Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gtx 680 opinions ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 22, 2012 3:18:37 PM

With the release of the gtx 680 im thinking about building a new system but from what i've been seening people aren't happy with it ? im not sure about it but in benchmarks seems like a really good card for its price.

Also wondering about what cpu to get that won't bottle neck this gpu i was thinking along the lines of a i5 2500k but then again might just wait for non referance cards and ivy bridge before making that decision.

More about : gtx 680 opinions

March 22, 2012 3:21:55 PM

Solid card. No reason to buy a 7970 until its price drops to $500.

If you're not willing to overclock, the 680 is a major win and will always be worth the purchase over the 7970 unless the 7970 is cheaper. If you're willing to overclock, they're about the same.
March 22, 2012 3:24:20 PM

BigMack70 said:
Solid card. No reason to buy a 7970 until its price drops to $500.

If you're not willing to overclock, the 680 is a major win and will always be worth the purchase over the 7970 unless the 7970 is cheaper. If you're willing to overclock, they're about the same.


Yep I'm willing to overclock the card, but i will probably be waiting for a non reference card as they should hopefully have better cooling.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 3:48:57 PM

For what it is, the GTX 680 is a steal right now.
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:02:11 PM

Chainzsaw said:
For what it is, the GTX 680 is a steal right now the HD7970 is $100 overpriced


Fixed. $500 gaming graphics cards are never a steal.
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:07:30 PM

Lol true. Lets remember that for the same price you can sli gtx 480s, xfire 6950s, or sli 560tis.
March 22, 2012 4:12:04 PM

Max1s said:
Lol true. Lets remember that for the same price you can sli gtx 480s, xfire 6950s, or sli 560tis.


yup, but I'm not a big fan of sli/xfire yes the overall fps may be better but the minimum fps is usually lower and a don't really like it when the frames fluctuate that much.
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:29:37 PM

I will write exactly what I wrote in another thread:
Just checked some reviews.

Basically Nvidia GTX 680 is faster, less noise, consumes less, have a better performance/watt, finally have multimonitors support, and it's cheaper than the AMD HD7970.

I can't see how AMD will sell their HD7970 unless it's priced cheaper than GTX 680. They need to slash about 100 dollars to make it a good buy.
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:35:58 PM

For the sake of what we are going to have to shell out for future nvidia cards, I really hope this isn't the decline of AMDs future in graphics. It seems like they are already dead or dying in the CPU market. (Even though alot of die-hards buy bulldozer... :-P)
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:40:12 PM

Max1s said:
For the sake of what we are going to have to shell out for future nvidia cards, I really hope this isn't the decline of AMDs future in graphics. It seems like they are already dead or dying in the CPU market. (Even though alot of die-hards buy bulldozer... :-P)


For high performance CPUs the corrected statement is true.

Intel launched Xeon CPUs that are faster, and consumes less than the workstation oriented bulldozer.
AMD said at november, 2011 that won't be more Intel x AMD, that AMD will focus on lesser CPUs, like low power, low consumption, and not high performance. (The article is even here at Toms Hardware)
March 22, 2012 4:41:28 PM

I'm excited for the arrival of GTX680 cuz I hope they slash the prices. I've been eyeing the 6850 for a couple months. I would buy Nvidia, but they don't have a card in the same price range with the same performance and low wattage. But if Nvidia comes out with a 6850 or 6870 fighter with low wattage and low price tag, I'm all over it. Actually if Nvidia had a card that was $130 that was as low wattage as the 6850 and performed a tad better...I would buy 2. $260 for SLI GTX6xx has to be better than a $250 GTX 570. Purely hypothetical...but waiting for it!
a c 116 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:45:17 PM

vitornob said:
I will write exactly what I wrote in another thread:
Just checked some reviews.

Basically Nvidia GTX 680 is faster, less noise, consumes less, have a better performance/watt, finally have multimonitors support, and it's cheaper than the AMD HD7970.

I can't see how AMD will sell their HD7970 unless it's priced cheaper than GTX 680. They need to slash about 100 dollars to make it a good buy.


The 7970 still has a large advantage at the benchmarks which really count. Intensive games such as Metro 2033 and Crysis2 are lead by the 7970. Metro is not even playable at max settings with anything less than dual 7970s. The 680 having a performance lead at 2560x1600 on console port trash, DX9 games and games with horrible image quality to begin with is not a clear benefit when the 7970 can still play them topped out at more than 60 FPS anyway. There is no performance difference between 110 FPS and 120 FPS, look at image quality instead.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 4:51:45 PM

I have to say I like the card a lot. It has delivered on all my expectations on performance and power.
Unfortunately the cost and positioning greatly annoy me. Pretty much all the reviews point out what I have been saying for a day or so now. Its a mid high range GPU as far as the Nvidia roadmap is concerned and as such it shouldn't be priced anywhere near where it is.
AMD priced the 7970 indefensibly high 50% mark up for 30% gain over the older card. You could say Nvidia should ignore that and just price the 680 where they were going to. Seriously though would you ?

