GTX680 performance preview at HKEPC

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

More details here:

http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/2#view

I took pictures just in case.

The BF3 chart has been updated.

It looks like the die comes to around 319MM2 in area not the published 294MM2. It seems similar in size to the GF104 and GF114.

Another website has backed up the pictures:

http://www.bouweenpc.nl/nieuws/hardware/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-uitgelekt

 

[phanbuey]

Holy crap. That is fast...

 

[the54thvoid]

Interesting you can't see the radeons BF3 score.....

 

[dir_d]

Does that match what w1zz gets for the 7970?

 

[Aquinus]

Honestly, if these are legit, with all of the hype coming out of Kepler, those speeds are a little disappointing for the hype nVidia generated. Not to say this would fail, but it doesn't exactly put the 7970 to shame because we all know how well the 7970 can over-clock. The 680 better over-clock like a champ if they don't expect to get greif over this, because these numbers aren't staggering, they're almost comparable.

 

[Recus]

The 680 better over-clock

1.4 Ghz if true.

 

[the54thvoid]

Honestly, if these are legit, with all of the hype coming out of Kepler, those speeds are a little disappointing for the hype nVidia generated. Not to say this would fail, but it doesn't exactly put the 7970 to shame because we all know how well the 7970 can over-clock. The 680 better over-clock like a champ if they don't expect to get greif over this, because these numbers aren't staggering, they're almost comparable.

This card wasn't meant to compete with 7970. This is the card they were going to use for the mainstream but instead saw that their (NV's) mainstream card would go toe to toe with AMD's best single gpu. Daddy Kepler (long way off) will be the proper high end card.

Lets wait for W1zz's review to see the perf/watt and other factors before making judgements. Personally, I hope it's mediocre so i can go and buy a water block for a 7970.

 

[brandonwh64]

If you notice the clocks here and in the other thread, the GTX 680 is Overclocked and not at its factory clocks in these tests. This makes the test biased

 

[the54thvoid]

If you notice the clocks here and in the other thread, the GTX 680 is Overclocked and not at its factory clocks in these tests. This makes the test biased

Clocks are at 1006. We don't know yet if that is overclocked or stock. Also, if that is part of the core boost system touted GK104 has. NDA is still up so this review is being taken pic by pic - we need a Chinese translator to guide the light.

 

[Jon A. Silvers]

they better put some tests with games like metro 2033 and shogun 2 ,to see real difference between them,and to test it also on higher resolution.
I thought that Nvidia have stop making gpu`s with shader clock higher than the gpu . with them you`ll never know on what ground you stand. Amd was careful with the speed of the new gen gpu over the last,cause they don`t want to make them obsolete when new gen comes out.
Nvidia shows that they haves a very good oc on new gpu.
Hope that we will see a huge price drop in previous gen,and a moderate in new amd.

http://translate.google.com/transla...view-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-uitgelekt&act=url

 

[phanbuey]

At the end of the day, if a card is within 10% of another, they are virtually identical to the naked eye. It will come down to pricing and features.

It looks like either the 680 has alot left in the tank, or is heavily optimized for 3dmark11.

 

[yapchagi]

what? It's only around 35% faster than GTX 580? I guess GTX 580 3GB 2-way SLI is better then.
Or better off with 2x GTX 660 2 GB 2-way SLI. Maybe around $300 each card.

 

[Crap Daddy]

What driver they were using?

 

[arnoo1]

i want to see a overclocker that will only os the shader, i think there's the most performans

 

[yapchagi]

that heaven benchmark result is weird. I'm getting 73 fps running 2x GTX 480 SLI.
1920x1080 8xAA, everything else the highest 16xAF, Tess Extreme, etc.

If I use a single GTX 480, I would probably get about half of it, which is 36 fps.
36 fps is already more than the GTX 580 at 34.9 fps on the graph.

I'm only using Core i7 950 @3.8 GHZ. That benchmark used Core i7 3960X.

 

[nt300]

Holy crap. That is fast...

You mean disappointing right

The only reason why the GTX680 is winning slightly is Nvidia's GPU Boost feature that auto increase the gpu clock speed. Why don't we compare with an overclocked HD 7970 and see how it fairs.

 

[erocker]

You mean disappointing right

The only reason why the GTX680 is winning slightly is Nvidia's GPU Boost feature that auto increase the gpu clock speed. Why don't we compare with an overclocked HD 7970 and see how it fairs.

Only thing disappointing about it is the price. The GPU is smaller than 7970, memory bus is smaller, less shaders... If Nvidia were to price this sub $400 dollars they would have a real winner.

 

[Over_Lord]

Is it me or HD7970's scores seem abnormally low?

And there goes Kepler's 3x GTX580 scores out of the window

 

[20mmrain]

Is it me or HD7970's scores seem abnormally low?

And there goes Kepler's 3x GTX580 scores out of the window

Coming from an owner of two HD 7970's with only a i7 2600k Yeah the HD 7970 score seems abnormally slow. I get better FPS and scores then that with one card and I can verify that on everything but the Lost planet 2 (That is the only one I don't have downloaded!) These GTX 680 scores are little exaggerated I would also guess!

Case and point @ stock 1 7970....

Example 2...

You see there can be only one explanation for this!!! I am secretly running a GTX 680 under a different name!

 

[yapchagi]

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46251&stc=1&d=1331955866

Run it with Tessellation Extreme, 8x AA, 16x AF, everything else the highest 1920x1080.
I got 73 fps with GTX 480 2-way SLI, with one probably half of it.

 

[Aquinus]

Coming from an owner of two HD 7970's with only a i7 2600k Yeah the HD 7970 score seems abnormally slow. I get better FPS and scores then that with one card and I can verify that on everything but the Lost planet 2 (That is the only one I don't have downloaded!) These GTX 680 scores are little exaggerated I would also guess!

Case and point @ stock 1 7970....

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46250&stc=1&d=1331955338

Example 2...

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46251&stc=1&d=1331955866

You see there can be only one explanation for this!!! I am secretly running a GTX 680 under a different name!

Stock 6870s in CFX gives me P8469 3DMarks. I wouldn't call that low for a single stock 7970.

 

[20mmrain]

Run it with Tessellation Extreme, 8x AA, 16x AF, everything else the highest 1920x1080.
I got 73 fps with GTX 480 2-way SLI, with one probably half of it.

Well at Extreme I got 45.0 FPS which is with in 1.1 of the supposed GTX 680. Which if you ask me is with in error range easy. Which according to the above benchmark doesn't even say it was done at extreme all it says was X8AA so for all we know this is a useless bench.
I terms of against your GTX 480's not exactly half huh.... Much better then half. In terms of me being on WC I bet I could overclock to meet your score if not very close. I guess what my point is with all of this while I understand my specs are not exactly the same as the test system above (In theory actually lower) is that some examples will show anything to give a bias sometimes. I am not say the real GTX 680 won't be faster then the HD 7970 it might be.... But It might not be as much as some people are showing.

Stock 6870s in CFX gives me P8469 3DMarks. I wouldn't call that low for a single stock 7970.

What I was calling slow was the benchmarks of the HD 7970 above. Meaning how ever these benches were taken above (In the article) the HD 7970 had some other variable or they were crippling in order to get those scores.

 

[Shinj]

According to the article, the GPU base frequency will be 1006Mhz and GPU Boost frequency will be 1058Mhz. However, in games, it will boost even further to between 1097Mhz and 1110Mhz.

So the whole picture (from my impression after reading the article) will be like this:

OCCT/Furmark: 1006Mhz
Power Hungry 3D Apps (3dmarks): 1058Mhz, ~5% increase from stock
Common Games (Battlefield 3/Heaven 3.0 and most recent games): 1097Mhz/1110Mhz, ~10% increase from stock

Now to proper compare with a 7970, can someone please run 7970 at a 5% increase/10% increase from 7970 stock clock in 3dmarks/Games respectively? We all know 7970 is a great clocker and it's a secret why AMD clock it so low in the first place.

With that said, we can't deny the fact that GPU boost is a cool feature to have on a GPU. Kudos to NVIDIA
Now let's see what AMD has to answer?

 

[Dent1]

To the OP. The battlefield 3 screenshot is incorrect. Moderator btarunr has confirmed its a mistake in the official thread on the front page, the screenshot below is the correct BF3 screenshot.

Please update your post so we have an accurate idea of performance.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The OP has now been updated. Thanks for reminding me Dent1!