OFFICIAL KEPLER "GTX680" Reviews

[blackened23]

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581156&postcount=20
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581204&postcount=25

Dunno why everyone is ignoring this.

Wow. That REALLY sucks. :thumbsdown:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

lol Nvidia just went SB all up in here.

 

[Joseph F]

lol Nvidia just went SB all up in here.

This, except it doesn't clock like SB.

 

[Chiropteran]

I asked if he can run the card at 1300MHz not at 15% OC. Well do you?

Why are you comparing Mhz to Mhz? Don't you remember the folly of the Pentium 4? Yeah, it sucked for AMD at the time, Pentium 4s running at 2.6ghz while the Athlon was only running at 1800mhz, yet the Althon still performed better despite the clock speed difference. And here we see it all over again, this time AMD going the high clock route on bulldozer and not really getting anything out of it.

15% is 15%. Why are you comparing a 15% overclock on kepler to a 40% overclock on 7970?

You do realize the 2 cards are relatively close* at stock clocks, and a 40% boost to 7970 would put it way beyond the capabilities of a 15% overclocked kepler, even if kepler scaled from the OC?

*680 is faster 95% of the time, but only by a small delta.

 

[imaheadcase]

Maybe i missed it, but is there any SLI benchmarks with this vs "old" 580s?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This, except it doesn't clock like SB.

You just haven't seen the "k" model yet.

 

[Zebo]

Kepler arrives, so does the EK-FC680 GTX series water block

Cant find in the states yet but frozen CPU is sure to have stock soon.

Use xtreme for 5.1% discount there.

 

[blackened23]

lol Nvidia just went SB all up in here.

If all cards are prevented from OC'ing by the BIOS im going to be pissed tomorrow! Supposedly EVGA sent a special bios for review sites to overclock, but end users won't have access to it :thumbsdown:

Someone please tell me i'm reading the wizzard post at TPU wrong. I hope thats not true.

 

[Olikan]

Thanks for the link!

I seriously don't get whats going on with overclocking here. NV cards have always scaled well with oc's, yet the 680 isn't doing so well.... I think GPU boost is interfering somehow.

I'm guessing its something to do with the BIOS.

IMO, it's the 6ghz gddr5 and 256 bits wide... you get bandwidth limited and can't overclock the memories much better than that

 

[-Slacker-]

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/powercolor_hd7970_overclocking_eyefinity_review/3

This graph is seriously WTF. Zero scaling with the overclock.

I don't really see anything dubious about the benches ... it scales average in some games, just like the Fermis and HD6000s, and very well in others -see the Dirt3 bench.

Well, there is one thing ... some of those hd7970's scale negatively with OCing ... but maybe they're showing tests on stock clocks and OC on different dates ... like if they tested stock 7970s again for the 680 review, but threw in older figures for overclocked versions. I seem to recall that Batman AC recently got a performance patch for the 7000 series, which is the main offender in those graphs.

 

[Zebo]

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581156&postcount=20
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2581204&postcount=25

Dunno why everyone is ignoring this.

Wiz is wrong. Cards are shown over 1800Mhz some places which would be impossible using nV/wiz's description of parameters. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[RussianSensation]

Was the 7970 overvolted like the 680 is via GPU Boost? (I can't access the site right now.)

I realized those charts showed % scaling with overclock, not absolute peformance in overclocked states. The absolute performance in overclocked states was not plotted by explained in a paragraph instead:

The GeForce GTX 680 2GB overclocked to 1186/7128 MHz is an average 4-11% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB (overclocked to 1150/7000 MHz) in 1920x1080 and 1-9% ahead in 2560x1600.

That's why I removed the original charts because obviously HD7970 would have higher % increase from overclocking since it's only clocked at 925mhz.

Their reference 7970 hit 1130mhz on 1.17V. They didn't specify what voltage was needed for HD7970 to hit 1150mhz but at 1150mhz their reference HD7970 still consumed 42W more power than a GTX680 @ 1186 with 1304 Turbo Boost. Not a deal breaker for HD7970, but when you also get a much quieter reference cooler on the GTX680 (from the same review), HD7970's reference cards are awfully unattractive.

@ Xbitlabs, GTX680 at 1186mhz beat 1150mhz HD7970 at both 1080P and 1600P, consumed less power, and did that on a quieter reference cooler for $50 less. This is like Intel's Turbo. You have a base clock + Boost. So when you increase Base Clock, the GPU Boost is on TOP of that. For example, their GTX680 Base clock was increased to 1186mhz, and because GPU boost is still on, it can often hit between 1277 to 1304mhz with Turbo enabled. :thumbsup:

 

[notty22]

You will be able to o/c just like he did in his testing.
There is just no going in and editing the bios.
Attempting to disable flags or such and attempting to dial in some crazy voltage number.

