OFFICIAL KEPLER "GTX680" Reviews

[MrK6]

Still accurate. Just doesn't factor in max OC potential for each.

The clock listing isn't accurate, not the performance.

 

[blastingcap]

I'm guessing the more reputable and meticulous reviewers will run games with GPU Boost disabled on the GTX 680 when comparing vs. 7970, stock vs. stock, but will turn GPU Boost on and overclock when comparing them OC vs. OC.

Also, minimum fps matters. If GPU Boost is a cheap trick to boost averages without also raising minimums, it's useless. (Check out that huge spike in Skyrim that subsequently craters. It helps the average framerate but doesn't seem to help minimums much. Then again, who knows whether GPU Boost was enabled or not in these possibly-real charts?)

Soon enough we'll find out how much OC headroom is in the GTX 680.

 

[Absolute0]

The clock listing isn't accurate, not the performance.

I'm sure we will see that elucidated shortly. Along with the overclocking potential.

For now, we know how it does at stock. I'm interested to see how it clocks.

 

[f1sherman]

Neither is for AMD.

It drops when on desktop, and then it overclocks when in games

 

[MrK6]

Neither is for AMD.

It drops when on desktop, and then it overclocks when in games

So you're just here to troll and cheer for nvidia, gotcha.

 

[f1sherman]

and the sad part is that you are NOT trolling,

you are dead serious about having issues with GPU boost

 

[RussianSensation]

Let what go? You didn't refute any of my points. Those charts provide example of exactly what I was just stating - they list the clock speeds of the cards, but if nvidia's GPU boost is dynamically overclocking the cards, then that's not accurate, is it?

So Intel should disable TurboBoost on all of its i5/i7 CPUs when reviewers test them against Bulldozer and when i3s are included in revies? This is literally free performance for everyone and you are against it? Grasping for straws much?

The reviews focus on what the consumer will get out of the box with both cards.

Look, it's been 4 consecutive generations of you owning an AMD card. Before one could make a very strong argument that AMD had better performance/$ with HD4870/4890/5850/5870/6950/6970 and power consumption was lower as a bonus. Not this time. This time GTX680 finally beats HD7970 in all metrics imaginable from trivial engineering metrics of performance/watt, performance/mm^2, performance/transistor to gaming focused metrics such as absolute performance, price, and features and it has lower power consumption. Plus EVGA offers lifetime transferable warranty, there is active Vsync, TXAA, 3D surround, PhysX, CUDA, faster video transcoding for iPad. All that for $50 less. HD7970 is good card, but it's time to move on.

If you had some bad experiences with NV cards (perhaps some bumpgate with GeForce 8/9), or just want to cheer for the underdog, then just say so.

GTX680 is clearly superior to HD7970 for gamers. This time it has HD7970 beaten in pretty much everything.

 

[MrK6]

and the sad part is that you are NOT trolling,

you are dead serious about having issues with GPU boost

How is that sad? You actually want people to troll? Interesting.

GPU Boost makes it more difficult to determine the absolute performance of the part, especially if one wants to project overclocking performance and capabilities. I think Kyle over at [H] already noted that those reviewers that rely on canned benches are going to be in for a ride.

 

[Absolute0]

GPU boost only makes sense. It will probably become the standard, like CPUs.

 

[moriz]

from what i've gathered, GPU boost goes hand in hand with another feature: adaptive vsync. i believe the two technologies allow the card to make extremely rapid changes in clock speed to mitigate the performance loss of standard vsync, as well as adjusting clockspeeds in SLI setups. the net result is less frame skips, tearing, and microstuttering.

we'll know soon enough. to me, using GPU boost as a purely raw performance feature is a waste. after all, if it has the headroom to go faster, why not just peg it at that speed?

 

[MrK6]

So Intel should disable TurboBoost on all of its CPUs when they test them against Bulldozer?

Look, it's been 4 consecutive generations of you owning an AMD card. This time GTX680 finally beats HD7970 in all metrics from performance/watt, perforamnce/mm^2, performance/transistor, absolute performance, price, and features. There is nothing left.

