Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gtx 680 in STOCK!!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 5:58:55 PM

hi,everybody is complaining that they are unable to find 680 so here it is-
asus DirectCU gtx 680-
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
please grab one before it gets out of stock.
evga gtx 680 is also available on amazon but it's very expensive-
http://www.amazon.com/680-2GD5-DisplayPort-Utilities-PC...

More about : gtx 680 stock

a c 153 U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 6:15:15 PM

GTX 680 is such a bad purchase now that the GTX 670 is out.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 6:16:51 PM

They will be available...for the next 5 minutes!

Actually newegg is out.

And only 3 left at amazon.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 11, 2012 6:20:56 PM

selling out! who's buying a 680?
must be people unaware that the 670 is out, available, and delivers 95% performance for 75% the price.
m
0
l
May 11, 2012 6:22:39 PM

One thing you might want to note, it's a 3 slot card. This could be a big turn off for some people (myself included :p ).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 6:26:43 PM

609$ from amazon is a ripoff for the 680. DO NOT BUY.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 6:47:38 PM

drewgamer said:
One thing you might want to note, it's a 3 slot card. This could be a big turn off for some people (myself included :p ).


So funny reading newegg reviews of those cards, people uniformed going around saying the cons for that card are its size..

Managed to pick up my brother a ASUS DCII 6970 for $200 from newegg open box, wasn't even touched besides looked at and placed back in box. Person probably bought it, pulled it out of the box to look at it, realized it wouldn't fit and sent it back for me to buy $100 off lol.

Srsly people its called an enthusiast card for a reason ;) 


As for the 670 vs 680, well if 670 @ stock clocks is 2%-8% weaker than 680, a 670 overclocked is >

I just ordered a regular EVGA 670 (no point in getting a card with higher factory overclock when I can do that myself) , most likely will use EVGA Step Up program to change it to a 4GB version later on for about $50 extra.
m
0
l
May 11, 2012 7:11:05 PM

akamrcrack said:
So funny reading newegg reviews of those cards, people uniformed going around saying the cons for that card are its size..

Managed to pick up my brother a ASUS DCII 6970 for $200 from newegg open box, wasn't even touched besides looked at and placed back in box. Person probably bought it, pulled it out of the box to look at it, realized it wouldn't fit and sent it back for me to buy $100 off lol.

Srsly people its called an enthusiast card for a reason ;) 


As for the 670 vs 680, well if 670 @ stock clocks is 2%-8% weaker than 680, a 670 overclocked is >

I just ordered a regular EVGA 670 (no point in getting a card with higher factory overclock when I can do that myself) , most likely will use EVGA Step Up program to change it to a 4GB version later on for about $50 extra.

So true lol...and sad, because a quick look of the screen shots would show the 3-slot IO bracket.

I still hate 3-slot cards though :p 
m
0
l
May 11, 2012 7:14:00 PM

I still think 680 is a good buy.Sure the 670 is better but I am a dual 680(tomorow with the blessing of God i would have my second 680) owner so i think its still a good purchase.Mates can OC the 680 isnt that justifying yourself to buy a 680?
m
0
l
a c 153 U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 7:27:39 PM

ghnader hsmithot said:
I still think 680 is a good buy.Sure the 670 is better but I am a dual 680(tomorow with the blessing of God i would have my second 680) owner so i think its still a good purchase.Mates can OC the 680 isnt that justifying yourself to buy a 680?


The 680 was a great buy, but the 670 is so close (even directly on par with the 680 in some games) that it makes the 680 pointless.
m
0
l
May 11, 2012 8:07:01 PM

If you are willing to OC the 670, then shouldn't you compare it to an OC 680? Don't get me wrong, I still bought a 670 today. I was just curious if I was missing something here.
m
0
l
May 11, 2012 8:17:09 PM

comparing an OC 670 to a reference 680 is like people who compared a 4.1ghz phenom 945 to a 2.66 920 intel, and thus decided since intel was just barely better the phenom was a better purchase for $100 less.

Apples to Apples please. The 680 will OC to 1350-1450 easy on reference cards, its being done all over the place. Google it, youtube it, many people are choosing to OC it to 1337 and leave it there.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
May 11, 2012 8:19:50 PM

dkcomputer said:
comparing an OC 670 to a reference 680 is like people who compared a 4.1ghz phenom 945 to a 2.66 920 intel, and thus decided since intel was just barely better the phenom was a better purchase for $100 less.

Apples to Apples please. The 680 will OC to 1350-1450 easy on reference cards, its being done all over the place. Google it, youtube it, many people are choosing to OC it to 1337 and leave it there.


I don't know what the 670 OC limits are, but there is a good chance it'll OC to the same levels as a 680, given they are the same chip minus a few cuda cores.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 11, 2012 8:43:47 PM

dkcomputer said:
comparing an OC 670 to a reference 680 is like people who compared a 4.1ghz phenom 945 to a 2.66 920 intel, and thus decided since intel was just barely better the phenom was a better purchase for $100 less.

Apples to Apples please. The 680 will OC to 1350-1450 easy on reference cards, its being done all over the place. Google it, youtube it, many people are choosing to OC it to 1337 and leave it there.


Would be more like comparing a Phenom 955BE to a Phenom 980BE with 1 extra L3 cache (enabled cores) with clocks seperated accordingly. Meaning if I was to overclock my 955 to 980 speeds (easy) then the only thing I wouldn't have is the extra cache or in this instance extra 12 cores or w/e the number was.

Ofc there is no such thing as a 980BE with extra l3 cache but its just an example lol.

Same logic as to why people buy 955BE over any of the higher clocked quad core phenoms, because when overclocked it performs equal or greater. Making it the better buy price and performance wise.

If you think $100-$300 isn't breaking your wallet or crippling another part of your system, then get a custom non ref 680 or 4GB 680 and call it a day. whenever one releases.
m
0
l
May 11, 2012 8:46:07 PM

The 670 is the best bang for the money, but the 680 is the best (or 690) that money can buy. Don't forget the difference is around 7% but when you OC the 680 the gap gets wider (specially at high resolutions) . So it's kinda simple, if you're limited in budget and want a very good investment, then the 670 is your option. If money isn't a problem the 680 is the best choice.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 12, 2012 4:31:39 AM

as most of you said that-
680 = absolute bragging rights for a person that can afford.
670 = most bang for the buck graphics card.great performance for a lesser price.
i hope now nvidia pumps up the production of 670!!
m
0
l
a c 170 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
May 12, 2012 7:39:16 AM

GTX680 vs GTX670:

The GTX670 benchmarks at between 89% and 95% depending on the game, resolution etc.

92% is probably the average result.

I'm one of those people who is perfectly content to pay extra for that 8% difference in performance.

Still, at $400 the GTX670 is an incredible card.
m
0
l
a c 170 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
May 12, 2012 7:43:29 AM

hellfire24 said:
as most of you said that-
680 = absolute bragging rights for a person that can afford.
670 = most bang for the buck graphics card.great performance for a lesser price.
i hope now nvidia pumps up the production of 670!!


It's not an NVidia issue. The bottleneck is the speed of the fab plant creating the GPU's using the new 28nm process. Yields are apparently good but the volume of product is low.

It goes like this:
1) NVidia designs the chips (in conjunction with the fab plant), then
2) the fab plant makes the chips, then
3) the fab plant sends chips to the graphics card manufacturers (Asus, MSI etc) who then make the cards, then
4) we buy them and want to upgrade in 3 months.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 12, 2012 9:07:41 AM

^okay,thnx for the info.
m
0
l
a c 170 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
May 17, 2012 7:06:31 AM

re: GTX670 and overclocked GPU's

There's a lot of talk that the GTX670's are actually GTX680's with one of the 8 cores defective. That actually makes sense.

So they may have simply waited until they had enough "GTX670" cards and released them.

