• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GTX 680 Generally Faster Than HD 7970: New Benchmarks

Capitan Harlock said:
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
Click to expand...

Nah, you asking about benchmarking 680 and 7970 at same mhz core and memory, and you called 1006mhz 680 is overclocked. According to previews news, 1006mhz is the GTX 680 base clock, and turbo clock is 1058mhz. So, if you still asking about benchmark with same core clock & memory, It's like comparing 880mhz HD6970 with 880mhz GTX 570, is that fair enough for you?
 
185d26e8-60eb-4ad2-b0af-61e2b4b2b343.jpg


So more demand means less base clock.



And I read no where that it uses less power than the 7970.
 
nvidiaintelftw said:
the TDP is less then the HD7970. 195w TDP vs 210w TDP. Im pretty sure you can assume it'll use a bit less power then the 7970
Click to expand...

smaller die size too :laugh:
 
We can only hope those graphs are good, and are not going to cause issues with microstutter.
 
Steevo said:
We can only hope those graphs are good, and are not going to cause issues with microstutter.
Click to expand...

depending on the drivers of course
 
btarunr said:
The test-bed consisted of an extreme-cooled Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition processor (running at stock frequency)
Click to expand...


Why was extreme cooling necessary when its on stock speed?
 
i am not going to comment on this.. :shadedshu
LINK


GTX680_pre-order1.jpg
 
Last edited:
nvidiaintelftw said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think maybe what was meant was that since the x80 is for the high end and x70 is performance, the gk104 wouldve been named 670. But since there is no high end the 670(performance) is upgraded in the name to 680(high end).
 
I dont think this card is as impressive as some people think. AMD left heaps of overclocking headroom, Nvidia have clocked their card higher and have turbo overclocking built in so how much overclocking is left on the card?

An overclocked 7970 can do 11,000 3D mark 11, can the nvidia card do that? Or has the card already been milked? And what happened to 40% better BF3 performance?

Anyway, for me, I can only hope the 680 is faster so I can buy a 7970 for cheaper.
 
Lol the GTX 580 has 0.4gb more memory bandwidge....derp ^_^
 
nvidiaintelftw said:
Expected more from a mid-ranged card?
Click to expand...

Kinda tired of people saying how this is nVidia's mid-range card when...it's not. If it was, they would have named it as such. Hell, they could have still named it a GTX 660 with that price and do even more damage to AMD in terms of halting sales since it would give enthusiast gamers the illusion that a "high end" GK100/110/whatever is on the way...

If this card is indeed the GTX 680, we should just accept it and look towards better driver support and features that actually improve the gaming experience (i.e. TXAA).

That, or wait for their next generation of chips...
 
sanadanosa said:
It's pre-order or something? If it's true, damn, that price tag is higher than 7970
Click to expand...

Seems fine to me, the 7970 ranges from 440 to 510 € here in Europe and if it performs better than the 7970 then we could see a drop in price from AMD/ATi
 
Kaynar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree ,At least they are neck and neck,But when a benchmark with cuda favor it pulls ahead.Lets wait and see if AMD comes out with an update in the q2.
 
farquaid said:
I think maybe what was meant was that since the x80 is for the high end and x70 is performance, the gk104 wouldve been named 670. But since there is no high end the 670(performance) is upgraded in the name to 680(high end).
Click to expand...

well it would have been called the 660 with the logic that the gk104 is suppose to replace the 560ti(gf114)
 
buggalugs said:
I dont think this card is as impressive as some people think. AMD left heaps of overclocking headroom, Nvidia have clocked their card higher and have turbo overclocking built in so how much overclocking is left on the card?

An overclocked 7970 can do 11,000 3D mark 11, can the nvidia card do that? Or has the card already been milked? And what happened to 40% better BF3 performance?

Anyway, for me, I can only hope the 680 is faster so I can buy a 7970 for cheaper.
Click to expand...

I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card. ;)
 
nvidiaintelftw said:
I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card. ;)
Click to expand...

I think some people are forgetting that it turned out not to be seeing as it's being released as the GTX 680. If GK100 were out there we'd probably be seeing that instead. I wouldn't think Nvidia would hold back it's strongest cards just to make AMD not look as bad. They would have taken it as a chance to pull ahead this year, having GK 104 as their mid-range.

But GK104 is the top end for this generation, unless they release a 685 or 680ti or whatnot. Which means either Nvidia figured they would make more profits this way (which doesn't make sense as they'd be able to get larger shipments running this card lower and owning the market for performance/ price, meaning anyone but the damnest AMD fanboys would buy their cards. = larger profit and more marketshare.) or B. there was an issue with getting GK100 out, whatever it may be.

In any case, I'll wait to see some more official benchmarks before reaching a conclusion on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top