If you had some bad experiences with NV cards (perhaps some bumpgate with GeForce 8/9), or just want to cheer for the underdog, then just say so.

GTX680 is clearly superior to HD7970. Just admit it and move on.

I think it's rather telling that you go for an ad hominem rather than participate in the discussion.

 

[f1sherman]

dirty Nvidia [redacted] complicating things, and making life less simple for Kyle [H] (AMD partnership website?)...

Just so they can get more performance(!)

How low can they go?!

Semi-censored profanity is still profanity. Please don't do that
-ViRGE

 

[MrK6]

from what i've gathered, GPU boost goes hand in hand with another feature: adaptive vsync. i believe the two technologies allow the card to make extremely rapid changes in clock speed to mitigate the performance loss of standard vsync, as well as adjusting clockspeeds in SLI setups. the net result is less frame skips, tearing, and microstuttering.

It would be a heck of a technology if it worked like that. In my mind, I'd like to see GPU's make steps towards efficiently producing the most fluid gameplay possible. I myself run a framerate limiter at 60FPS unless I'm benching - my monitor is 60Hz, and it does nothing for me to waste the power to render more than that.

we'll know soon enough. to me, using GPU boost as a purely raw performance feature is a waste. after all, if it has the headroom to go faster, why not just peg it at that speed?

Based on the marketing video posted earlier today, it's tough to say. They showed it boosting frames generally over 60FPS, which would only seem to help those in the niche 120Hz monitor category.

 

[X98]

Kepler is so win rofl!

 

[RussianSensation]

I think it's rather telling that you go for an ad hominem rather than participate in the discussion.

Logically, you cannot prove that HD7970 is a better card at $550 unless you bring some outlier benchmark or game or some specific case that only applies in a particular situation.

The fact that GTX680 is actually better in pretty much everything and costs less and has a free Turbo Boost? What's not to like? What exactly is there to discuss?

It seems you are dead set on proving that HD7970 is better. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. You've enjoyed your 1340mhz HD7970 and GTX680 isn't going to make that level of performance obsolete. For most consumers looking to buy a $500 GPU starting tomorrow, HD7970 at $550 is irrelevant.

 

[blastingcap]

dirty Nvidia mother^&^&$#@ complicating things, and making life less simple for Kyle [H] (AMD partnership website?)...

Just so they can get more performance(!)

How low can they go?!

Dude(tte), [H] is as legit as they come. Kyle criticized AMD incessantly over broken Crossfire, etc. as well as panning GTX 480 heat and such. If you are going to criticize a site, try THG or some other lame-o site that doesn't have fps timelines and playthroughs.

Anyway, it's easy to tell which sites are the shill sites, or the weaker sites, if they don't compare apples to apples (and report time series averages w/o minimum fps) or at least mention the OC vs. GPU Boost problem, which I believe is probably not as big of a deal as K6 is making it out to be, but is nevertheless a valid point. The best sites, of course, will compare OC w/ GPU Boost on vs. OC, because that's what enthusiasts REALLY want to know, not some stock vs. stock or stock vs. stock + GPU Boost comparison.

You sound like lonbergj btw. It is against forum rules to have multiple accounts, if you are him. Just so you know.

 

[Grooveriding]

Good grief guys lay off.

The 680 is nice. At current prices I could not recommend a 7970 over a 680 to anyone but someone wanting to run 3 monitor resolutions, and I prefer AMD as a brand, if you didn't know...

The only fault I can lay on the 680 is exactly what everyone has laid on the 7970; it is not fast enough for a new flagship. I actually think nvidia deserves more of a thrashing than AMD because that is what nvidia has always done. Deliver a big beefy single-gpu flagship with a 20-30% performance advantage over AMD's, and they have not done that this round.

Thread is going to go down in flames fast with people tap dancing and trying to rub the 680's strong points in other people's faces (why ?! go buy it if you think it's awesome) just as fast as it will if you try to say the card is not the better buy with current pricing and performance.

