Rare GPU upgrader, is GTX 285 to GTX 680 the right move?

CNelsonPSU

Member
Jul 10, 2005
28
0
0
I have a "gaming rig" which in 2009 seemed awesome, but of course now it's feeling a little behind-the-curve. I currently have a GTX 285 which surprisingly seems OK at my 1920x1200 resolution in many somewhat recent games (Skyrim, Mass Effect 2, Starcraft 2), but I would like to stay a constant 60 fps with those games and be prepared for the games coming up in the next 3-5 years.

Is the GTX 680 what I've been waiting for? I appreciate that it runs fairly cool and quiet, but I'm not sure if I should hold out for "big kepler" considering I don't upgrade often. Looking at Anandtech Bench and other comparisons, the 680 of course is a pretty big leap forward (although so many generations ahead I expected more?) - but is it enough for the next few years? Maybe it is, considering my GTX 285 is holding up pretty well, but I may be missing something...

Thanks for any input you all have!
 

Don Karnage

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2011
2,865
0
0
Need some more information. What are your other system specs because if you're rocking a core 2 quad a 680 is a waste
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Not sure how much longetivity it will have, but the GTX 680 is a great upgrade. It offers a nice feature set, has great temps and acoustics, and is overall cheaper then it's main competitor.

I upgraded my GF's PC from a GTX 460 (about equal to your GTX 285) and she's been very happy. She doesn't play as many demanding games as I do, but she likes that she can max out the games she does play and still maintain 50+ FPS (if not 60FPS.) She also don't care for OCing, and after explaining to her what I knwe about GPU Boost she gave it the thumbs up.

Solid upgrade if you are in the market to buy.
 

CNelsonPSU

Member
Jul 10, 2005
28
0
0
Need some more information. What are your other system specs because if you're rocking a core 2 quad a 680 is a waste

Ah, good point. Core system specs:

Core-i7 920 quad-core 2.66 GHz on Asus P6T motherboard (intel x58)
12 GB [2 GB X6] DDR3-1333 RAM
Intel 320 120GB SSD

Thanks!
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Ah, good point. Core system specs:

Core-i7 920 quad-core 2.66 GHz on Asus P6T motherboard (intel x58)
12 GB [2 GB X6] DDR3-1333 RAM
Intel 320 120GB SSD

Thanks!

I put our GTX 680 into a Core i7 930 OC'ed to 3.6ghz on an ASRock X58 Extreme board, RAM is 3x2GBs though.

Upgrade (again GTX 460 ~= to GTX 285) was very noticeable.
 

CNelsonPSU

Member
Jul 10, 2005
28
0
0
I upgraded my GF's PC from a GTX 460 (about equal to your GTX 285) and she's been very happy. She doesn't play as many demanding games as I do, but she likes that she can max out the games she does play and still maintain 50+ FPS (if not 60FPS.)

Wow, so even jumping to the 680 she can't get 60 FPS maxed out at some normal resolution? Or is she doing higher-res gaming?

Maybe I expect the 680 to be more capable than what it is at 1920x1200...which I assume is a very average resolution at this point. Getting some "free" anti-aliasing would be nice, but again, maybe I'm thinking this jump from GTX 285 to 680 will be a little more magical than it is...
 

Don Karnage

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2011
2,865
0
0
Ah, good point. Core system specs:

Core-i7 920 quad-core 2.66 GHz on Asus P6T motherboard (intel x58)
12 GB [2 GB X6] DDR3-1333 RAM
Intel 320 120GB SSD

Thanks!

Honestly overclock your CPU to 4Ghz and pickup a used 580 for 300 bucks. Amd's 7 series is overpriced and while the 680 is nice its really not worth 500 dollars IMO
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Wow, so even jumping to the 680 she can't get 60 FPS maxed out at some normal resolution? Or is she doing higher-res gaming?

Maybe I expect the 680 to be more capable than what it is at 1920x1200...which I assume is a very average resolution at this point. Getting some "free" anti-aliasing would be nice, but again, maybe I'm thinking this jump from GTX 285 to 680 will be a little more magical than it is...

I think you have to factor in game engines are different, and blah. The games she isn't maxed out I personally don't think it's a GPU bottleneck.

For example, we were playing WoW beta and I was getting 30-35 FPS and she was getting 40-45 FPS. There were just so many onscreen people at the time that I think the game had more polygons/special effects going on than some other more demanding games, and add in AA to each character - you get the idea.

Sims 3 it seems to stutter more loading in certain textures than actually playing. Once the textures load for a certain area, the game runs super smooth.

I played some BF3 and was 50+FPS which was better than my HD 7970.
 

CNelsonPSU

Member
Jul 10, 2005
28
0
0
Honestly overclock your CPU to 4Ghz and pickup a used 580 for 300 bucks. Amd's 7 series is overpriced and while the 680 is nice its really not worth 500 dollars IMO

4 GHz?! Are the 920's known for having a large overhead for OC'ing or something?
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
4 GHz?! Are the 920's known for having a large overhead for OC'ing or something?

Yeah, but temps will climb up with em.

Highest I got my 930 was around 4.2ghz, but temps were getting into the 80c/90c load and I'm not super happy with those temps. This is with an H50 with push-pull fan setup.

