Friday, March 16th 2012

GTX 680 Generally Faster Than HD 7970: New Benchmarks

For skeptics who refuse to believe randomly-sourced bar-graphs of the GeForce GTX 680 that are starved of pictures, here is the first set of benchmarks run by a third-party (neither NVIDIA nor one of its AIC partners). This [p]reviewer from HKEPC has pictures to back his benchmarks. The GeForce GTX 680 was pitted against a Radeon HD 7970, and a previous-generation GeForce GTX 580. The test-bed consisted of an extreme-cooled Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition processor (running at stock frequency), ASUS Rampage IV Extreme motherboard, 8 GB (4x 2 GB) GeIL EVO 2 DDR3-2200 MHz quad-channel memory, Corsair AX1200W PSU, and Windows 7 x64.

Benchmarks included 3DMark 11 (performance preset), Battlefield 3, Batman: Arkham City, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Lost Planet 2, and Unigine Heaven (version not mentioned, could be 1). All tests were run at a constant resolution of 1920x1080, with 8x MSAA on some tests (mentioned in the graphs).



More graphs follow.


Source: HKEPC
Add your own comment

273 Comments on GTX 680 Generally Faster Than HD 7970: New Benchmarks

#1
Capitan Harlock
i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm
Posted on Reply
#2
Sihastru
The videocards aren't OC'ed, they are all on stock clocks, only the CPU is, to remove any possible bottleneck.
Posted on Reply
#3
crow1001
Will be getting a 7950 and clocking it if the 680 clocks like a Mellon. For a 1000 core GPU it is certainly not embarrassing the 7970.

And looking at its specs Nvidia are taking us all for a ride pricing this at or above 7970 prices. It's obvious this a mid-high range part boosted to an high end part through high clocks and the fact it competes with the 7970.
Posted on Reply
#4
Capitan Harlock
1000mhz vs 925 core, memory 6000 mhz vs 5500 for me looks like a stock oc
Posted on Reply
#5
GC_PaNzerFIN
FXAA available through NVCP, TXAA is the new AA mode. Performance is good (at least in tested games/benchmarks) and perf/W is also good. Nice!
Posted on Reply
#6
Jermelescu
So, this is it? With this nVidia bashed AMD?
I'd expect a lot more from a gpu 2/3 months late.
Posted on Reply
#7
Live OR Die
by: Capitan Harlock
i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm
Even so amds to nvidias clock to clock isn't the same.
Posted on Reply
#8
Kaynar
7700 3dmark11 points is kind of low for an HD7970 since mine get 8100 stock, 8400 oc and 9100 at max OC (with an i7 930)

That still puts the stock GTX680 above the HD7970 oc'ed. The defeat of AMD clearly depends on the overclocking ability of the GTX680 and the future drivers AMD can release to catch-up, if thats possible.
Posted on Reply
#9
crow1001


So default is 706 core and the boost clock is 1006?
Posted on Reply
#10
DarkOCean
I'm very inerested in how this thing oc and the real world tdp.
Posted on Reply
#12
Yellow&Nerdy?
Still not drawing any final conclusions until W1zz' review drops next week. I don't recall many of these pre-release benchmarks being too reliable.
Posted on Reply
#13
Jurassic1024
by: crow1001
Will be getting a 7950 and clocking it if the 680 clocks like a Mellon. For a 1000 core GPU it is certainly not embarrassing the 7970.

And looking at its specs Nvidia are taking us all for a ride pricing this at or above 7970 prices. It's obvious this a mid-high range part boosted to an high end part through high clocks and the fact it competes with the 7970.
Are you new to PC gaming, because nVIDIA cards are ALWAYS priced higher, because they are 9 times out of 10, the higher performing card, and because no one does desktop and workstation GPU's better than nVIDIA, for as long as nVIDIA has been doing it. Or have you not noticed... somehow?

A midrange card "boosted" to compete with AMD's flagship and you're complaining?!, or just mad? Either way, stay off the crack!

=======
I can't wait to see the GK100. It's gonna be a beast.
Posted on Reply
#15
Jurassic1024
by: Capitan Harlock
i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm
Clock for clock, really? LMAO.

With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other. ;)
Posted on Reply
#16
Initialised
So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?

Apples vs Oranges!
Posted on Reply
#17
robal
Nice !

I can already feel those ridiculous HD79xx prices falling.
Posted on Reply
#18
DarkOCean
by: Initialised
So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?
They are also showing gpu scores which are not influenced to much by the oc on the cpu.
Posted on Reply
#19
blibba
by: crow1001
http://i.imgur.com/mcHWN.png

So default is 706 core and the boost clock is 1006?
No. Base stock clock will be 1006MHZ, boost maybe 40-80MHZ higher.

by: Jurassic1024
Clock for clock, really? LMAO.

With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other. ;)


You're in one of the bottom two tiers, Jurassic.

The main issue with a clock for clock comparison is that, as others have suggested, we do not know that the two architectures will have comparable maximum stable frequencies or comparable thermal efficiency.

by: Initialised
So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?
No. Please read the article and above comments before posting.
Posted on Reply
#20
crow1001
by: Jurassic1024
Clock for clock, really? LMAO.

With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other. ;)
troll face, new account and probably a returnee previously banned, GTFO of the thread if you're just game insult other members and act like a complete dick.

You like to be taken up the ass by inflated GPU prices that's fine, you're a sucker and a gimp. This 256 bit, 2GB 680 is nowhere near a $500+ card regardless of performance which by the way sucks if there is not much overclocking headroom left.
Posted on Reply
#21
m1dg3t
:wtf: I was expecting a lot more from this, waiting for the W1zz to work his magic :) The best thing i see coming out of this is ATi price's SHOULD come down :o
Posted on Reply
#22
the54thvoid
by: blibba
No. Base stock clock will be 1006MHZ, boost maybe 40-80MHZ higher.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.jpg

You're in one of the bottom two tiers, Jurassic.

The main issue with a clock for clock comparison is that, as others have suggested, we do not know that the two architectures will have comparable maximum stable frequencies or comparable thermal efficiency.



No. Please read the article and above comments before posting.
I love that heirarchy dude :toast:
Posted on Reply
#23
mamisano
What AA are they using? All the slide show a generic 8xAA.
Posted on Reply
#24
Mistral
Very nice benchmark selection there...

I really hope it ends up faster than AMD's offerings. Can't wait for the actual reviews and the thing to reach stores in the real world so we can have some competition at last. Then I'll either end up getting a 7950 or just skip this pricey generation altogether.
Posted on Reply
#25
GC_PaNzerFIN
by: m1dg3t
:wtf: I was expecting a lot more from this, waiting for the W1zz to work his magic :) The best thing i see coming out of this is ATi price's SHOULD come down :o
I think people always have too high expectations. Chip is quite a bit smaller than Tahiti so it is great feat if it even gets on par with HD 7970 performance. Like others, interesting to see if it also is better perf/w than Tahiti.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment