Huh? I am agreeing with you that a fresh-from-the-box 680 at default settings is slower than an overclocked Tahiti at some frequency less than 1.1GHz.
There are ways to minimize its effects, but no, you can't turn it off AFAIK
Yea, you keep flipping. Beating and not beating.
Wait .... so it's possible to turn GPU boost off??
Where did I say anything about profit or cost? I was talking about market share. I am talking about the consumer's point of view. Whether either company makes money or not is irrelevant to the consumer, at least in the short term. At current prices Tahiti is a hard sell. It needs a major price cut, if not the 3GB VRAM version then definitely the 1.5GB VRAM version. Else many consumers will simply get a GTX 680 instead.
lol, just couple months ago, am sure i can remember you saying the exact same thing, that people don`t buy high end for power and that they should buy lower/mid end for that.
ha-ha good one, long time laugh - kthxbai
Edit: Bring on the overclocking since nvidia is going out of its way to stop/pull any site going over the top
At current prices you are right, but if they cut the price by 100$ it would easily be a better buy than gtx680 especially for those that overclock. Obviously they don't won't to engage in price war especially when it is nvidia who has a cheaper card to make this time. As for me personally I would buy whichever card is cheaper because they perform very close when OC. GTX680 has better power consumption but 7970 has larger frame buffer so for me it's a wash. 1.5GB 7970 would probably equal gtx680 power consumption and priced at 400 it would be a very compelling alternative with better price/performance alas amd has no intention of releasing that card.
Anyway I think that actually pitcarin would be the best card to combat GTX680 with. Make pitcarin X2 at 550$ or lower the price to 275$ while lowering tahiti price to 475$ and amds line-up would still look very compelling compared to nvidias.
Exactly, For those of use who haven´t bought a new card yet, GTX680 seems like a better buy (at current prices).
Although, I wouldn´t be regretting buying an HD7970 3 months ago because when overclocked things seem to practically even out performance wise.
Things would change if crossfire or SLI is being considered though, Because 7970´s extra memory bandwidth might come into play then... but that´s probably a very small percentage of actual gamers...
In my case, the 680´s lower power usage convinced me as I am planning to run it off my current power supply (Corsair 520HX), and don´t have much power to spare, also, I´m starting to play Arkham City and would like to try PHYSX, to see if it makes any difference.
The 7950 gets its butt kicked so that's not a real rival even if they price it low w/ 1.5GB.
Well, there is nothing preventing them from releasing a 7970 1.5GB anyway, AFAIK. But yes, you are correct.
Maybe the GTX 680 will push the price of Pitcairn back to where it was supposed to be ($300) or less, though.
7950 seems completely redundant in amds line-up and frankly doesn't make any sense. Pitcarin makes it irrelevant. I wish they would release 1.5GB 7970 instead at the same price. It would probably be cheaper to make.
Wait .... so it's possible to turn GPU boost off??
computerbase.de ... had the 680 faster by only 1% at 1600p 4AA/16AF. The 680 has a sizable clock advantage (125Mhz or more) -- which means at higher resolutions the 7970 is faster clock/clock. So, considering the 7970 large clock disadvantage compared to the factory NV driver overclocking 680, overclocked the 7970 should be faster at high resolutions. With 3GB vram, the extra 1GB vram is just a cherry on the icing.
The 7970 uses maybe 15-20 watts more power on average, but there were game tests where the 680 was actually consuming more power. This was seen in both the HardOCP and hardware.fr reviews. So, the power difference is marginal, and noting to write home about. The stock 7970 card temperature was cooler running than the 680 even though it puts out a little more watts. Noise levels were higher on the stock 7970 but better quieter coolers are available.
Considering the high price the 680 looks to landing on in Europe, computerbase.de actually had the price/performance of the 680 lower than the 7970.
Bah, not totally impressed. The 7970 was a larger jump over the 580 in all respects. The 680 offers only very marginal improvements in most areas and it is slower at higher resolutions when clocked the same as the 7970 -- where things are likely to matter the most when the chips are down.
Bah, not totally impressed. The 7970 was a larger jump over the 580 in all respects. The 680 offers only very marginal improvements in most areas and it is slower at higher resolutions when clocked the same as the 7970 -- where things are likely to matter the most when the chips are down.
What reviews are you reading? Almost every review shows the 680 easily surpassing the 7970. Kepler is a very, very nice feat by Nvidia IMO.
Good call, 7950 would be a good card but at less than 400$. 375$ would be a very good price for its performance.My 7950 is in a box, headed back to Amazon... lol
Triple slot, 8-Phase VRM, Dual 8-Pin GTX680 made for overclocking is being released in Asia market
http://product.pcpop.com/000337190/Picture/005200798.html#005200792
blastingcap you are being overly dramatic. Tahiti is still a small chip. The whole card costs maybe 40$ more to produce so their margins are still reasonable given that's their high-end card. Back in 2008 nvidia competed with RV700(323mm2) with GT200 (576mm2/460mm2) that had way more complex PCB 448 vs 256 and somehow still made money. That was 323mm2 vs 576/460mm2 plus more complex PCB to boot. Now the difference is way smaller. GTX680 is more efficient per mm2 than tahiti and it would be an epic failure of similar magnitude to GF FX if it wasn't. Take into account that gtx680 was stripped of almost any compute features. It has only 1/24 DP performance and static scheduler.
Maybe I didn't remember that correctly I considered it as a better card than Cypress maybe that skewed my memory. I still had Cypress because I bought it full 5 months before Fermi even came out and upgrading was pointless back then because at launch GTX480 was just 15% faster than Cypress and that performance advantage came at a huge penalty to power consumption. The difference was much more relevant then it is between GTX680 and tahiti now because it made SLI GTX480 very loud, too loud for most people. For single card systems it was basically a non-issue.
Actually, R700 was 256 mm2.
You are right, that makes comparison to GT200 even more striking. Compared to that huge chasm, gtx680 and tahiti die size difference is tiny.
So I take it you haven't ordered your 680s yet? :sneaky:
J/K. Blasphemy I know.
no, I try to fight the upgrade bug but if I caved I would actually order 7970s because I can buy them for 10% less than GTX680s in my country. I think I will actually manage to stave off the upgrade bug until proper high-end comes around, BigK where are thee?
Has anyone heard if the 680 will work at capacity in a PCIe 2.0 motherboard? Does it push more than 5 GT/s?
So I'm definitely considering this card... among others. If the 7970 drops plenty, I would consider it as well. I'm waiting for IB anyway, so I've got about a month left. Concerning the GTX 680, I have a feeling a custom PCB/cooler might not be as important as for the 7970. The boost clock seems to manage pretty well overclocking on its own. Do you guys think it's worth it to wait for custom 680s?
Also, how reliably better are custom 680s going to be? Considering this is pretty new stuff, would it be better to trust Nvidia's reference design? :hmm: