Gtx 680. Are you buying one? Why or why not?

[Hallowed_Dragon]

Very few reviews compare overclocked to overclocked. That is what we need. And the only place where is genuinely makes a difference is when the FPS dip around the 60 FPS mark or below that, and even then only if the difference in performance is at least 10%.

From the looks of it, when overclocked to their max the cards are equal (1080p - my resolution).

 

[blackened23]

If you overclock these single cards on water cooling, they are alone >= 6950 CF without the hassles, microstutter, power draw and far smoother.

Only problem is the 680 scales horribly with overclocking. See the linus tech tips videos or the overclock3d.net reviews.

7970 might be worth it on water if you already have one, 680 isn't worth putting on water IMO

 

[kidsafe]

Oh wow I hadn't noticed the OC3D review. The OC 7970 wins practically everything, and those tests were conducted at 1080p.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No, I already spent money on a 7970 and run it at 1200MHz. It would be a side grade for me. I think any attention my system gets will be in the CPU/platform area before I get any other GPU.

 

[Axon]

I'd love to buy either a 7970 or a 680, but my 460s in SLI are still beasting. Maybe if I come into a big tax return I'll grab up a pair.

Man, once you go xfire or SLI, it takes generations to knock it out.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

My funny logic here: I always buy nvidia high end because nvidia fanboys are nerdier which means I can always count on 3rd party apps like nhancer or Nvidia Inspector to supply hidden AA and AF settings

 

[lavaheadache]

I'd love to buy either a 7970 or a 680, but my 460s in SLI are still beasting. Maybe if I come into a big tax return I'll grab up a pair.

Man, once you go xfire or SLI, it takes generations to knock it out.

except you only have 1 gb of vram and that doesn't cut it for modded skyrim and a couple other scenarios

 

[LgFriess]

Nope.

As a gamer, I'm still running my q9550@3.4 with a single gtx280 form 2008. I'm able to play everything I want on higher settings. I'm just going to pick up something like a 7850 or one of the 670/660ti type cards and stretch out a complete system upgrade until the new consoles hit and games need higher requirements.

I've been thrilled with my original $1300 system. It was the first one I built myself with the help of these forums. The only upgrade so far has been a hyper 212 cooler and some new case fans.

 

[nOOky]

The only reason I'm not buying one is timing. I always buy things like computer upgrades around Christmas when I get my holiday bonus. I'm also in the buying mood. Come spring I'm outside doing stuff so I spend less time sitting inside. Probably doesn't make a lot of sense unless you live up north where when the weather gets nice you get outside more, but winter is for sitting inside playing video games and drinking beer.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

To all those who think that Radeon 7970 or GTX 680 are not hugely better

These tests are at 19x10 MAX 8x AA.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/nvidia_gtx680_review/4


3D Mark 2011 Xtreme Score
A 7970 stock is almost as fast as 6950CF and a 7970 OC is as fast if not faster than 6970 CF or 6990.
It is like 15% behind a GTX 580 SLI, not enough for you to be able to notice too much while playing.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/nvidia_gtx680_review/5
WINNER
580 SLI > 7970 OC > 6990 > 6950 CF > 590
However, 580 SLI is like 12-15% faster than 7970 OC once overclocked.


AVP
7970 OC = 85% of 580 SLI
About as fact as 6990 or 6950CF practically
In several instances it is faster than 6970CF/6990 and maximum FPS as of a GTX 580 SLi.
For practical purposes all are close, within a maximum difference in performance of 15-20% and always over 60 FPS even at stock.
TIE

BF3
7970 stock is faster than 6950 CF, overclocked it would probably be faster than 6970 OC CF. The 7970 has minimum FPS close to the average for a 6970 CF which is the 6950 CF is unplayable at these settings, literally.
WINNER 7970 stock > 6950 CF

Dirt 3
6950 CF is way ahead of 7970 OC / 680 OC however every card gets over 100 FPS anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Farcry 2
Both 6950 CF and 580 SLI destroy 680 OC or 7970 OC but every card anyway manages 60+ FPS.

Mafia 2
A stock 7970 is faster than 6990 and about as fast as a 590. Once overclocked the 7970 is yet faster. A OC 7970 has the minimum FPS as high as the average of a 6950 CF. So even 6970 OC CF can't compete, 580 SLI might come close or compete
WINNER
Minimum 7970 OC > 590 > 6990 > 7970 stock > 6950 CF
Average 7970 OC > 590 > 7970 stock > 6990 > 6950 CF
Overall 7970 OC

Metro 2033
A stock 7970 equals 6950 CF. GTX 580 SLI is about 50% faster than both.
WINNER
Minimum 590 > 580 SLI > 6990 > 7970 stock = 6950 stock
Average 590 > 580 SLI > 6990 > 7970 stock = 6950 stock
Overall

Resident Evil 5
CF or SLI is useless, doesn't help.

Unigine 0x AA
580 SLI is a lot faster than the rest. 6990>7970 stock>6950CF.
But in terms of minimum FPS the 7970 OC competes with 580 SLI so real world gameplay will be similar. In most cases both are fast enough but most of the times the GTX 580 SLI has a 20%+ (Up to 50%) lead but that doesn't help gameplay or minimums as averages are fine anyway.
The 6950 CF is unplayable due to very low minimum FPS. The 6990 is better but not enough.
In terms of minimum FPS, 580 SLI competes with 7970 OC. However, in terms of average FPS 7970 OC is slower than 6990 and 580 SLI but all cards have over 60 FPS average.
WINNER
Minimum 580 SLI = 7970 OC > 7970 stock > 590 > 6990 > >> 6950 CF only 580 SLI and 7970 OC are playable.
Average 580 SLI >> 6990 > 590 ~ 7970 OC > 7970 stock ~ 6950 CF
Overall 580 SLI is slightly better than 7970 OC here because it has as many lows as 7970 OC but when above 60 FPS then it is even better. So for 120 Hz monitors it is much better, for 60 Hz monitors not much of a difference.

Unigine 8x AA
A 7970 stock offers better minimum FPS than GTX 580 SLI and once overclocked then better average FPS / comparable to GTX 590 and 6950 CF.
6990 is the only playable card along with 580 SLI, other cards have low min FPS but 7970 stock min FPS are about as high as 590 or 6950 CF.
WINNER
Minimum 6990 > 7970 OC > 7970 stock = 590 > 580 SLI ~ 6950 CF, are except 6990 are unplayable
Average 580 SLI > 6990 > 7970 OC = 590 > 6950 CF > 7970 stock but are all fine and 580 SLI is in a different league
Overall 6990 is the only playable one followed by 7970 OC which is far weaker. 6950 CF is crap here, so is 580 SLI.

Witcher 2
6950 CF has average FPS better while 7970 OC has far more consistent FPS, better minimum FPS. Neither are playable though.
Winner
Minimum 7970 OC > 6950 CF
Average 6950 CF > 7970 OC
Overall None, both are crap.

So till now we have seen this:

Owners:

580 SLI
The 7970 offers as consistent performance, sometimes more consistent performance but in most cases you are 15-30% faster than a 7970 OC. So unless you plan to water cool a 7970 and suffer some performance loss, a little noticeable, no single GPU solution would do you goo

590/6990
Many times a 7970 OC is faster/as fast/and sometimes slower in terms of minimum FPS or average FPS or both. Overall, a 7970 OC is a side grade and you will lose in some games, gain in some games, overall theoritical performance may be comparable but you will loose some overall. However, the experience would be better. But an upgrade isn't really required.

6950 CF / 560 TI SLI
A stock 7970 is about as fast as your card especially in terms of minimum FPS and provides a far more consistent and smooth experience. Once overclocked, you really can't compete because the 6900 series doesn't gain much FPS by overclock. However, it would still be a minor upgrade, more in terms of smoothness and consistency etc than in terms of absolute performance in each game. However, you don't loose anything in almost most cases by going to a single 7970 or 680 or even 7950 OC for that matter. It is an upgrade but not a big one. And more so felt under heavy load.

6970 CF / 570 SLI
Almost same as above. Not worth upgrading unless to a water cooled 7970 OC or 680 OC however you won't loose much either and in some respects you will gain smoothness and a better experience as well. However, sometimes you will lose FPS badly as well, but not most of the times.

Anybody who owns 6870 CF or GTX 470 SLI or below should upgrade to a single 7970 OC or 680 OC and the upgrade will be worth it.




680 VS 7970 NOW

Difference of 5-10% is Tie here, since it isn't really noticeable, anything over 15% gain is a win.

3D Mark 2011 Extreme
680 is a bit better but not enough when both are stock.
Once both are overclocked there is a tie.
TIE

AVP
TIE with the 7970 being better (read about 10%) in both cases in all respects.

Batman
Minimum Stock 680 is 15% better
Average Stock Tie
Minimum OC 7970 is at least 50% better
Average OC 680 is like 15-20% better
Winner Stock 680
Winner OC 7970
Winner Overall Tie

BF3
Minimum Stock Tie
Average Stock 680
Minimum OC 680 about 10%
Average OC 680
Winner Stock Practically same with 680 a bit better
Winner OC 680 but not realizable
Winner Overall 680 but both are fine

Dirt 3
Minimum Stock 680 but both are above 70 FPS
Average Stock 7970 is nearly 30% faster but both are perfect
Minimum OC 7970 min > 680 average but not needed
Average OC 7970 is much faster but not needed
Winner Stock 7970 but practically tie
Winner OC 7970
Winner Overall 7970

FarCry2
Minimum Stock Tie
Average Stock Tie
Minimum OC 7970 is like 15%+ faster
Average OC Tie
Winner Stock Tie
Winner OC 7970
Winner Overall 7970

Mafia 2
All cards maintain about 60 FPS or more as minimum at all times but the 680 is a lot lot lot faster whether overclocked or not, in fact a stock 680 competes with a OC 7970.
Winner 680
But since this is an old game and all run it fast enough, it isn't a mark of our future games

Metro 2033
A stock 7970 minimum FPS >= 680 OC average FPS
Winner 7970
But neither is very comfortable.

Resident Evil Dx9
About equal either way, but once overclocked 7970 is a bit faster, like 8-10% but not that much and all cards are over 100 FPS anyway.
TIE

Resident Evil Dx10
7970 OC > 10% faster than 680 OC as min FPS but since every card each case manages >100 FPS all the time, it is irrelevant.
TIE

Unigine 0x AA
Min FPS are a lot better with 680 in both cases, average are similar. However this card is playable on 680 stock (680 OC is slower) but not on 7970 OC but not by a huge margin, but still unplayable for many people.
Winner is 680
The only case till now where going from a 7970 OC to 680 stock makes sense if this was actually a game and if you were loosing those critical 10 FPS in minimum. Average is about same. But this is just a synthetic test and no point buying a card waiting for future games when they may or may not arrive

Unigine 8x AA
A 7970 is faster in both cases, OCed or not, respectively but not by much.
So TIE

Witcher 2
680 OC = 680 stock = 7970 OC >>> 7970 stock but all unplayable
Stock 680
OC TIE
Overall 680 but doesn't matter once overclocked.

CONCLUSION (680 VS 7970)
680 OC = 7970 OC Just a side grade. Don't expect better performance even in benchmarks. Often 7970 OC beats a 680 OC, especially once overclocked high enough. So if you want to participate in the fastest card in real word games, go for 7970 with water cooling.

Stock
Sometimes one wins sometimes the other. On an average 680 stock is like 10-15% better than 7970 stock but those differences are not there once overclocked and it would be a very very rare situation that going from a 7970 to 680 would make your game feel faster or any better. 10-15% is so close that either it flies on both or sucks on both.

Also, often 680 OC isn't too much better than 680 stock, not always but often. So if you want the max scores and wanna overclock for that, definitely 7970. If you want good performance out of the box with stock, definitely 680 even if it is $50 more.

If you own a GTX 580 / 7870 (lol , consider upgrading to these 2 cards, 7950 stock is definitely slower than either of the two beats, but once overclocked you would better off wait for the next gen.

Peace!

 

[Sureshot324]

No. Why?

My 5850 still kicks ass.

This

 

[MrK6]

To all those who think that Radeon 7970 or GTX 680 are not hugely better

Excellent summary. I think once overclocking reviews come out, this will become evident. A lot of the GTX 680's performance comes from eating into its own overclocking headroom, which is a finite limit. Simply, the 7970 has a tremendous amount of raw horsepower that is unlocked with overclocking and that will be difficult for the GTX 680 to compete against.

 

[Quantos]

So I've had a look at a few overclocking reviews and from what I can gather, the 7970 really does scale better with OC. Essentially it means that if a 7970 is overclocked decently, it trades blows with the GTX 680 and they become pretty much equal.

The issue is that, as VR-Zone's OC review says, the bill of materials for the 7970 is probably higher due to the amount of memory used. It would probably be hard for AMD to lower the price of the 7970 enough for it to be actually worth it.

It's also a pretty big gamble with the 7970, because if you necessarily need OC for it to be good vs. the 680, you don't want to risk a bad chip by going with a reference card. Thus, you basically need a custom 7970 to go against the 680 with certainty. If the 7970 were to drop to $450, I'd consider it against the 680 because I could get a custom 7970 for about $500. Else than that, I think I'm more likely to go with a GTX 680.