Personally I would rather drop £300 on two pre overclocked 560 Ti cards that will near as make no difference perform the same as a 680 which is very nearly the same price difference as a third 560 Ti at £130 extra, pity you cant use a third.
PLEASE NOTE I'M USING £ NOT $

So great card. unfortunately way to high price wise but you cant really blame Nvidia for making the most of what has fallen in its lap. Its going to take a huge price drop from AMD to make the 680 reduce in price.

If you don't mind the price and can afford it then you wont do better at this time.

Mactronix :) 
March 22, 2012 5:38:33 PM

Quote:
Just watched OC3D TTL GTX 680 review and GTX 680 and 7970 are the same performance.


ye i saw that aswell
March 22, 2012 5:39:31 PM

Pinhedd said:
The 7970 still has a large advantage at the benchmarks which really count. Intensive games such as Metro 2033 and Crysis2 are lead by the 7970. Metro is not even playable at max settings with anything less than dual 7970s. The 680 having a performance lead at 2560x1600 on console port trash, DX9 games and games with horrible image quality to begin with is not a clear benefit when the 7970 can still play them topped out at more than 60 FPS anyway. There is no performance difference between 110 FPS and 120 FPS, look at image quality instead.


Must of bought a 7970...How do you test image quality?? Where are those benchmarks??
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 5:57:16 PM

Pinhedd said:
The 7970 still has a large advantage at the benchmarks which really count. Intensive games such as Metro 2033 and Crysis2 are lead by the 7970. Metro is not even playable at max settings with anything less than dual 7970s. The 680 having a performance lead at 2560x1600 on console port trash, DX9 games and games with horrible image quality to begin with is not a clear benefit when the 7970 can still play them topped out at more than 60 FPS anyway. There is no performance difference between 110 FPS and 120 FPS, look at image quality instead.

Metro not playable on max settings on anything less than dual 7970's?? Erm my HD5970 plays it beautifully with 4aa and everything on max. However this is on a 22in Monitor at a res of 1680x1050.
March 22, 2012 6:24:51 PM

Ha! Image quality! That's hilarious! I'm so glad there are comedians on this board.
March 22, 2012 7:43:29 PM

Looks like a good card but need to see how the mid range version performs.

Something tells me AMD has some driver work to do because the 384bit memory interface isn't helping them. NVidia is doing nicely with a smaller 256bit memory interface.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 7:48:10 PM

Cazalan said:
Looks like a good card but need to see how the mid range version performs.

Something tells me AMD has some driver work to do because the 384bit memory interface isn't helping them. NVidia is doing nicely with a smaller 256bit memory interface.


Sadly this is the mid-range card (670).
March 22, 2012 7:54:18 PM

so I found this today, amazon gtx680 price is 499 same price i got my 580 just some months ago >_>, and now I wonder what would be the best option

this 680 or a 580 sli, and what about the future 700 series?

and a 680 vs a single 580...?
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 22, 2012 8:58:08 PM

Looks like a nice card.

Dynamic OC is still a bit weird to grasp my head around. It adjusts the voltage and goes up to 1200 mhz from a stock card just seems strange. Wonder how the OC'ed cards will be like.
March 22, 2012 9:16:11 PM

As a gaming card, the 680 wins in almost everything over the 7970.

They trade some blows, but the 680 is cheaper and uses slightly less power while also being slightly faster overall. The 7970 has 3GB memory compared to the 680's 2GB, but I don't know of many games, even with mods, that need that much memory.

Overclock vs. overclock might be a little different, the 7970 usually clocks pretty well. Still, there isn't any reason to get a 7970 at $550.
Quote:
Dynamic OC is still a bit weird to grasp my head around. It adjusts the voltage and goes up to 1200 mhz from a stock card just seems strange. Wonder how the OC'ed cards will be like.

It makes sense to use dynamic clocks. Some loads don't stress the GPU as much, so they can clock it higher if there is TDP headroom. Even though loads are parallel on the GPU, some still don't stress everything fully.
March 22, 2012 9:56:12 PM

only 2gb on the 680gtx how many of us realy want to risk to buy 2-3sli 680gtx to find out the Vram is a bottleneck ?
March 22, 2012 10:20:43 PM

Quote:
whatever, let;s be realistic here..


Actualy I am. ATI aim the multiple monitor user with his 3gb GPU. BF3 only in 2560x1600 use over 1G of Vram so we can expect its use closer to 2g of vram in 5760x1080.