Overclocked:
Part of the reason I got the Asus DirectCU II GTX680 (most overclocked version) is because they actually test them and bin the GPU's according to quality. Some people have said, "hey I can just overclock the lower-end GPU" so there's two potential flaws with that idea:

#1 - the reference cooler doesn't have as much cooling for overclocking (not just heatsink and fan, also better power phase circuitry)

#2 - not all GPU's are of equal quality

(I've heard fairly reliable reports that the 28nm process is slowly improving and that the GPU's will slowly, over months, get more reliable as well as have more overclocking potential with a good cooler)

I'm not saying the GTX670 or reference GTX680 are bad cards. I'm just throwing out some details some may find useful.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2012 9:29:13 AM

^+1.non reference cards like DUCII,MSI TF II or III,windforce 3x and gainward phantom etc. have a better cooling,beefier VRMs and more overclocking potential which make them better than reference design cards.
m
0
l
a c 170 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
May 19, 2012 9:40:23 PM

binning:
They actual "bin" GPU's, or at least the more expensive cards. For example, Asus currently has three cards: a reference, OC and "TOP" version.

They actually separate out the GPU's by overclockability (they test each one). Considering the "TOP" version which has a GPU Boost of 1201MHz is $540 that's a really great deal.

I think the cheapest reference cooler design for the GTX680 is $500 so an extra $40 for a quieter card that overclocks better isn't that bad a deal.

Just FYI as I await my GTX680 DirectCU II TOP which I still think is the best card for many builders. I don't care that it takes up three sockets personally but that's an issue for some.
m
0
l
June 15, 2012 1:48:30 AM

It's been 3 months already since release of 680 GTX, why is it out of stock everywhere? What are they making them from? Babies and virgin's blood?!?!
m
0
l
June 15, 2012 2:00:48 AM

Unless you believe the company line ( = :pt1cable:  ), Nvidia just can't seem to get their act together with yields. It's been the Achilles heel of the GTX 680 since launch, and is only getting better slowly.

You can now find them fairly regularly in stock @ newegg... the only thing that would be difficult would be if you had a specific custom model you wanted, as there seems to be no rhyme nor reason to which card will be in stock at a given time. They don't seem to be out of stock more than 24 hours at a time now, though, which be great except it's 3 months past launch and they shouldn't be having availability problems AT ALL.
m
0
l
a c 147 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
June 15, 2012 7:42:49 AM

Veirtimid said:
It's been 3 months already since release of 680 GTX, why is it out of stock everywhere? What are they making them from? Babies and virgin's blood?!?!


lol i think most of fully enabled GK104 chips are being made into Tesla K10. that might explain GTX680 & GTX690 shortage we have right now.
m
0
l
a c 170 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
June 16, 2012 5:05:00 AM

GTX 680 arrived!!!

I got my Asus DirectCUII TOP today. I was on backorder over a month so I'm not sure what that means for others.

Hopefully this means the critical commitments (OEM systems) have mostly been filled and people like us just buying cards are getting cards now.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 5:06:14 AM

What about a 4GB versions of 680 GTX? Know that EVGA's one is coming soon...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 5:38:02 AM

^no use of 4GB.
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 5:45:29 AM

^ Yeah right:) 

Just wait another year or so... May Payne 3 is already taking 2030MB of VRAM when set on highest settings, fancy modified Skyrim can take up to 3GB of VRAM, also Crysis 2 uses about 1600MB of VRAM, now how much of VRAM Crysis 3 will be using do you think?

Sure if you wanna buy a card for 1 or 2 years max 680 GTX 2GB is fine, I just want my VGA last a bit longer than that.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 5:51:53 AM

source?
crysis 2=crysis 3.only story is changed.

m
0
l
a c 109 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
June 16, 2012 6:00:15 AM

Can't blame Nvidia about them making it. Simply, because they don't make anything!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 6:05:04 AM

and i also heard that nowdays games are optimized for nividia cards.is that true?
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 6:05:44 AM

hellfire24 said:
source?
crysis 2=crysis 3.only story is changed.

