Just saw this review, I definitely was interested in seeing these results:
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1455/pg1/asus-geforce-gtx-680-oc-vs-r7970-oc-vs-gtx-580-oc-performance-review-introduction.html


1920x1080 Winner
3DMark ASUS/NVIDIA
Battlefield 3 ASUS/NVIDIA
Skyrim ASUS/NVIDIA
F1 2011 ASUS/NVIDIA
Shogun 2 Tie
Arkham City N/A (AMD don't support PhysX)
SW: The Old Republic Tie
WoW ASUS/NVIDIA
Mass Effect 3 ASUS/NVIDIA

5760x1080 Winner
Battlefield 3 Tie
Skyrim ASUS/NVIDIA
F1 2011 AMD
Shogun 2 AMD
Arkham City N/A (AMD don't support PhysX)
SW: The Old Republic AMD
WoW ASUS/NVIDIA
Mass Effect 3 ASUS/NVIDIA

So not too surprising, the 680 pulls a lead at 1080p. However, it's very interesting to see that the 7970 is actually doing very well at huge resolutions. Maybe this is something to do with the extra 1gb of VRAM, but most likely it has to do with architecture differences.
 
You can add that to the SLI/CFX charts going around in the Web.

I really don't know why Arkham City/Asylum doesn't like AMD for multiple card setups.

Looks like the (true) high end is kinda in a tie overall. But who has monster resolutions, anyway? xD

Cheers!
 

trogdor796

Distinguished
Nov 26, 2009
998
0
19,160
Even if it's a tie at high end, the 680 is still cheaper and draws less power. That makes it the better card in my book, at least until AMD lowers prices.
 


I totally agree. 680 is a killer card right now. 7970s IMO need to go for $450-500, definitely can't sell them more expensive than a 680. Nvidia also has a nice advantage with TXAA and Adaptive Vsync, which I think are both really great features
 
Actually, take a look at the OC figures... The 7970 draws only 5W more (like 310W) and the 680 OC draws like 320W:

NAME ---------------------Idle Power - Load Power - Idle Temp - Load Temp
ASUS GeForce GTX 680 120w 258w 30°C 78°C
ASUS GeForce GTX 680 OC 121w 320w 32°C 80°C
Reference Radeon HD 7970 129w 306w 39°C 75°C
Reference Radeon HD 7970 OC 130w 308w 31°C 72°C
GeForce GTX 580 OC 136w 351w 30°C 67°C


So, in the "true" high end, the 680 wins in P/P by a slight, slight margin. If you take into account the GPGPU (if you actually use it), maybe the extra $50 for the 7970 are justified, unless nVidia removed the dumb cap they put in there (I hate that).

And, in Arkham it looks like AMD wins with no PhysX enabled (in that article).

Cheers!
 

DM186

Splendid
The GTX 680 even if it is by a hair they are on top once again. Cheaper less power and 10% faster than AMD. If I liked AMD then I would argue this. In all fairness both cards are on the top cutting edge of technology of today.
 

I am a PC

Honorable
Mar 23, 2012
131
0
10,680

Probably get flamed for this but it's because Batman AC is an Nvidia sponsored game.
 


Those numbers are not of much use considering that is whole system draw. I don't see why reviews out there don't got more accurate and specialized power measuring equipment. Monitor the load on the 12v rail at the pci-e slot and power connectors like what x-bit has done in their reviews.
 

I am a PC

Honorable
Mar 23, 2012
131
0
10,680

Then it is agreed Batman AC is defunct as a proper unbiased benchmarking title. Along with HAWKS II, Starcraft, Civ V, WoW, Lost Planet 2, Metro and more.
 
Due to going 120hz 3D, I'm going to be going with the Nvidia card most likely. I have a monitor that does not support displayport, so Nvidia 3D Vision is by far the better option.

I was also very impressed with the FXAA. It looks better than 4x MSAA and a lot faster. It even is defaulted to use FXAA even when the game doesn't have the option. This may also explain the 1080p results, as all the AA used gave the 680 a huge advantage. Perhaps FXAA doesn't work so well in 3 monitor configurations, which would explain AMD's advantage there.
 
I like AMD, but not in a fanboy way, and I can't argue the stats/charts... however, I must say that I feel like the delayed launch has hurt Nvidia by a lot... I was originally going to hold out and get a kepler card, but ended up caving and got a sapphire OCed 7970. Like you guys say, the gtx680's edge is so small that it's hardly noticable, and I'm certainly not going to try to sell my 7970 just to go for a 680 now...
 


10% is far from "a hair" ... especially when 10% cheaper.....10% if the difference between a 6970 and a 6950

What I can't get is why the 680 we see for sale is so different in specs and price compared to what had been previously leaked. I had this niggling feeling that that after seeing the 79xx series, nVidia's pulling a fast one on us and relabeled what was to be the 660 Ti (leaked price of $349) as the 680 (for $500) and is thereby gonna take advantage of the situation and rake in the dough here. I'd really like to see AMD come back and force the price down a bit.

Now it would appear that some web site reviewers are of the same mind.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/26

GK104 is the name of the 28 nm build chip that is based on Kepler, and dare I say it? It was never intended to be the high-end product. For that NVIDIA would have named it GK110, personally I still think the GK110 will see the light at a later stage in time, likely end of the year. ..... We certainly like the GeForce GTX 680, it is quite amazing what NVIDIA is able to do with the GK104 which we still think was intended to be the mid-range chip.





 
The O.C. scaling on the GTX 680 is a by-product of the 1:1 core to shader clocks. In the past it was 2:1, so the extra OC on the core meant you were getting 2x OC on the shaders.

The flipside is what we are seeing with reduced heat and energy consumption. It also opens up the potential for some great custom overclocked models with upgraded components. When its all said and done, the GTX 680 is likely going to hit even higher overclocks that the 7970 won't be able to reach. Guru3d already had the reference GTX 680 up to 1264 mhz on stock volts vs. the custom Asus 7970 DCUII with maximum voltage at 1250 (they got the reference 7970 on stock volts up to 1052 mhz).
 


We've discussed this before, but it doesn't matter if it's 1:1 core to shader clocks or 2:1. If you increase the clock by a percent, both increase by the same percent. It's simple math. Nothing has changed in terms of OCing.
 

cell55

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2010
31
0
18,530
i just got my 7970 yesterday.. havent done any gaming yet because im in the process of migrating my files and games n such to my new setup... looking at those benchmarks doesnt make me favor the 680 in any way.. why? because it didnt win hands down.. honestly when the drivers for 7970 mature i think it will beat the 680.. the higher res tests show that the 680 isnt more powerful than the 7970 at all..

so lets all just wait and see
 

jijoslin

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2010
504
0
18,990
I've got oc cf hd7950's, just upgraded from cf hd6950's and I game at triple eyefinity 6048 by 1080 and I'm very pleased with my average fps, I believe amd will be okay with say a $100.00 price drop on 7970 and $50.00 on 7950, plus better drivers for the future!
 

DM186

Splendid

Yes 10% is a lot in the scheme of things. But you will have the AMD side trying to prove that 10% is nothing. They will put it down anyway they can but the numbers speak for them selves and AMD still looses by a hair.

Jack that was my meaning about "by a hair" was. And I totally agree with you on what AMD will try and do with the pricing. I once thought that nVidia held off on releasing there cards because they wanted to see what they had to do to make there card better than AMD's. That is just my opinion. I never read that or herd that from anybody
 

seumas_beathan

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2012
599
0
19,010


But Amd have still got the 7990 to come which should beat the 680 by more than a hair
 

I am a PC

Honorable
Mar 23, 2012
131
0
10,680

Typical Nvidia favoring benchmark suite ^
 

DM186

Splendid


That is true but I don't think we were talking about the 7990 or did I miss something? When you get old a lot of weird things happen and I have to check all the time.
 

seumas_beathan

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2012
599
0
19,010


Oh no :L Its just that alot of people are saying that Nvidia have beatan amd, which is not true, The 680 beats the 7970 but Nvidia have Not beaten Amd
 
while I agree with you, using the 7990 to combat the 680 is more a sign of weakness rather than strength from AMD... as most of us have heard, the gtx680 might have been slated to be the 660, and may not even be Nvidia's true flagship this gen, and using a dual-core chip to beat it would just be sad...

on the other hand, I think with some serious work into the tahiti drivers, I do believe the 7970 has the raw power needed to outrun the 680