As I see this the 680gtx is probably going to be the best GPU for 2560x1600 rez user. But for tripple monitor geeks. We need to see further test.
March 22, 2012 10:51:02 PM

Based on thermals and gains from higher clocked cards GK104 dosen't overclock well and gains relatively little performance from it.

7970 however will do 1200 core at less voltage than the 680 putting it ahead. And 7970 has a rediculous amount of DP compared to 680. GCN AKA 7000 series is relatively underclocked at stock where GK104 seems close to internal chip thermals. might fail much sooner.

Personally I really like to use SSAA + Temporal anti alaising + HQ AF + -10 LOD + Alpha blending. Having Tesselation separate from the cores is a bonus. IMO unless NV adapts better quality tweaks IMO Ati Tray Tools makes 7970 a better choice IMO.
March 22, 2012 11:22:06 PM

Quote:
what's your current system specs.?


atm

i5 650 @ 3.2ghz
6gb ddr3 ram 1333hz
sapphire 6870

but, its just not giving me the performance i want so as i said i really think i should get a new system
March 22, 2012 11:36:20 PM

newbie1337 said:
atm

i5 650 @ 3.2ghz
6gb ddr3 ram 1333hz
sapphire 6870

but, its just not giving me the performance i want so as i said i really think i should get a new system


The resolution your going to play is needed.

If your a 1080p user then you don't even need a 500$ card.
March 22, 2012 11:46:19 PM

venur said:
The resolution your going to play is needed.

If your a 1080p user then you don't even need a 500$ card.


Yes i am playing at 1080p but with the 6870 i run high pre sets at 50fps average but the when the fps drops it drops to 30 which for me isn't playable at all, id like to atleast get above 60fps on bf3 on ultra.

i was planning on the 7970 but with the gtx 680 being cheaper i thought why not + the new features of the card look quite good.

another question is should i upgrade my whole system? cause with a gtx 680 i think i will get bottle necked by my cpu
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 12:01:45 AM

the 680's turbo is dependent on temps, card might get slower as time goes on from the card getting hotter?
March 23, 2012 4:15:41 AM

key point to remember is a vast majority of consumer could care less about how 2 500 dollar plus gaming cards compare.

For most gamers the battlegrounds is 180-300 for a card, and for mainstream who want a good card you are talking the 100-180 range.

I honestly APUs will pretty take the under 100 dollar GPU market out.
March 23, 2012 4:28:50 AM

Quote:
APUs will never take any part of the GPU market right out because most of the value in having a separate GPU and CPU is in the fact that you can upgrade either or given necessity and finances available at any given time this is th reason PCs are so great and versatile.

People that buy <$100 GPUs don't really plan on upgrading that often.

The 77xx series is the lowest end on AMD's graphics products, so I'd say APU's have taken out the <$100 GPU market.
a b U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 4:46:42 AM

what i'm interested to know is, given the fact that Gk104 was suppose to be a mainstream card, how much is the actual cost for producing this card ? i mean is nvidia making more money here if board design was actually for the mainstream $250-$300 segment?





March 23, 2012 4:52:03 AM

Quote:
You will still need to upgrade or even downgrade at some point in time and some of us would rather leave the window of opportunity open for a quick and cheap up grade right where it is needed not some all in one all for one closed source solution like the great Apple Inc con.

Most people aren't enthusiasts like us. They buy one machine with the expectation of using it till it dies.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 8:37:40 PM

wh3resmycar said:
what i'm interested to know is, given the fact that Gk104 was suppose to be a mainstream card, how much is the actual cost for producing this card ? i mean is nvidia making more money here if board design was actually for the mainstream $250-$300 segment?



Sounds logical to me.
It could be that they are making a ton, or it could just be they are making a nice profit early or it could mean that its off setting low yield issues so they are doing better than breaking even.
I guess the numbers will tell us when they get released.

Mactronix :) 
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 8:40:19 PM

28nm is more expensive than 40nm. The waffer are like 4x the price so the margins aren't as high as you'd think.
a c 130 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 8:48:36 PM

esrever said:
28nm is more expensive than 40nm. The waffer are like 4x the price so the margins aren't as high as you'd think.


Ok then tell me this, why is the wafer 4X the price ? What's the difference yield wise, if we assume 100% yields (yes I know but humour me). Assuming 100% yields how many 40nm chips do you get from a wafer and how many 28nm chips ?

Mactronix :) 
March 23, 2012 9:03:07 PM

Quote:
That's OK but when they learn that they can save money and get more for there dollar most people change there tone very fast. I am not refuting that whatever they call them APUs Liano I think if I am not mistaken that they do not have there place and proper application but it's at this time very narrow and not cost eefective when a cheap Mobo with on board graphics and a $100 CPU Athlon x4 will go much further into the future.

