Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

GTX 680 Vs. GTX 670

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 11, 2013 4:42:51 PM

I know this is kind of odd, but I've been seeing a slew of mixed opinions about these two cards. I want to know which graphics card is better overall, the GTX 680 or the GTX 670 in non SLI. Thanks in advance :) 

More about : gtx 680 gtx 670

Best solution

a c 83 U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 4:49:22 PM

The GTX 680 is faster, plain and simple. But the GTX 670 is a better deal. It's only a bit slower, but it's significantly cheaper.
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:02:11 PM

10% slower for a hundred bucks less. Much better deal.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:04:34 PM

670 is less money, and not noticeably slower. If you plan to SLI, it works out as alot cheaper. Makes little sense to go with the 680 other than when it was released and the 670 didn't exist.

That said, wait it out. New Nvidia stuff this month.
m
0
l
a c 127 U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:07:34 PM

Apart from some extra CUDA cores, the 680 is basically a higher binned, overclocked 670. Exact same GPU, VRAM and memory bus under there.
The 670 is $100 cheaper for a minimal performance difference, which can be made up by overclocking.
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:07:39 PM

About 8% performance difference between the two at stock. I have noticed that it seems like the GTX 680 can reach higher overclocks, so it probably extends its advantage by a few percent when overclocked.


http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_670...


Here's what ~8% looks like though.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:08:17 PM

Although pics and rumors are flying about the 700 series, I don't expect them to show up this month. Third quarter seems more likely. You never know though as both companies are messing with the time tables a lot lately.
m
0
l
a c 639 U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:18:18 PM

GTX 780 May 23rd, GTX 770 May 30.
m
0
l
May 11, 2013 5:18:20 PM

Mine brand new msi 670 power edition shows that it can be easily OCed to 680 level. I have mine stable at 1060(1120 with boost)\7000 (from 915\6008) and it's actually faster than 680... Given the price difference - 670 is surely better deal.
And please correct me if i'm wrong, but you cant burn your card without altering the voltage.
Damn 670 is a 680 with 200 broken CUDA cores, which you dont really need.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 5:31:53 PM



Ivan Erohin said:
Mine brand new msi 670 power edition shows that it can be easily OCed to 680 level. I have mine stable at 1060(1120 with boost)\7000 (from 915\6008) and it's actually faster than 680... Given the price difference - 670 is surely better deal.
And please correct me if i'm wrong, but you cant burn your card without altering the voltage.
Damn 670 is a 680 with 200 broken CUDA cores, which you dont really need.

You can probably cause some damage if you run the core clock way too high a few times, not sure though. Though, the Kepler cards are all voltage locked, so ever if you did set the voltage sky high, it would top out at 1.175, so it wouldn't blow up and kill you. Extremely annoying if you wanted to get higher overclocks.

17seconds said:
GTX 780 May 23rd, GTX 770 May 30.

Really hope thats true because my 670 is currently on Ebay and I'll be pissed if I have to wait months to replace it.
m
0
l
May 11, 2013 5:56:16 PM

Quote:
You can probably cause some damage if you run the core clock way too high a few times, not sure though.

1100 is not "too high" for 670 i guess. It's been stable at kombustor but not in Far Cry 3 so i just rolled back to 1060 and it's fine. And i kinda hate this "dynamic boost" feature.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 6:00:56 PM

Ivan Erohin said:
Quote:
You can probably cause some damage if you run the core clock way too high a few times, not sure though.

1100 is not "too high" for 670 i guess. It's been stable at kombustor but not in Far Cry 3 so i just rolled back to 1060 and it's fine. And i kinda hate this "dynamic boost" feature.

I meant like 1800Mhz high, but I don't know since I think the 3DMark11 benchmark record was on 4 680's at that. You are fine at 1100, I've been at 1254/7000 for months without issue.

Reason you are finding its stable in Kombustor but not elsewhere is because the Nvidia driver forces the card to decrease its core clock in 'burn tests' like Kombustor, makes it look better in reviews I guess because the temperature would be lower.
m
0
l
a c 127 U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 6:05:37 PM

I just fine that applications like Kombuster and Furmark just aren't good for testing stability. I can run overclocks that instantly crash 3DMark 11 and games that will run just fine (without artifacts) in those programs. This was with two different AMD cards (a 7870 and 7970).
They are stress test tools, good for finding a maximum temperature, not good indicators of stability.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 6:28:47 PM

I wouldn't worry to much about overclocking. With no voltage control you are much safer. I don't know if you are interested in SLI, but I recently got back into it with dual 660GTXs for my surround set up. Two ASUS 660gtxs at newegg for 330 bucks on sale. Very fast in single screen and its great on triple LCDs. No issues I couldn't work out either. Just a thought. As for the 700 cards, I still don't expect them this month and really, they may not be that good of a value either from what I've read. We will just have to wait and see.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2013 6:33:46 PM

maestro0428 said:
As for the 700 cards, I still don't expect them this month and really, they may not be that good of a value either from what I've read. We will just have to wait and see.

Well its been a year since the 600's, and the 700 mobile series is out. Though you are right, wait and see I suppose.
m
0
l
May 12, 2013 3:01:58 PM

Thank you all for the contributions. Based on all of your answers, I will go with the GTX 670.
m
0
l
!