Better cool, perhaps, but I found a happy medium with the 3.6ghz everyday clocks. Load it only climbs to about 55-60c.
 
Last edited:

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
Going from a stock 920 to a 2600k at 4+ Ghz will result in nearly a 50% increase in minimum and average FPS
 

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
81
i am waiting to see what happens. But if your gonna wait, it probably will be awhile.

The 28nm lineup will look much better by xmas. I expect AMDs refreshed flagship (hopefully). If not we will see better pricing and more availability. Nvidia still has a bunch of models that should be coming down the pipe. Perhaps even a bigger kepler (hopefully). Maybe we will even see a price war with the current top cards, the conditions be just right.

I just dont think that 28nm is flowing real good at TSMC at this point. I believe when it does we will see things get a lot more exciting. Well i hope anyway. This is why i am waiting.

But should you? I already have a decent enough card: EVGA 560ti 448core FTW which the factory overclock puts it on par with a gtx570. So i choose to wait. Your decision is your own to make, just thought i would share why i wait.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Yeah, just keep waiting. The GTX 680 will eventually get a price cut, and the GTX 685 will eventually be out, and by then GTX 780 is right around the corner.

:rolleyes:

You in the market to buy, look at the reviews, and pick something you like :D You wait, might as well wait until something better is out (which will always keep happening :p)
 

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
138
106
Wow, so even jumping to the 680 she can't get 60 FPS maxed out at some normal resolution? Or is she doing higher-res gaming?

Maybe I expect the 680 to be more capable than what it is at 1920x1200...which I assume is a very average resolution at this point. Getting some "free" anti-aliasing would be nice, but again, maybe I'm thinking this jump from GTX 285 to 680 will be a little more magical than it is...

That's because there are some terrible examples of GPU performance in this thread that's all.

1.) World of warcraft is heavily CPU bottle necked, doesn't matter how much GPU power you have you're going to get stuck staring at a CPU bottleneck no matter how you play it.

2.) BF3 has destructible environments which create a ridiculous amount of edges which in turn make Anti Aliasing multitudes more taxing than it already is. If you turn off MSAA or any kind of AA for that matter you're looking at a solid 80 to 100+ fps or better at 19x12 with a 680/7970.

At the very least you can be certain its more than twice as fast as your 285, the only question that remains is whether or not more than doubling your current performance is worth $500. I definitely wouldn't spend $300 on a 580 though that's a bit wasteful considering you can get a 480 for $200 and miss out on nothing in terms of performance.
 

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
81
dont get me wrong, i think the 680 is a fantastic card. If i were at a gtx280 and had an itch, the 680 would be very appealing to me. It would be nice to have a card so powerful using such low power. Its not very expensive either. There is a lot to like about the 680, but i think we all can agree that 28nm GPUs are just starting off. Its bound to get a lot more interesting. With my GPU i can afford to wait, but i have thought about getting one. I keep talking myself out of it.
 

Crap Daddy

Senior member
May 6, 2011
610
0
0
The 680 is the fastest GPU money can buy today so if you want the best you can't get anything else!

As far as the jump in performance goes, I went from a GTX285 to a GTX570 and the performance almost doubled/ The 680 is around 40-50% faster than a 570.

So, if you have 500$ to spend get the 680, if you have less and have no problem with AMD get the 7870 for 360$ or wait for the 670, 670Ti in the following months.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,203
7,034
136
The 680 is probably your best bet right now, but if you want something that's capable of lasting up to 5 years, you might want to consider waiting for GK110, which should be somewhat more powerful. It could be a while before it's out, though, so if you really want something now I'd get a 680.
 

peonyu

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2003
2,038
23
81
I think you have to factor in game engines are different, and blah. The games she isn't maxed out I personally don't think it's a GPU bottleneck.

For example, we were playing WoW beta and I was getting 30-35 FPS and she was getting 40-45 FPS. There were just so many onscreen people at the time that I think the game had more polygons/special effects going on than some other more demanding games, and add in AA to each character - you get the idea.

Sims 3 it seems to stutter more loading in certain textures than actually playing. Once the textures load for a certain area, the game runs super smooth.

I played some BF3 and was 50+FPS which was better than my HD 7970.


WoW is cpu limited most of the time so its not a good game to judge video card FPS on. It is a decent game to judge your CPU performance on, especially if you are in a city then you are cpu limited almost all the time.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
WoW is cpu limited most of the time so its not a good game to judge video card FPS on. It is a decent game to judge your CPU performance on, especially if you are in a city then you are cpu limited almost all the time.

I never said I based my performance on WoW, I simply said that was one of the games we couldn't max out.

There are other bottlenecks to WoW that can also cause low FPS.

However, in the Beta they introduced more GPU features such as a new lightining engine that clearly taxes the GPU a little more than in the current WoW. And it looks better with it.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
April fools to you too, buddy. But if it's a serious q, then yes do the upgrade. The savings on power/heat/temps alone will do you a lot of good.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
April fools to you too, buddy. But if it's a serious q, then yes do the upgrade. The savings on power/heat/temps alone will do you a lot of good.

I don't really post in the VC&G section, but I find your posts annoying.

:p