Does NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 680 meet your expectations ?

[INSTG8R]

I'm in the belief that AMD and Nvidia like to talk to each other when it comes to releasing cards. GTX7XX series and HD8XXX series will release very close to one another and I'm going to go way out on a limb (sarcasm) and say that their next top end cards will be close in terms of performance again. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer kind of thing.

Well TSMC is the one holding the cards here seeing as they are manufacturing for both Teams. Heck Kepler and Tahiti may be "running down the assembly line" side by side, might even touch each other

 

[jihadjoe]

Performance: "Even better than expected"
Price: "I was hoping for more (less $)" / "Doesn't matter, not upgrading soon"

Really amazing how much performance they managed to get out of a chip that's even smaller than the 560Ti. Shame that it's priced so high. If not for TSMC's yield issues, they could price these at $300 and totally obliterate the market like G92 did.

Edit:
For the "clock-for-clock" crowd, HH has an OC comparison where the 7970 is actually clocked higher than the 680 (linked on the front page).

 

[ISI300]

Here's what's going in my mind:
Kepler 1008MHz, 7970 925MHz
Kepler= less compute capability than 7970 (massively), therefore smaller die size
Kepler= Lower inner bandwidth than 7970, matters in places
7970= More memory modules and larger die than Kepler= more production cost= more price
Kepler GK104 architecture= Optimized for Gaming only, Tahiti optimized for both gaming and Compute
but for what I'm thinking, kepler is now a more clever way overall if you consider all of what I've just said.

 

[phanbuey]

Performance: "Even better than expected"
Price: "I was hoping for more (less $)" / "Doesn't matter, not upgrading soon"

Really amazing how much performance they managed to get out of a chip that's even smaller than the 560Ti. Shame that it's priced so high. If not for TSMC's yield issues, they could price these at $300 and totally obliterate the market like G92 did.

Edit:
For the "clock-for-clock" crowd, HH has an OC comparison where the 7970 is actually clocked higher than the 680 (linked on the front page).

I really dont think this is the issue... its not yield issues that cause this card to be priced so high, but AMD price gouging the 7970, I really think this card was supposed to be released in the $400 range when they initially placed it. AMD's pricing/performance caught them off guard.

 

[ISI300]

It isn't a compelling upgrade on the performance side but with taking a look at the whole picture with power consumption then it makes the disappointing jump in performance a bit more justifiable.
I want GK110 and a 50-60% jump over the GTX 580 then I'll think about upgrading.

So you are actually thinking about UPgrading from 2 6990s to a 780 or whatever it's called? Wouldn't your current setup thrash that?

 

[radrok]

So you are actually thinking about UPgrading from 2 6990s to a 780 or whatever it's called? Wouldn't your current setup thrash that?

If the 780 proves to perform atleast 40-50% more than the GTX580 a dual 780 would give more performance than 6990 crossfire, scaling after the second GPU is narrowed to a point that makes no sense to go over 3.

I said 3 because it has been proven to remove CFX/SLI microstuttering with a third GPU

 

[INSTG8R]

I have to sum it up like this for me.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Yes, how dare nVIDIA sell a faster card for cheaper.

 

[Outback Bronze]

Kepler = win? Yes.

 

[WhoDecidedThat]

In my opinion they should have made GK104 WITH 6 64-bit controllers and 3 GB RAM.

I am still waiting to see what the Sapphire Radeon HD 7970 Atomic WC AND the EVGA GTX 680 Classified Hydro copper bring to the table.
But the war is sure heating up. SPARTAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jurassic1024]

All the other added features are nice but enthusiests look for raw overclock performance. Why else do we overvolt, watercool, and tweak?

LMAO. You don't have a clue, do you?

 

[Jurassic1024]

It doesn't really matter to me, but I was expecting more. Clock for clock the GTX 680 and HD 7970 are quite close. I was expecting a larger gap. I would of liked to possibly see more ram on the 680 as well at launch.

