exactly. AMD charged 50% more for 41% improvement over 6970. at least Nvidia gave you a 36% improvement while keeping same price as gtx580.
exactly. AMD charged 50% more for 41% improvement over 6970. at least Nvidia gave you a 36% improvement while keeping same price as gtx580.Groove, the 680 might have the worst flagship improvement over last generation but at least they didn't charge extra for it like AMD did......480,580,680 all same price....what were the release prices on the 5870,6970 & 7970...
Yes, for both 1920 and 2560 (for all 46 benches), put together for an overall average.
Whenever HD 7970 is faster, I divide the 7970's framerate by 680's fps (and then put a "minus" sign next to the percentage). That way, adding all of the differences together is not skewed, like if HD 7970 is 2x as fast as GTX 680 in Wolfenstein, then it's 200/100 = "-100%", rather than 100/200 = "-50%". This ensures that there are no "bias" tricks going on, in that the faster card is always given the upper percentage, because if GTX 680 is 2x as fast in some games, it's "+100%", not "+50%" for these games.
Groove, the 680 might have the worst flagship improvement over last generation but at least they didn't charge extra for it like AMD did......480,580,680 all same price....what were the release prices on the 5870,6970 & 7970...
Right, this was assuming that you guys already knew this. However, 8-pin connectors do allow for cleaner power (with better grounding). It's just that the maximum allowed voltage on current GTX 680 cards are still fairly low. They do not even reach the maximum potential of air-cooling when it comes to power usage and dissipation.
Interested in seeing what that Zotac "godly" brings to the table.
that waterblock, backplate, and high flow bracket alone costs about 180-200 bucks total so that's hardly a premium they are charging. and the card comes with a 15% oc on the base and 15% on boost. a standard card cant even raise the base clock so that at least ensures it wont drop below 1150. plus there is no doubt that this will oc much higher than the standard reference cards. also it will run much cooler than 70C which will allow those higher boost clocks to remain when under heavy load instead of having to start throttling back in small increments.Have you guys seen the specs http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=02G-P4-2689-KR&family=GeForce 600 Series Family&sw= or price http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130772 on this? Seems like an incredible premium for what amounts to a fanless card, since there are reviews out there that have hit those speeds. Unless you need silent, I don't know, think I would take my chances on a stock 680... Although it is only single slot wide
that waterblock, backplate, and high flow bracket alone costs about 180-200 bucks total so that's hardly a premium they are charging. and the card comes with a 15% oc on the base and 15% on boost. a standard card cant even raise the base clock so that at least ensures it wont drop below 1150. plus there is no doubt that this will oc much higher than the standard reference cards. also it will run much cooler than 70C which will allow those higher boost clocks to remain when under heavy load instead of having to start throttling back in small increments.
its not really a bad deal at all if you look at the big picture.
just the fact that it is watercooled and running cooler means it should hold higher clocks since at 70C, the gtx680 starts backing off. that and it has 8/6 pins so it could certainly safely go past 225 watts unless there is some other measure in place to stop it.what makes you think that?
I've handed out 8 infractions and 3 vacations this afternoon. Most of you have been behaving yourselves, and for that we thank you. But for those of you that have not I would like to make it clear that we expect you to discuss the GTX 680 here, and not your opinions on other posters. This is a tech forum, not TMZ.
-ViRGE
This. He's admitted to getting paid by nvidia and gets free hardware from them, probably from his favorite sidekick who will remain unnamed, who works for nvidia.
Rationalize all you want but when there's 10 websites showing specifically that some games are faster, consistently on the 7970 yet somehow this wacko gets different results, yeah. Not to mention he badmouths AMD constantly on his board, and threw out allegations about AMD bribing gabe newell to badmouth Nvidia. ROFL. Sorry, the first rule of being a hardware website is being objective. Not badmouthing a company constantly on a forum. And this I suppose is where someone will throw out that HardOCP is AMD biased hence their max OC results. Last I heard, Brent Justice prefers nvidia. The difference here is that he's objective, doesn't badmouth AMD constantly on their forum, and doesn't throw out amazingly hilarious accusations such as: AMD bribed Gabe Newell, AMD bribed steam to manipulate numbers, etc. Oh yeah. Anyone that doesn't bask in the glory of nvidia and doesn't praise them 24/7 is a shill
Yes, the GTX 680 is an awesome card, faster at stock than the 7970. It is also a much better buy than the 7970, easily. But if he's being deceptive, he's going to be called out.
What's the score for just 2560? 1080p is irrelevant to me just like 1024x768 scores, I'm sure a lot of people who pay upwards of 500$ on graphic cards feel the same way. You should put separate scores for 1080p and 2560.
You should exclude Heaven just like other synthetics. Well it seems they are as close as realistically possible. Is this with or without MSAA? I can't imagine anyone playing without MSAA on such cards. GTX680 usually lose more performance by enabling MSAA. I don't know how someone can declare one card faster than the other with results so close and dependent on game by game basis. It's a wash.I did it real quick, but then double-checked for errors.
The answer for 2560x1600 for max OC'ed GTX 680 vs max OC'ed HD 7970 (20 games and Heaven, excluding 3DMark Vantage/11 and also excluding Wolfenstein - an extreme outlier which is an abnormal representative of OpenGL games and also the least popular game in the entire suite) is 4.0% in favor of GTX 680.
You should exclude Heaven just like other synthetics. Well it seems they are as close as realistically possible. Is this with or without MSAA? I can't imagine anyone playing without MSAA on such cards. GTX680 usually lose more performance by enabling MSAA. I don't know how someone can declare one card faster than the other with results so close and dependent on game by game basis. It's a wash.
ps. what are the clocks for 7970 and 680?
BTW. If you count only games and don't conveniently exclude some 7970 actually wins at that resolution, still with such close results it's a wash.
To save myself some unnecessary typing, here's the link to the article that should answer your questions as to the clocks and the usage of AA which varies for each game according to reasonable playability - if the FPS is way too high for 4xAA then 8xAA is used for that game (everything's shown in the 2 charts on the bottom of this page):
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/?p=29157&page=4
Excluding Heaven would not really affect anything, since the 2560x1600 test was only 8% in favor of GTX 680. It's a matter of decimal fractions there for the overall average.
Good God people. This is a forum for PC hardware. It's not Facebook or some blog site. We don't care what your wandering stream of thought is.
Lets focus on talking about video cards here, specifically Kepler and it's GTX 680 derivative. I'm interesting in the 28nm chip shortage and the forthcoming GK110. Hopefully TSMC has everything sorted out by the time nVidia releases it.
Have you guys seen the specs http://www.evga.com/products/moreInfo.asp?pn=02G-P4-2689-KR&family=GeForce 600 Series Family&sw= or price http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130772 on this? Seems like an incredible premium for what amounts to a fanless card, since there are reviews out there that have hit those speeds. Unless you need silent, I don't know, think I would take my chances on a stock 680... Although it is only single slot wide