 

[frostedflakes]

Wow. That REALLY sucks. :thumbsdown:

Sucks but for better or worse that's the direction things are heading. I can't BIOS overclock my 6950, for example, BIOS is digitally signed or something and if you use software like RBE to change the clocks, when Windows boots up and the driver is loaded it will BSOD if it detects a clock that doesn't match the one the driver thinks the card is supposed to be running at. Have to use software to OC beyond the BIOS clocks.

Clock speeds and overdrive limits have to be approved and digitally signed by AMD for the same reason presumably, to prevent AIBs from releasing factory OC'd cards that might eat into sales of AMD's higher-end parts or might interfere with future products from AMD or whatever.

 

[DaveSimmons]

FYI, if you're thinking of buying one:

Newegg just sent me a free 3-day shipping offer email for the 680. It's only an $8 savings, but $8 is $8. These codes are usually tied to being signed up for their email blast. If you sign up then browser the 680 cards while logged in then newegg will probably send it to you.

At the moment the MSI is the only 680 in stock at the egg.

 

[kreacher]

So the 680 is faster, cooler and cheaper than the 7970 out of the box (with perhaps a little bit of help from GPU boost) but maybe it isn't OC friendly.
As someone who does not OC anything due to living in a very hot and dusty environment it sounds great as long as the 680 (and other Kepler cards) are still able to use boost in the aforementioned environment.
I would not be a happy camper if I bought one of these and found out that the GPU boost was never kicking in since cooling apparatus was really meant for ambient temps < 25C/75F.

Not bashing Nvidia here, I think the 680 is a great card, especially if it remains available for $50 cheaper than the 7870 and AT's estimate of GPU boost only helping by 3-5% is accurate.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

baahhh my 470's only do 875-900mhz with 1087mv, and 480 owners can disable ovp via bios while i need a hard mod...


boo nvidahh

 

[blackened23]

Sucks but for better or worse that's the direction things are heading. I can't BIOS overclock my 6950, for example, BIOS is digitally signed or something and if you use software like RBE to change the clocks, when Windows boots up and the driver is loaded it will BSOD if it detects a clock that doesn't match the one the driver thinks the card is supposed to be running at. Have to use software to OC beyond the BIOS clocks.

Clock speeds and overdrive limits have to be approved and digitally signed by AMD for the same reason presumably, to prevent AIBs from releasing factory OC'd cards that might eat into sales of AMD's higher-end parts or might interfere with future products from AMD or whatever.

I'm not sure what you're speaking of to be honest, i've never owned a card from either camp that outright prevented overclocking. What wizzard is saying is that you cannot oc behind the imposed GPU boost limit - if that is true i'm going to be pissed. But i'm not sure if what wizzard is saying is correct or not, we shall see.

 

[blackened23]

So the 680 is faster, cooler and cheaper than the 7970 out of the box (with perhaps a little bit of help from GPU boost) but maybe it isn't OC friendly.
As someone who does not OC anything due to living in a very hot and dusty environment it sounds great as long as the 680 (and other Kepler cards) are still able to use boost in the aforementioned environment.
I would not be a happy camper if I bought one of these and found out that the GPU boost was never kicking in since cooling apparatus was really meant for ambient temps < 25C/75F.

Not bashing Nvidia here, I think the 680 is a great card, especially if it remains available for $50 cheaper than the 7870 and AT's estimate of GPU boost only helping by 3-5% is accurate.

If its not oc friendly thats a big problem, because the 7970 appears to match or pass a 680oc, since the 7970 has already established good scaling with higher clocks. I hope that wizzard is dead wrong, because that really sucks if so.

HardOCP is doing an overclock article soon to go up within 24 hours IIRC, hopefully that will shed some light on things. In the meantime, i'll certainly make a heroic effort to overclock my 680s tomorrow.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

It is not that simple because TPU tested a lot more games and discovered that OC vs OC the 680 still edged out the 7970 by what looks like 5% on average according to their chart.

However, GPU samples vary so it's luck of the draw and we do not have enough info right now to average out all the OC vs OC results to get a clearer picture.

For TPU's particular samples though the 680 is winning even when both are OC'd, and it's winning the critical BF3 battle as that is a massively popular game and one of the biggest reasons why people upgrade their cards these days.

Also, MAJOR CAVEAT HERE: I would like to see minimum fps compared in OC vs OC, not just averages, as mins matter most. But almost nobody does that in their reviews ugh. You could have a situation where one wins on averages but loses on minimums. Also, TPU tested 7970 at stock voltage in their OC but the GTX 680 also overvolts slightly when it can due to GPU Boost if I'm reading things correctly. So OC vs OC might not be that; it may be OC+OV vs. OC... that damn GPU Boost is muddying up the waters and I wish one could disable it for benching purposes.

Did you read the Techreport article? They don't test OC vs. OC but they do cover minimums (in their own way) of each card at stock.

 

[Imouto]

In fact the locked bios and Nvidia's requests will mean mediocre OC achievements across the board.

If you buy a MSI GTX 680 Lightning you won't be able to get past it's OC limits with the Frozer cooler, not to talk about reference desings with liquid cooling and etc getting only as far as reference coolers may go.

At least that's what I'm guessing.

 

[Crap Daddy]

@ Xbitlabs, GTX680 at 1186mhz beat 1150mhz HD7970 at both 1080P and 1600P, consumed less power, and did that on a quieter reference cooler for $50 less. This is like Intel's Turbo. You have a base clock + Boost. So when you increase Base Clock, the GPU Boost is on TOP of that. For example, their GTX680 Base clock was increased to 1186mhz, and because GPU boost is still on, it can often hit between 1277 to 1304mhz with Turbo enabled.

This should explain what's the catch. Have a look at one interesting part from that sweclockers link:

 

[RussianSensation]

If its not oc friendly thats a big problem, because the 7970 appears to match or pass a 680oc, since the 7970 has already established good scaling with higher clocks. I hope that wizzard is dead wrong, because that really sucks if so.

An 1150mhz HD7970 still loses to an overclocked GTX680. Already linked above.

The GeForce GTX 680 2GB overclocked to 1186/7128 MHz is an average 4-11% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB (overclocked to 1150/7000 MHz) in 1920x1080 and 1-9% ahead in 2560x1600. ~ Xbitlabs

That's an overclock on a reference GTX680 BTW. This means HD7970 would need a 1200-1250mhz overclock to match a reference OCed 680. How much are those non-reference 7970s? Not $499.

Oh and if you want one with warranty similar to EVGA's, you'd need to get a $599 XFX Double Dissipation. So you'll pay $100 more, play the lottery with a "guaranteed" 1200mhz overclock, just to match a $499 reference Oced GTX680? That's a horrible deal especially since XFX cards aren't even quieter than the HD7970 reference cards, which themselves are louder than a reference 680.

Once non-reference 680s come out, these cards might be hitting 1250mhz base clock + Turbo taking them to 1350mhz, which would take a watercooled 7970 to catch.

 

[blastingcap]

I realized those charts showed % scaling with overclock, not absolute peformance in overclocked states. The absolute performance in overclocked states was not plotted by explained in a paragraph instead:

The GeForce GTX 680 2GB overclocked to 1186/7128 MHz is an average 4-11% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB (overclocked to 1150/7000 MHz) in 1920x1080 and 1-9% ahead in 2560x1600.

That's why I removed the original charts because obviously HD7970 would have higher % increase from overclocking since it's only clocked at 925mhz.

Their reference 7970 hit 1130mhz on 1.17V. They didn't specify what voltage was needed for HD7970 to hit 1150mhz but at 1150mhz their reference HD7970 still consumed 42W more power than a GTX680 @ 1186 with 1304 Turbo Boost. Not a deal breaker for HD7970, but when you also get a much quieter reference cooler on the GTX680 (from the same review), HD7970's reference cards are awfully unattractive.

@ Xbitlabs, GTX680 at 1186mhz beat 1150mhz HD7970 at both 1080P and 1600P, consumed less power, and did that on a quieter reference cooler for $50 less. This is like Intel's Turbo. You have a base clock + Boost. So when you increase Base Clock, the GPU Boost is on TOP of that. For example, their GTX680 Base clock was increased to 1186mhz, and because GPU boost is still on, it can often hit between 1277 to 1304mhz with Turbo enabled. :thumbsup:

Hmm interesting... how high does the 680 overvolt to at 1186MHz base clock and what voltage was it drawing at 1.2/1.3 GHz? I know things may vary among cards, and that apparently even with overvolting the 680 still draws less power and offers about the same or higher performance, and I also think if there is only temporary overvoltage it probably will not shorten GPU lifespan much, but despite all of that making this more of an academic discussion, I'm still curious as to what voltage was required to get the 680 that high.

 

[Piano Man]

Arghh, I've never spent over $300 for a GPU before, but I'm getting a serious impulse buy feeling right now...