More RAM really? Obviously you haven't seen a review. I think what you meant was you expected a larger memory bus. Memory alone will not do much of ANYTHING, except for multi monitor setups and we know their are fewer of those than anyone with a single high end GPU, therefore a very very very small number of users. And certainly not enough of them to warrant a bump in VRAM on all cards which would just raise the price for everyone to accommodate a VERY small number of users. You want more VRAM? Then buy a non reference card with 3 or 4GB. Or did you forget that they do that EVERY DAMN YEAR for AMD and nVIDIA cards. Hmmm, I wonder how many of those they sell each year, and what benefit do they really offer to justify the added cost. My guess? Not much.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/13

^Who comes out on top with 1GB LESS VRAM @ 2560x1600?

 

[Jurassic1024]

i have to sum it up like this for me.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2388/nvidiai.png

-1

 

[Vendor]

too high the price, unaffordability at it's best lol.

 

[TheHunter]

No not worth it, because Nvidia didn't react with 580gtx pricing when AMD released 7970.


Now If nvidia lowered it a bit (like now apparently ~ 330$), AMD would be forced to sell 7970 at lower price. But since neither happened we see what we see now, Nvidia screwing us over 2 times lol

Also the fact is so low in direct compute, even vs 560TI most of the time.. The only game that's worth mentioning is BF3, i bet NV build this 680gtx specifically with BF3 in mind, lol that's why it "shines so good" there.. but overall its still a 350$ gpu in my book, everything screams mid-range; ram bandwidth, 4PWM, ram size, power plugs...

Yeah they did a good job catching up AMDs "flagship" 7970, but that's not good enough, not for that price.

 

[EarthDog]

I still havent learned that with polls that go on the front page, YOU CANT VOTE FOR THEM IN A THREAD.

Wow is that annoying. LOL

 

[mab1376]

The performance increase at best for me is >=20%

Which for me doesn't seem worth the price unless I can unload my current card for at least half the price 680.

I might save up for a 690 whenever they get released.

I'm looking for the max ROI, usually I have to wait 2-3 gens before upgrading where I feel like I'm getting my money's worth, especially since I never buy mid range cards.

 

[THE_EGG]

Can we update this to the GTX 690 ?

 

[washd123]

They're selling their new top end card, which beats AMD's new top end card, for the same price the previous top card debuted at, which is cheaper than AMD's price on their top end card.

On top of that it uses less power, runs cooler, and is quieter than anything else.

How is this in any way shape or form disappointing?

 

[D007]

I just miss the days, when the mid range card, was like 300 and the top end one, was like 600...

Can I change my vote from: "I'm not upgrading soon."
To: "Shit my gpu just died, so good timing"?

 

[techtard]

This poll is pretty old, maybe you should re-do it, but with the GTX 670 instead.

 

[RigRebel]

No not worth it, because Nvidia didn't react with 580gtx pricing when AMD released 7970.


Now If nvidia lowered it a bit (like now apparently ~ 330$), AMD would be forced to sell 7970 at lower price. But since neither happened we see what we see now, Nvidia screwing us over 2 times lol

Also the fact is so low in direct compute, even vs 560TI most of the time.. The only game that's worth mentioning is BF3, i bet NV build this 680gtx specifically with BF3 in mind, lol that's why it "shines so good" there.. but overall its still a 350$ gpu in my book, everything screams mid-range; ram bandwidth, 4PWM, ram size, power plugs...

Yeah they did a good job catching up AMDs "flagship" 7970, but that's not good enough, not for that price.

Quote > "Nvidia didn't react with 580gtx pricing when AMD released 7970".

First off: Nvidia didn't have to react by lowering their GTX 580 prices because they are the ones that set the lower and correct price to begin with and for the last 3 x80 series, including the 480,580 and 680, all of which have been released at the same exact $500.00 price tag (without inflation mind you) since 2010. It was AMD that came out higher (UPDATED: EDITED FOR CORRECT FACTS http://www.anandtech.com/show/5261/amd-radeon-hd-7970-review) at @$550.00 and I'm sure I saw seller gouging at @$750.00 a video card. AMD were the ones that "had to react" and lower their prices to fall in line with the market that Nvidia set because the GTX 680 was marginally better and @ less money at release; so, you have it twisted. Most if not all the reviews will confirm that what made/makes kepler nice was that it not only performed on par if not slightly better than the 7970, it is cheaper.