Does my rationale make sense? :hmm:

Edit: Awesome summary aaksheytalwar! Really seems to be a great bottomline for these two cards.

 

[Pia]

Nope!

I have a huge backlog of games which my ~3 year old setup handles fine; most of these games cannot even be substantially visually improved with more power. On top of that I have the backlog of console games. And no time to play.

I'm really liking the power efficiency of these new parts though. A quiet SFF build with IVB, Win8 and a 78x0 or next nVidia midrange is going to be hard to resist.

 

[Rvenger]

A lot of the GTX 680's performance comes from eating into its own overclocking headroom,

Hmm, couldn't this potentially cause excessive degradation issues in the long term. i.e long term reliability?

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Nope. I am yet to see a 7970 which doesn't do 1150+ core with just a little more voltage. Probably less than 1-5% of the stock. Besides, $500 or $550 is not a very different price, if I want to buy a graphic card with such a budget, $50 is immaterial to me, I will prefer the brand I prefer in terms of my personal preference or in terms of the games I want to play. A person who has the wallet to spend $500+ on a gpu shouldn't scrouge about mere $50 unless there is a very good reason to avoid spending it. Besides, many noobs would go for 7970 just because of 3gb VRAM, rich spoilt kids with deep wallets but zero knowledge. So there are only some people who would detest the 7970 because of oc risk which is so rare, does anybody not buy a 2600k thinking it won't do 4ghz? The same is with 7970. Yes if 7970 drops to $475 stock and 500 oc then it is greater than or equal to value considering it has the 3gb advantage at the same performance and price point

Of course, the 7970 doesn't have any real advantage either which justifies the $50 difference, at the same price they are both okay but amd won't sell as many cards unless it provides better value, same value= amd going of of business. If they make it $400-425 nvidia will run out of business again

 

[VulgarDisplay]

GTX 680 is a great card, but I already bought a 7970 because I was in the market when they came out. Luckily mine OC's very well, and I hit 1125/1575 in CCC which performs to the point that the gtx680 is a sidegrade at best.

I am however excited to see what Big kepler will do when it comes out, and the 7970 will easily let me play at 1080p up until then.

 

[evilspoons]

Hmm, couldn't this potentially cause excessive degradation issues in the long term. i.e long term reliability?

Not likely, since it's scaling to the available thermal headroom. It doesn't exceed a reasonable designed power limit.

It just means the card is using maximum safe power all the time as opposed to sometimes (with certain kinds of loads) using less than what the cooler can actually handle.

Also: to answer the OP, yeah, I'm probably getting one. My GTX 285 is starting to feel a little antequated, especially trying to run stuff at 1920x1200...

 

[Axon]

except you only have 1 gb of vram and that doesn't cut it for modded skyrim and a couple other scenarios

Hm? Don't I have two between the two cards? Or does it not work that way?

Anyway, for what I do, it works great.

 

[mingsoup]

I see the Xfire ATI solutions still blow in Skyrim. Love how my xfire 6970 setup just gets owned by nvidia's single cards. One reason I'd buy a Nvidia solution is for skyrim. However, performance isn't bad enough to warrant that. Still, you'd like all the performance you can get. So funny to see the 6990 totally trounced in that game. Sad.

 

[Elfear]

I might buy the GTX 680. Found out that 2GB of RAM is enough for playing BF3 and Skyrim at 5760x1080 and that NVIDIA Surround is now worth getting. Is this all true? If so, is it worth getting the GTX 680 if I plan to run eyefinity after 1 yr and not now?

Just wanted to throw in my 0.02. With the HD texture pack and a few other mods, this is what my vram usage looks like in Skyrim at 2560x1600 8xMSAA & 8xAAA. Civ 5 also shows 2.4-2.5GB of vram usage at max settings.

 

[evilspoons]

Hm? Don't I have two between the two cards? Or does it not work that way?

Anyway, for what I do, it works great.

Each card must store the same set of data to generate the same picture, so you effectively have two copies of the same 1 GB of stuff.

 

[exar333]

I might if they release a 6+8 PCIE power configuration card with a really good OC ceiling.

 

[exar333]

Interested to see how driver updates help the 680 as well.

 

[gammaray]

i will never buy a video card above 299$. That's my limit, and honestly, past that it's just plain ridiculous from amd and nvidia to ask more for a video card.