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

#2
jpierce55
by: Benetanegia
Sure you can find all the "IF"s and "maybe"s you want but for the people who have nothing to fear, common sense prevails.

a) It looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, but it was all part of a covert plan to confuse people. (And badly loose the high-end to AMD, had Tahiti performed as it should -> comparably as well as Pitcairn)

b) it looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, because it IS a mid-range chip.

Occam's Razor== b) ;)



We are discussing different things. I'm not discussing at which price segment it belongs now, but which chip in the Kepler line this is. Now some people even pretend that GK100 and GK110 never existed and never will, but it does exist and will be released. Just because it may come several months later that does not change the fact that it will and it will be Kepler and it will be bigger than GK104. So by the fact that a faster/bigger Kepler chip is going to be released and was always planned to be released, GK104 is NOT, never was and never will be a high-end chip. it cannot be high-end, when there's something bigger on top of it. Period.
Excuse me, but you are the one doing the maybe's. Maybe this was intended to be the high end. Due tell me how you define "looks like a mid-range chip". I am amazed you can visibly see that. I guess my years in college electronics did not pay off.

Edit: Does it smell like a mid-range chip too?
Posted on Reply
#3
Benetanegia
by: the54thvoid
Always so feisty Ben :rolleyes:
I was actually being playful.

I was just pointing out that it's not as simple as you made it to be. You are disregarding that it's a 256 bit 32 ROP card. That shaders are running at 1000 Mhz instead of 1544 Mhz, so lower and not higher as you suggest and many other things. It's not justas simple.
Process shrinks allow faster clocks due to all the power hoo ha that happens at lower scales. I can't explain that in tech terms but i know it's a facet of process shrinking up to logical point. I know the architecture is different but if 40nm allowed 1GHz clocks we'd be seeing far lower improvements.
I know that smaller processes help with clocks, but usually it is better clocks at same power consumption or same clock at lower consumption, not both.

For example, AMD obtained a 100 Mhz increase in best case scenario. 25 mhz from high-end to high-end. Nvidia suposedly achieved a 230 Mhz increase, you can't just atribute it to process. Not lightly and without giving it a thought or two.
Posted on Reply
#4
mandis
Although i'm an avid nvidia fan and expect the new core to perform better overall, I somehow find this test very odd. Lets all wait and see how the cards perform in real world tests, shall we?
Posted on Reply
#5
N3M3515
by: Benetanegia
We are discussing different things. I'm not discussing at which price segment it belongs now, but which chip in the Kepler line this is. Now some people even pretend that GK100 and GK110 never existed and never will, but it does exist and will be released. Just because it may come several months later that does not change the fact that it will and it will be Kepler and it will be bigger than GK104. So by the fact that a faster/bigger Kepler chip is going to be released and was always planned to be released, GK104 is NOT, never was and never will be a high-end chip. it cannot be high-end, when there's something bigger on top of it. Period.
It doesn't matter for crying outloud! GK110 desn't exist in any stores!, and when it is released do you think amd will be empty handed? really?
You can talk all you want about highend midrange, whatever, the fact is GK104 IS highend in the areas that matter and right now it is price, it doesnt matter if internally in nvidia headquartes it is the hero overclocked midrange that beats tahity. When GK110 is launched you can say whatever you want but right now it is as good as NOTHING, vaporware, nada, zero.

So, if i follow your logic, then when in 3 months gk110 is released i can say, bah, that's not 7XXX competition, wait 5 more months for the next amd big thing! and so on and so on, come on......
Posted on Reply
#6
Benetanegia
by: N3M3515
It doesn't matter for crying outloud! GK110 desn't exist in any stores!, and when it is released do you think amd will be empty handed? really?
You can talk all you want about highend midrange, whatever, the fact is GK104 IS highend in the areas that matter and right now it is price, it doesnt matter if internally in nvidia headquartes it is the hero overclocked midrange that beats tahity. When GK110 is launched you can say whatever you want but right now it is as good as NOTHING, vaporware, nada, zero.

So, if i follow your logic, then when in 3 months gk110 is released i can say, bah, that's not 7XXX competition, wait 5 more months for the next amd big thing! and so on and so on, come on......
Again it doesn't matter at what price is sold. HD4800 sold for $250 and was high-end chip, because there was no bigger chip in AMD's lineup. Nvidia designed and taped out from bottom to the top: GK107, GK106, GK104, GK100 and 2 months ago GK110 refresh. Suposedly GK100 was dropped, so it didn't go into production. The fact that Nvidia will not produce a card based on it, does not make it magically dissapear.

So, I don't care if GK100 or GK110 are released in 50 years from now, those are the high-end Kepler and GK104 is mid-range, plain and simple. The fact that Nvidia is able to sell their mid-range chip at high-end prices means nothing.
Posted on Reply
#7
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: Benetanegia
Again it doesn't matter at what price is sold. HD4800 sold for $250 and was high-end chip, because there was no bigger chip in AMD's lineup. Nvidia designed and taped out from bottom to the top: GK107, GK106, GK104, GK100 and 2 months ago GK110 refresh. Suposedly GK100 was dropped, so it didn't go into production. The fact that Nvidia will not produce a card based on it, does not make it magically dissapear.

So, I don't care if GK100 or GK110 are released in 50 years from now, those are the high-end Kepler and GK104 is mid-range, plain and simple. The fact that Nvidia is able to sell their mid-range chip at high-end prices means nothing.
well it means that nvidia mid range is able to compete with AMD High-end
Posted on Reply
#8
Benetanegia
by: nvidiaintelftw
well it means that nvidia mid range is able to compete with AMD High-end
Ha. Yeah. But it does not make a chip that sits in the middle of the lineup and hence is mid-range by its very definition, a high-end chip.
Posted on Reply
#9
Crap Daddy
by: BlackOmega
Pathetic. It barely beats a 7970. But there's something awry with the results. The 7970 should've scored higher than 7700, especially with the CPU clocked as high as it is.
What's pathetic? A smaller chip designed initially to be "performance" that uses less power beats the AMD high-end? What did you expect +40%??

