What do you expect from the GTX680?

[rusina]

The 580 was not really deserving either. But I guess we need to get accustomed to the fact that names mean squat anymore. Anyway, as silverforce said - different node, new generation. So 60+% is expected.

For me they haven't meant that much. Take for example mobile graphics cards:
Nvidia is releasing huge range of Geforce 600M cards and only one of them (at the moment) uses Kepler-based GPU. Only look at performance, features and prices. I would be suprised if card with GK110 would be called anything else than Geforce GTX 780.

For me 20% smaller TDP is also nice thing. Makes it so much easier to find silent cooling solution (I don't use head set). My secondary computer is inaudible from 50cm distance despite having 2xHD7770 and everything. Fonder if I could do the same with main computer with "slightly" different performance level

Ps. It's funny how they first rumoured that Nvidia would first launch their midrange/performance level cards and after that budget and high end. Then after Tahiti was released they started to rumour that Geforce GTX 680 would be launched first..

 

[Keysplayr]

And there is always room for performance improvements with updated drivers as always.
I think the days of 80 to 100% performance increase from one gens top dog to the next is long gone. Maybe some gens are focused more on refinement than performance increases. I dunno.

 

[Grooveriding]

Yes it's super dissapointing as a flagship for the perf. increase. Last night I started looking at using anand's benches to graph and compare the perf. increases AMD and nvidia have given since 8800GTX / 2900XT up to this gen.

Once the 680 reviews are up I can finish it. Opened my eyes to why some were not happy with the 7970 and why now the 680 seems so dissapointing compared to the 580. nvidia/AMD with 28nm have given a drastically lower perf. increase compared to every major release since 8800GTX / 2900XT.

Using Tom's numbers the 680 is anywhere from 35% to as low as 18% faster than the 580

I've used the results from just anand's reviews since then and averaged them out. So I've used 8800GTX to 280GTX & 2900XT to 4870, 285GTX to 480GTX & 4890 to 5870, 580GTX to 680GTX & 6970 to 7970. Will post it once the 680 review is up.

Pretty much what I am seeing is that 28nm atm is dog awful in terms of giving gamers something significantly better. I've been trying to understand why I am frustrated trying to find an upgrade out of two cards for 3 cards that are 2 years old, it's the crappy perf. increase 28nm has offered.

 

[sontin]

In the last 7 years we never got 60%+ more performance without a increasement in power.

The GTX280 was much more worse than the GTX680. It used 32% more power for only 60% more performance over the 8800GTX(!). So i don't think that 40%+ with 195 Watt is a disappointment.

 

[Grooveriding]

In the last 7 years we never got 60%+ more performance without a increasement in power.

The GTX280 was much more worse than the GTX680. It used 32% more power for only 60% more performance over the 8800GTX(!). So i don't think that 40%+ with 195 Watt is a disappointment.

Screw power consumption. Perf is #1, the rest comes second depending on your preference. These are $550 flagships for 1% of buyers, not mid-range cards for $200-$300.

The 680 is not 40% better than a 580 regardless, need to see more reviews, particularly HWC and computerbase.de. But as it stands with limited Tom's data, it looks to be about 30-35% at 1080P and about 20% at any resolution higher than that.

 

[Tempered81]

I am frustrated trying to find an upgrade out of two cards for 3 cards that are 2 years old, it's the crappy perf. increase 28nm has offered.

It's a wash on your 30". 7970 3GB CFX or 680 2/4GB SLI. At 1150mhz, 7970CF beats 680SLI in 11 Extreme, but for game compatibility, SLI is probably going to 1up CFX.

So, on the 30" it's going to be 100 fps on one, and 103 fps on the other, satisfaction coming down to multi-gpu functionality, the more friendly driver experience and feature set. Then there's the Image quality argument (AMD better than NV) and the AF quality and tess performance (Nv better than AMD) and DX11 speed, features and MSAA speed (nv better than amd). 680 SLI will probably give you the better overall experience. If I had that monitor, I'd be running a single 1300/1800 7970. A lightning, sapphire X OC, or watercooled reference.

When your 480TRI SLI OC is working properly, it's also somewhere around ~100fps - hehe! But it probably doesn't scale perfectly 100% of the time.

 

[Keysplayr]

Screw power consumption. Perf is #1, the rest comes second depending on your preference. These are $550 flagships for 1% of buyers, not mid-range cards for $200-$300.

The 680 is not 40% better than a 580 regardless, need to see more reviews, particularly HWC and computerbase.de. But as it stands with limited Tom's data, it looks to be about 30-35% at 1080P and about 20% at any resolution higher than that.

Not according to most of this forum. Just reference the GTX480 launch and you'll see how many would disagree with you. Performance, to me, is number 1 as well. This may have been more of a "refinement" gen than all out performance. Which I should say, was badly needed. If the benches are true, than 680 will have somewhere in the neighborhood of 2x the performance per watt. Probably a little less, but there you go.

 

[Keysplayr]

Groover, reserve judgement until you see GK104 SLI results. Who knows. Two of them may give 3 of your GTX480s a headache. And again, don't forget about driver improvements.

 

[Grooveriding]

No doubt. Multi-gpu has come a long well and scales real well now, looking at those old reviews 8800GTX tri-sli was a joke compared to how fermi scales with 3 cards.

I'm just frustrated and want to upgrade. I don't want 3 cards anymore, and the notion of buying cards needing to overclock them to get there is just silly. If the 680 was in line with past increases, two would of done it easily. First world problems I guess, my setup is close to fine for anything anyways, just want something new. Will have to wait it out I guess.

 

[railven]

Yes it's super dissapointing as a flagship for the perf. increase. Last night I started looking at using anand's benches to graph and compare the perf. increases AMD and nvidia have given since 8800GTX / 2900XT up to this gen.

Once the 680 reviews are up I can finish it. Opened my eyes to why some were not happy with the 7970 and why now the 680 seems so dissapointing compared to the 580. nvidia/AMD with 28nm have given a drastically lower perf. increase compared to every major release since 8800GTX / 2900XT.

Using Tom's numbers the 680 is anywhere from 35% to as low as 18% faster than the 580

I've used the results from just anand's reviews since then and averaged them out. So I've used 8800GTX to 280GTX & 2900XT to 4870, 285GTX to 480GTX & 4890 to 5870, 580GTX to 680GTX & 6970 to 7970. Will post it once the 680 review is up.

Pretty much what I am seeing is that 28nm atm is dog awful in terms of giving gamers something significantly better. I've been trying to understand why I am frustrated trying to find an upgrade out of two cards for 3 cards that are 2 years old, it's the crappy perf. increase 28nm has offered.

I'd say egg is on the face of the "must buy every revision" person. Eventually you'd guys would hit a wall of diminishing returns. Since I had to bow out of that mindset, I'm still seeing remarkable gains for my money (and even more so at less power which makes me even happier.)

There is still a noticeable increase...I ran the Batman: AC bench last night and easily doubled my HD 5870 scores. I then went into overdrive and pushed the sliders all the way to the right and then easily got an extra 10-20% more on the benchmark.

Once GTX 680 is out, the GF will have similar results. And I doubt either of us will complain

 

[Bobisuruncle54]

No I don't listen to myself on a text based forum, that's silly.

Wow we have a smart one here, careful people.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Has this been posted yet?

:awe:


1600p still requires CF or SLI, and personally that choice is as easy as they come.. Do you want driver support in new games on release, or two+ months later?

 

[Rvenger]

Has this been posted yet?

:awe:


I might grab one just so I can see if I can get a nearly 60% overclock out of them like I did with these awful GF100 D: cards.

Why are you posting here to try to put AMD's cards in a bulldozer light? Why can't we just be objective here and not just throw Nvidia power consumption and performance figures in everyone's face?

 

[railven]

Has this been posted yet?

:awe:


1600p still requires CF or SLI, and personally that choice is as easy as they come.. Do you want driver support in new games on release, or two+ months later?

At the rate of PC game value depreciation - I can wait 2+ months. Hell I usually buy games after a "fix it" point so I don't run into headaches AND I pay about half or less

Steam, how I love thee! I got Batman: AC basically for $20 just a week AFTER release :thumbsup:

 

[Grooveriding]

Has this been posted yet?

:awe:

Not yet, did you notice it has nothing to do with the actual FPS performance ? Or did you pick the graph with the longest line ?

1600p still requires CF or SLI, and personally that choice is as easy as they come.. Do you want driver support in new games on release, or two+ months later?

Yeah because 20% more performance at 1600P over the 580 is something I am excited about.

Still waiting for an Alan Wake SLI profile, and have waited on other games for profiles as well. For both SLI/CF, course I have experience using both vendor's cards, not forum quips. Waiting on profiles is a reality of multi-gpu.

Why not create posts that are not designed to come in and tap dance on the thread ? For instance: You complained and felt the 7970 was not great performance because your OCed 470s were faster. Your OCed 470s are also faster than a 680. Do you find it equally disappointing, or just 10% less disappointing ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Not yet, did you notice it has nothing to do with the actual FPS performance ? Or did you pick the graph with the longest line ?

Yeah because 20% more performance at 1600P over the 580 is something I am excited about.

Still waiting for an Alan Wake SLI profile, and have waited on other games for profiles as well. For both SLI/CF, course I have experience using both vendor's cards, not forum quips. Waiting on profiles is a reality of multi-gpu.

Why not create posts that are not designed to come in and tap dance on the thread ? For instance: You complained and felt the 7970 was not great performance because your OCed 470s were faster. Your OCed 470s are also faster than a 680. Do you find it equally disappointing, or just 10% less disappointing ?

No it has everything to do with performance per watt per fps though, hence the graph title... Did you miss that part?