You can get a Llano for $100 with better graphics than any mobo with integrated. You pay for the graphics chip either way, and it's actually cheaper for AMD to make them into one die. Anybody that plans on buying cheap won't be using the comp for heavy work.
a b U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 9:20:09 PM

For OC and SLI/CFX on the 7970 and the GTX680, go to this thread: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/347564-33-7970-review

I kinda think the GTX680 is a great card, but nVidia placed it WAY too favorably to their bottom line it's disgusting. They're not even trying to grab market from AMD nor they're trying to position the card batter (like AMD did with the 48xx series). Well, that's a corporation I guess, lol.

Anyway, in monster resolutions, looks like the GTX680 won't push much further, but the 7970 has room (in OC and in CFX), plus it's not handicapped (dammit, nVidia, lol) for GPGPU (make it OCL and DirectCompute). The lousy side, is that VCE, which is supposed to be a very good feature to counter QuickSync and nVidia's NVEnc/PureVideo, is not well implemented (Drivers/Software) on AMD's cards as of yet.

If you ask me, right now, what's the better suited card right now for gaming on a single monitor @1080p and you don't care about heat or consumption, go for a cheap GTX580 while they last, period.

Otherwise, it's up to what you want. For $500/$550, I'd say both cards are good if you give them the right use.

Cheers!

EDIT: Missing word.
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 9:29:28 PM

new process has lower yields. expect the 28nm yields to be around 20% while 40nm chips would be like 60+%.

price per 28nm wafer is $5k while the same sized wafer is about $2k for 40nm.

Even if your chip is significantly smaller, the cost and yeilds make the margins relatively low.

1/3 the yields and 2x the price for the waffer means that 40nm chips are cheaper to make as of now. It take time before a new process improves to give much profit.

if there are 100 chips per wafer for 28nm and 50 chips for 40nm

you'd end up paying 5k for 20 good chips or $250 per chip on 28nm while getting 30 chips for 2k or $67 per chip. Its a lot cheaper to build 40nm chips right now and their margins are much higher.

when yields go up and supply goes up for 28nm, the margins will then increase but as of right now, 28nm isn't just magically cheaper just because its smaller.

a c 173 U Graphics card
March 23, 2012 10:24:52 PM

It is a great card but the price isn't right, I also got fooled about the cooler. At first I thought that it had a vapor chamber which would have been great for temps but should have had the common sense of knowing that nvidia is just too damn cheap for that. Overall this might be the next 9800gtx/gtx460 once the price drops back down to earth but buying it before then isn't the best choice unless desperate. Performance is more than most would have thought but they made some good choices in it's design. It can go much further than this given the reference pcb can go 5+2 power vrm phase design instead of the nerfed 4+2. Add the third 6pin connector and let her fly. I would like to think that this card when there is nothing holding it back could go 1.3ghz or higher on air with a good cooler. 1.5ghz maybe on water/phase change but nothing more. As for the 7970 I don't look at is as being less than but just a choice both are amazing cards that few can afford now days. I do want to see other lower end Kepler cards and until then sit and wait for GK110.
a b U Graphics card
March 24, 2012 5:39:25 AM

mactronix said:
Sounds logical to me.
It could be that they are making a ton, or it could just be they are making a nice profit early or it could mean that its off setting low yield issues so they are doing better than breaking even.
I guess the numbers will tell us when they get released.

Mactronix :) 



i remember reading an article featuring JSH stating that they weren't actually making money from the 8800gt when it first came out and it was released at its intended price range. this on the other hand is quite different, a mainstream intended card gutting out AMD's top dog.

but then again yeah, the yield issues just eff things up i guess.

in a perfect world, yield issues never happened, and this card is selling around $250 at launch. in a perfect world.

now it's not yet too late for Microsoft to ditch that silly 6670 on their next gen console and put one of these babies instead. that'll give us a steady staple of console ports branding Unreal4/Cryengine3 at a steady 60fps/stereoscopic3d/1080p for the next decade. it won't be vomit inducing until 2020 at least.


btw. can this play the original crysis at 16xAF/16xAA/1080p at 60fps already??
March 24, 2012 6:50:13 AM

wh3resmycar said:
btw. can this play the original crysis at 16xAF/16xAA/1080p at 60fps already??


That would be a no.
a c 92 U Graphics card
March 24, 2012 7:05:46 AM

16x MSAA in crysis would kill anything...
a b U Graphics card
March 24, 2012 10:35:31 PM

so it would seem that after 5 years, not a single card can still max out crysis...
a b U Graphics card
March 25, 2012 8:28:33 AM

Well mark it in your calender, the GTX 690 is on the way. ;-)
!