But just let's wait for proper reviews. As far as I know there's no 8xAA setting in BF3. Instead there's 4XMSAA.
Posted on Reply
#10
Dent1
by: BlackOmega
Pathetic. It barely beats a 7970. But there's something awry with the results. The 7970 should've scored higher than 7700, especially with the CPU clocked as high as it is.
I agree its disappointing (not pathetic), lets be honest, its bearly faster than the 7970, at par at best. Only Lost Planet shows a significant lead.

Arkham City gets disqualified because its Nvidia optimised with Physx.

Pricing, not performance is going to seperate these two beastly cards. Hopefully Nvidia isnt silly enough to price the GTX 680 $100 above the 7970 for neglectable performance increase.
Posted on Reply
#11
m1dg3t
Maybe 7970 is "high end" because they knew Nvidia was left pissing in the wind early this round so they held back? :rolleyes: We can all speculate all we want, and we have been! I can't recall the last time i saw SO much hype over a freakin' GFX card! :shadedshu

Nvidia REALLy know's how to get people going :laugh:

My money, if these card's don't get down to ~$300 in a hurry, will be on the next "gen" card's which will more than likely be refreshed 28nm GPU's, early adopter's ALWAYS pay the price ;) Thank you :respect:

@ Bene: Untill they put it into MFG and off the paper it DOES NOT EXIST. None of it does.

w00t^^ Another useless post! :slap:
Posted on Reply
#12
Capitan Harlock
by: sanadanosa
880MHz HD6970 VS 732MHZ GTX 570, Is that an overclocked HD6970???
i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz
Posted on Reply
#13
General Lee
Yeah, the 8xAA is kinda fishy. Even if it were possible to force it in BF3 (I doubt it since the deferred lighting engine probably won't accept override MSAA) I doubt these tests are all that relevant for most people.

Looks like GK104 will be the only card Nvidia has to compete against AMD for the time being. That's what ultimately matters, what cards people can buy. There's always a faster card coming at some point, but do you really want to wait that long?
Posted on Reply
#14
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: Dent1
I agree its disappointing (not pathetic), lets be honest, its bearly faster than the 7970, at par at best. Only Lost Planet shows a significant lead.

Arkham City gets disqualified because its Nvidia optimised with Physx.

Pricing, not performance is going to seperate these two beastly cards. Hopefully Nvidia isnt silly enough to price the GTX 680 $100 above the 7970 for neglectable performance increase.
how is it dissapointing? again, The GTX680 uses the GK104 chip which is the mainstream performance chip to replace the gtx560ti. It uses less power and quite a bit smaller and its on par if not a bit better then AMDs flagship. That in my books is not dissapointing.
Posted on Reply
#15
m1dg3t
by: Capitan Harlock
i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz
They prolly showed the new "dynamic clocking" feature ;)
Posted on Reply
#16
Crap Daddy
by: Capitan Harlock
i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz
That's the default clock. But it's more complicated with Kepler clocks, Wizz will explain better.
Posted on Reply
#17
Benetanegia
by: m1dg3t
@ Bene: Untill they put it into MFG and off the paper it DOES NOT EXIST. None of it does.
And lol, of course they manufactured it. Test samples. How do you think they (suposedly*) decided to scrap it? What do you think that tape out means to begin with? Tape out means to send it for production. You think they intercepted the mail once they sent it out? Called TSMC and cancelled the waffers in mid-production? LOL. No. They sent it, TSMC manufactured test waffers, Nvidia got fisrt silicon, they tested it and didn't like what they saw. They probably made changes and went for A2 silicon and only after seing that GF100 story was somehow repeating, then decided to scrap it.

*Because we don't know 100% if it trully is cancelled and not just post-poned (B1 silicon) either.
Posted on Reply
#20
NHKS
by: MetalRacer
I was expecting more from the GTX 680.

http://img.techpowerup.org/120316/Capture405.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/120316/Capture406.jpg
Oh my! that's impressive(@1006MHz).. I dont mean to say this is the end all way to compare the 2 cards(at same clocks).. but.... what i am saying is 7970 is definitely no push over and nvidia must not take it lightly.. surely, once reviews come out we will get a clearer picture..

thanks, MetalRacer..:rockout:


so nvidia, if u really want to be unbeatable.. bring out the GK100/110 :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#21
Evolved
Too bad the GTX 680 is just a rebranded GTX 670.

Nice little trick Nvidia is doing there.

This is not the "official" GTX 680 (which they will rebrand as GTX 690).

Also, just OC the 7970, and you have the equivalent. I betting the GTX 680 (aka 670) will be slightly more in price.
Posted on Reply
#22
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: Evolved
Too bad the GTX 680 is just a rebranded GTX 670.

Nice little trick Nvidia is doing there.

This is not the "official" GTX 680 (which they will rebrand as GTX 690).

Also, just OC the 7970, and you have the equivalent. I betting the GTX 680 (aka 670) will be slightly more in price.
what? the 670 isn't even out, how is the 680 rebranded 670? And how will they rebrand it a 690 when the 690 is coming in may apparently which is 2 GK104s on one PCB.
Posted on Reply
#23
Fluffmeister
This is gold, if this is all true Nv must be laughing. :laugh: The margins on this little monster are gonna be great.

Guys, get buying those 7970's now, AMD would appreciate the cash.
Posted on Reply
#24
NHKS
Some info on nV's GPU Boost..





if these are known already, pls let me know..

& 3Dmark11 power consumption..
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment