HD7990 launches with 850mhz clocks, if it costs $750-850 and is actually available for sale, then it still might *win* by default. I can't see 690s being in stock considering 680s are almost always out of stock. Having the fastest phantom card aka 590 is similar to not having one at all.

Frankly, I'd much rather AMD do an HD4870 --> HD4890 style re-spin of the 7970 and launch a 1150-1200mhz factory 7980. Not sure when AMD intends to refresh 7970, if at all, or just skip straight to HD8000 series in Q1 2013.

 

[badb0y]

HD 7970 was priced at a worse price/perf ratio than the 6970 at launch vs launch.

Whereas NVIDIA at least improved price/perf, by launching the gtx 680 at the same price as the gtx 580's launch price, but with 35% faster performance.

He's not talking about GTX 680 though, the GTX 690 is replacing a $699 card with a $999 card.

 

[Ferzerp]

HI.

CF vs SLI. Not Tri-Fire vs Tri-SLI (and its bugged in 3 monitors only, unlike NV's crap all scaling on 1600p with 3 & 4-SLI).

Last i heard, gtx690 is 2 GPU and 7990 will be 2 GPU.. not 3.

If you're gonna reference [H], pick the right article: CF vs SLI
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/5

That's a turbo gtx680 which [H] claims up to 1.2ghz turbo vs STOCK 7970s.

Back to my point, 7990 @ 1ghz will beat a gtx690, easy. Yes I'm aware it all depends on the game selection when a reviewer bench 4-5 games. Refer to bigger lists, CF 7970s already nearly match gtx680s that turbos.

You know, it's funny to see graphs like that and then to read the actual review.

Battlefield 3 was another example where the GeForce GTX 680 SLI provided a better experience in the multiplayer part of the game. We averaged 60-70 FPS at 5760x1200 with FXAA and ultra in-game settings with HBAO turned on. This means the highest possible in-game settings were turned on, and the average framerate was very high. We never saw the minimum framerate drop below 50 FPS. The Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX on the other hand had to have ambient occlusion turned down to SSAO, with motion blur disabled, and only then was it mostly acceptable. In some cases, you may even find turning off ambient occlusion provides the best possible performance.

 

[SolMiester]

If peopl don't know already, the rumors were the 7990 was to be clocked at 1000 at stock. With that it will tie if not beat this card and probably be priced around a grand price as well

LOL

 

[RussianSensation]

A bit OT, but any news on 660ti/670 release/pricing/performance? I gotta buy before Diablo III hits shelves...

GTX660Ti is rumored to be $249
GTX670 is rumored to be $399

$150 HD6870 will max out D3 at 2560x1600.....

Source

Although native AO will arguably make the game look better on NV cards. GTX560 Ti should be more than enough.

 

[SolMiester]

I have a hunch that AMD is gonna go balls to the wall with the 7990. Seeing as NV gave them the bird for their very conservative clocks...

I'm hoping for 1ghz edition, 350W beast with a 2nd bios with "Turbo" setting to 1.2ghz and 400W. Top bin chips only.

Think about it, single 6970 = ~250W. 6990 = ~350-400W. This time, single 7970 = ~210W. They have TDP to spare, therefore, crank up the clocks.

As to the micro-stutter, did techreport ever added a high speed camera to capture their monitor to actually detect IRL microstutter? I read their original article and their conclusion = all that measurements they did was pointless due to the way drivers output the frames to the monitor.

So, AMD release their flagship chip under 1Ghz, and now that they are going to cram 2 on a single board, you expect them to increase the speed of the core?...LOL, has that ever happened?

 

[chimaxi83]

HD 7970 was priced at a worse price/perf ratio than the 6970 at launch vs launch.

Whereas NVIDIA at least improved price/perf, by launching the gtx 680 at the same price as the gtx 580's launch price, but with 35% faster performance.

He's not talking about GTX 680 though, the GTX 690 is replacing a $699 card with a $999 card.

What badb0y said is what I meant. My point is simple, and it is pricing.

You're right about 580->680. Same price at release, better performance (though the smallest increase in recent memory), whereas 6970->7970 was an almost 50% increase in price (but also about a 50% performance increase on average).

I want to know where the collective outrage over AMD pricing is, over the fact that a $999 card is replacing a $699 card.

 

[RussianSensation]

So, AMD release their flagship chip under 1Ghz, and now that they are going to cram 2 on a single board, you expect them to increase the speed of the core?...LOL, has that ever happened?

Last time I read, HD7990 was rumored to have 850mhz clocks per GPU. Not sure where people are getting information that it was going to have 1000mhz GPUs. Maybe someone has a more up-to-date link?

I want to know where the collective outrage over AMD pricing is, over the fact that a $999 card is replacing a $699 card.

Sure, GTX690 is just as bad for those users who used to buy GTX590/6990 cards. The difference is the market for dual-GPU cards $700+ is very small. Those people are probably a lot more price inelastic than us single-GPU users are.

Also, you aren't seeing the entire picture. It wasn't just about HD7970 releasing at $550, it meant all the other cards in the line-up starting from HD7850 would increase in price too, resulting in awful price/performance from a previous 2-3 generations:

6850 $179 --> HD7850 $249
6870 $239 --> HD7870 $349
6950 $299 --> HD7950 $449
6970 $369 --> HD7970 $549

The fact that HD7950 launched 15 months after 580 and barely beat it despite 28nm shrink and a new architecture is just sad. It's a moot point now since those cards can be had for $380.

If single GPU prices rise, it makes it worse value for single-GPU users to upgrade. If GTX690 launched at $700, $900, $1,500, $5,000, the single GPU guys don't really care to make a fuss about it since they weren't in the market for it. Also, there aren't lower level dual-GPU cards for which prices would also rise (however, because of the initially high price of 7950/7970, prices of the entire mid-range lineup went up too). You should ask guys who buy dual-GPUs how they feel about $1000 dual-GPU card replacing a $700 dual-GPU card. That would be more appropriate. Obviously, the trend of GPUs going up in price isn't favourable, and NV offering just 30-35% more performance over 580 is the worst performance increase from one generation to the next I've seen in a while, if not ever.

 

[SirPauly]

What badb0y said is what I meant. My point is simple, and it is pricing.

You're right about 580->680. Same price at release, better performance (though the smallest increase in recent memory), whereas 6970->7970 was an almost 50% increase in price (but also about a 50% performance increase on average).

I want to know where the collective outrage over AMD pricing is, over the fact that a $999 card is replacing a $699 card.

Because the 699 dollar GTX 590 card offered GTX 570 Sli performance over-all -- not GTX 580 Sli performance.