I'm hard up for an upgrade, so I've lowered my expectations from 40% to 30% @ 2560x1600 4xAA over a 580 to get me to buy a pair. So long as there is a respectable amount of OC headroom 15%+ I am buying. Heck, I think these cards are going to sell fast and I want EVGAs so I can keep my warranty and put waterblocks on them. I plan to buy two as soon as they show up on newegg and cancel the order if they don't meet my needs.

 

[Silverforce11]

Logically, you cannot prove that HD7970 is a better card.

The fact that GTX680 is actually better in pretty much everything and costs less and has a free Turbo Boost? What exactly is there to discuss?

It seems you are dead set on proving that HD7970 is better. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.

How bout we wait for you know... a few actual official reviews before starting with the lame attacks.

 

[f1sherman]

Not criticizing [H]

it was a simple question
and no im not anyone, but me - mister f1sherman

so how do we stop Nvidia from cheating by allways going for more fps?

hey how about you guys just use Vsync, or frame limiter, set monitor at 29Hz :idea:

 

[RussianSensation]

How bout we wait for you know... a few actual official reviews before starting with the lame attacks.

2 Reviews already and GTX680 has won in both so far. Let's wait for 20 more then.

It's pretty funny being on a hardware enthusiast site where people don't welcome new features such as Turbo boost out of the box for all users and a $50 lower price, that might force price cuts making HD7900 even more attractive for everyone and make Turbo boost a standard feature for new generation of videocards much like it is today for CPUs.:thumbsup:

 

[Silverforce11]

2 Reviews already and GTX680 has won in both so far. Let's wait for 10 more.

Yes, lets.

Rabid fanboyism and throwing wild accusations (lol [H] is an AMD site? good one) is getting old.

 

[MrK6]

Logically, you cannot prove that HD7970 is a better card at $550 unless you bring some outlier benchmark or game or some specific case that only applies in a particular situation.

The fact that GTX680 is actually better in pretty much everything and costs less and has a free Turbo Boost? What's not to like? What exactly is there to discuss?

It seems you are dead set on proving that HD7970 is better. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. You've enjoyed your 1340mhz HD7970 and GTX680 isn't going to make that level of performance obsolete. For most consumers looking to buy a $500 GPU starting tomorrow, HD7970 at $550 is irrelevant.

See this is the fallacy of your argument and just shows that you're here to cheer nvidia, regardless of what's in your signature (I'm preemptively denying that appeal). Each company offers products that are diverse in features and performance, yet you're trying to change goal posts or set up pseudo-restraints in order to say "THERE NVIDIA'S BETTER I WIN," which is ridiculous. I've already shut this down in another thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2234044 , and I'll do it again here. Either participate in the discussion or don't post, I'm not derailing this thread further.

 

[blastingcap]

See this is the fallacy of your argument and just shows that you're here to cheer nvidia, regardless of what's in your signature (I'm preemptively denying that appeal). Each company offers products that are diverse in features and performance, yet you're trying to change goal posts or set up pseudo-restraints in order to say "THERE NVIDIA'S BETTER I WIN," which is ridiculous. I've already shut this down in another thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2234044 , and I'll do it again here. Either participate in the discussion or don't post, I'm not derailing this thread further.

Oh boy you can't be serious in these accusations, RS is pretty damned impartial. Also, let's all (meaning everyone in this thread) tone it down in here so this thread doesn't get locked before the NDA expires.

 

[f1sherman]

For the 2nd time, I am not implying [H] is biased.

They usually have a review of 4-5 sh1ty games, but they do it honestly as far as I can tell.

 

[3DVagabond]

from what i've gathered, GPU boost goes hand in hand with another feature: adaptive vsync. i believe the two technologies allow the card to make extremely rapid changes in clock speed to mitigate the performance loss of standard vsync, as well as adjusting clockspeeds in SLI setups. the net result is less frame skips, tearing, and microstuttering.

we'll know soon enough. to me, using GPU boost as a purely raw performance feature is a waste. after all, if it has the headroom to go faster, why not just peg it at that speed?

I wouldn't be surprised if it's another way to reduce avg power usage. Personally, I don't have a problem with it as long as it's not activated by some .exe profile just to make TWIMTBP and Canned Benchmarks look better (or worse for the competition).