Here's the quote from ANANDTECH WHEN THE GTX 680 RELEASED >> "Last but not least, let’s talk about pricing and availability. GTX 680 is the successor to GTX 580 and NVIDIA will be pricing it accordingly, with an MSRP of $500. This is the same price that the GTX 580 and GTX 480 launched at back in 2010, and while it’s consistent for an x80 video card it’s effectively a conservative price given GK104’s die size."]" Did you see that ? same price as both the previous GTX 580 and the 480.. .here's the link fact check. >>> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/n...80-review...

...And meanwhile the 7970 came out at what (UPDATED AND CORRECTED) @ $550.00 ?? lolz. I think you got it twisted. AMD is the price gouger not Nvidia. Proof positive is Nvidia hasn't changed it's top lvl pricing on x80 GPUs for 3 series ! Not for inflation, not to captalize on new technology, not even because "they only care about themselves". Infact the fact that they haven't raise release prices on their top x80 cards in 3 whole seires PROVES they are dedicated to offering the best products they can at the fair equivalent value and to do what the fans expect. AMD's the one that tried to grope your pockets. It's AMD that came in with higher prices to take adavantage of the market and saturate the press with hollow "best sing gpu" boasts before Nvidia even came to the table with the GTX 680. And before you say, "thus AMD had the technology first" no, actaully AMD, with the 7000 seires, is just now ditching their inline processing architecture in hopes of going dual read to catch up with Fermi. AMD was actually a lap behind and just "appeared" in the lead lol... IMO.

Also, the game manufacturer made BF3 to work best with the Nvidia GTX series not the other way around... you have that backwards. The GTX 500 series card came out about 1 year before the game (lol) and the game was tuned to run better specifically on the Nvidia cards. What "makes" the GTX 500 and 600 series run better is for the most part the tesallation handling both in game on on the cards... The game was specifically tuned during developement to work with the tesallation handling of the GTX 500 series. But, if you know video cards, you'd also know, this is nothing new. Game manufactures have been tweaking games to run with the best video card technologies since Doom 3 was "supposed to" be tailored for the Nvida GTX 8800 series back in 2006-2007. I say "supposed to" because Nvidia uses software encoding (as apposed to then ATI's hardware encoding) and it failed misserably with bad drivers on game release. The problem didn't get fixed for 3 months and that's probably the ONLY time I personally remember ATI (at that time) having a huge advantage over Nvidia because Nvidia was out of commission on one of the biggest (and floppiest) game launches ever, and ATI ran with it.

Finally, ATI/AMD has ALSO had games tailor fit to run on it better... example AVP and STarcraft 2... so don't negative spin it to make it look like Nvidia is an evil monster tricking us all by having games made to run best on it because it's a popular practice for BOTH manufactures to have tailor fit games...
Do your homework.
check your facts please before you banwagon one way or another. thanks.

 

[erocker]

And meanwhile the 7970 came out at what $750.00 ??

No, not even close. This thread isn't about the 7970 in the first place.

 

[RigRebel]

No, not even close. This thread isn't about the 7970 in the first place.

No the thread is about the GTX 680 but hunter started taking it off topic with the GTX 580 and 7970 incorrect facts and opinions first; and he was corrected with supported links and facts.

No not worth it, because Nvidia didn't react with 580gtx pricing when AMD released 7970.


Now If nvidia lowered it a bit (like now apparently ~ 330$), AMD would be forced to sell 7970 at lower price. But since neither happened we see what we see now, Nvidia screwing us over 2 times lol

Also the fact is so low in direct compute, even vs 560TI most of the time.. The only game that's worth mentioning is BF3, i bet NV build this 680gtx specifically with BF3 in mind, lol that's why it "shines so good" there.. but overall its still a 350$ gpu in my book, everything screams mid-range; ram bandwidth, 4PWM, ram size, power plugs...

Yeah they did a good job catching up AMDs "flagship" 7970, but that's not good enough, not for that price.

What was the original release price of the Radeon 7970 because when I checked about 2-3 months ago it was @$750.00 usd.

 

[erocker]

No the thread is about the GTX 680 but hunter started taking it off topic with the GTX 580 and 7970 incorrect facts and opinions first; and he was corrected with supported links and facts.

So I ask you not to do the same.