I sense sarcasm, perhaps instead of bashing a product you have no interest in you could leave it be since there are more than enough people who are interested?

No reason to add a SLI profile for a broken game:

Nvidia users have been waiting patiently for a working SLI profile of Alan Wake PC. It took Remedy a while, but they have finally finished the SLI fixes for the game. Although the company had previously stated that they would release the fixes the moment they were completed, Remedy’s co-founder Sami Vanhatalo said that they have to wait first for the next driver update of Nvidia (that will include an SLI profile for the game).

Why post misinformation, Alan Wake had a core problem with SLI within the game, which needed to be fixed first, or was it your goal to mislead people by comparing AMD's poor support with poor game coding?

Until I see it's OC potential I can't rule out the GTX 680, however with news of BigK in August I may not have to make that choice with it's rumored 50% performance increase over the 680.

 

[Grooveriding]

No it has everything to do with performance per watt per fps though, hence the graph title... Did you miss that part?

I sense sarcasm, perhaps instead of bashing a product you have no interest in you could leave it be since there are more than enough people who are interested?

No reason to add a SLI profile for a broken game:



Why post misinformation, Alan Wake had a core problem with SLI within the game, which needed to be fixed first, or was it your goal to mislead people by comparing AMD's poor support with poor game coding?

Until I see it's OC potential I can't rule out the GTX 680, however with news of BigK in August I may not have to make that choice with it's rumored 50% performance increase over the 680.

The patch was released weeks ago, still no profile. That's not the point though, the point was you are making flawed statements. Good luck on anything better than a 680 anytime soon, unless you are looking for a 690 2xGK104.

I was plenty interested in 680, until I saw the 1600p perf.

If you get a 680, drop some benches on us showing us the perf. decreases you realize with the upgrade.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Nvidia just released a driver weeks ago, give them a minute buddy :thumbsup:

What was flawed about my statement? The fact that you used a broken game to compare Nvidia SLI vs AMD CF support, or was it the part where you pointed out the large font, bolded, title of a graph?

Thanks for the insider info, I hear differently but forum moles are typically spot on just look at GK104... well I guess we'll give them that one, nobody is right all the time.

So you have no interest in GK104, yet have been in every thread with information on it? If you have no interest in it, why are you still here?

I'll let you know if I decide to go mid ranged this gen with the GK104, or high end with GK110 in August.

 

[Olikan]

Has this been posted yet?

:awe:

as already said... the 7970 somehow losses 10% of performance in all those benches...

yet, a 7970 have 17% advantage over a 580 in perf/watt is ridiculous, make it 40% at least

 

[railven]

I sense sarcasm, perhaps instead of bashing a product you have no interest in you could leave it be since there are more than enough people who are interested?

Wow, Balla, the irony in this part of your post. D:

 

[Lepton87]

I don't expect it to be any faster than 7970, there's only so much you can do with a midrange card. Because it was designed to be a midrange card, 256bit bus is perfectly fine for 1080p, but a high-end card needs to handle 2560x1600(1440) and multi monitor gaming.
So I don't think it will be any faster at resolutions that matter. If it's going to have the same performance as 7970 I still think it will be a success. Midrange card being as fast as competitor's high-end card doesn't sound bad at all.

 

[blackened23]

Yes it's super dissapointing as a flagship for the perf. increase. \

How so? I think people should temper their expectations, the days of 100% increases from gen to gen are probably gone...I don't think its disappointing at all. If the results hold for the 680 i'm sold. I just need to see more surround and super high resolution results.

 

[Rvenger]

I don't expect it to be any faster than 7970, there's only so much you can do with a midrange card. Because it was designed to be a midrange card, 256bit bus is perfectly fine for 1080p, but a high-end card needs to handle 2560x1600(1440) and multi monitor gaming.
So I don't think it will be any faster at resolutions that matter. If it's going to have the same performance as 7970 I still think it will be a success. Midrange card being as fast as competitor's high-end card doesn't sound bad at all.

I expect it to be 10-15% faster which is the speculation right now but when it comes down to compute power, its not there.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

How so? I think people should temper their expectations, the days of 100% increases from gen to gen are probably gone...I don't think its disappointing at all. If the results hold for the 680 i'm sold. I just need to see more surround and super high resolution results.

Actually rumor has it GK110 is coming in a few months with a 50% increase in performance over GK104

You might want to hold on to those 7970 until the high end chip comes.

 

[Silverforce11]

Do you want driver support in new games on release, or two+ months later?

Like Dragon Age 2? Took NV a few months. I can understand if its no name indy game, but bioware, for real?

Alan Wake?

Might & Magic Heroes 6? Not only is it not scaling, but its down-right losing performance (gtx590).

Oil Rush? Look at that cross-fire scaling and again, tragic performance for the gtx590.

Stronghold 3? Absolutely bad SLI scaling (negative!).

And on...

ps. CF and SLI will have issues in games, period. Relying on up to date profiles makes it an unavoidable problem.