I tested Skyrim and Max Payne on my PC myself, but here is the link for Crysis 2 VRAM usage (oops, it's actually 1900MB, not 1600MB as I said previously):
http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1093015&mpage=1
Source that Crysis 2=Crysis 3?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 6:58:59 AM

Veirtimid said:
Too bad you are sure in something you are wrong about:D 

So, what does a console version of Demo Crysis 3 have to do with this discussion?oO


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_3
Quote:
the game is the third main installment of the Crysis series, is the sequel to the 2011 video game Crysis 2, and will run on the CryEngine 3 game engine.

which means it runs on same engine as crysis 2 and only the story line is changed mr boom shakalaka :p 
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 7:46:32 AM

hellfire24 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_3
Quote:
the game is the third main installment of the Crysis series, is the sequel to the 2011 video game Crysis 2, and will run on the CryEngine 3 game engine.

which means it runs on same engine as crysis 2 and only the story line is changed mr boom shakalaka :p 

Of course, it will be running on the same Cry Engine 3, but there still will be improvements in graphics and some added features in Crysis 3, and having Crysis 2 already hitting 1900MB on max, kinda gives an idea that Crysis 3 will be using at least the same amount of VRAM, but most likely a higher one, when you set the game on Ultra with all DX11 fancy-shmancy stuff. And, as I said, Crysis 2 is not the only game being on the edge of using all of 2GB VRAM on 680 GTX... Some games have already stepped over it even at 1920x1080 resolution, and there will be more of them coming in the future, Mr. 8-bit-games-player:) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 10:02:31 AM

it's really hard to keep quiet but i must say know your role and shut your mouth.
"there will be improvement in............"
but it's not!only a few weapons are added to make it even more crappy(R.I.P real crysis 1 and warhead),second thing,a gtx 480 with 1.5GB vram maxes out heavily demanding games like BF3 at 1600p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um3lsIf9Me4&feature=plcp
(thanks to MR Recon-UK)
so moral of the story is 2GB is enough to max out any game at 1080p or even higher is some cases.
one more thing,sure there are games that use more than 2GB,let's take skyrim for example but still you can max it out on a 570 with 1.2GB vram-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYh4cDbFvZ8

"Veirtimid",we comming for you n......
:lol: 
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 5:11:39 PM

hellfire24 said:
it's really hard to keep quiet but i must say know your role and shut your mouth.
"there will be improvement in............"
but it's not!only a few weapons are added to make it even more crappy(R.I.P real crysis 1 and warhead),second thing,a gtx 480 with 1.5GB vram maxes out heavily demanding games like BF3 at 1600p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um3lsIf9Me4&feature=plcp
(thanks to MR Recon-UK)
so moral of the story is 2GB is enough to max out any game at 1080p or even higher is some cases.
one more thing,sure there are games that use more than 2GB,let's take skyrim for example but still you can max it out on a 570 with 1.2GB vram-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYh4cDbFvZ8

"Veirtimid",we comming for you n......
:lol: 

Haha, I see you definitely know your role - being ignorant, naive and failing at logical thinking:)  You're getting better and better at it.

Yeah, you will be able to max out default settings in most of the games and play them on 2GB card (in this year at least), but you can forget about fancy texture mods for Skyrim and playing the game at a resolution higher than 1920x1080, unless you wanna play it at 3.9 FPS http://cdn.overclock.net/2/2b/499x384px-LL-2bcf4bf2_ssa... :)  Triple monitor setup? Forget it, you might be able to play some games at max settings with 2GB 680 GTX on tri-monitor setup no problem, but far not all of them.

The real moral of the story is that 2GB is more than enough for maxing out current games for today without too much of a custom texture modding and all poosible eye-candy you can get from it, and 680 GTX 2GB is definitely not that future-proof as 680 GTX 4GB is. And about Crysis 3 - we will see:) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 5:42:22 PM

^i never said anything about eyefinity.a link to the full review and benchmarks would be good.
and one more thing,in most of the cases,if your 680 2gb is giving you 10 fps than 4gb version will not give 60 fps.
all i want to say that a more powerful graphic card with less vram(let's say a 570 1.2gb)will perform better than weaker card with 2 vram(e.g. 550ti 2gb).i can say so because a few months back,my brother spent $600 on a gtx 580 with 3gb vram and guess what,it's same as a 1.GB 580 in almost 95% games.as far as logic is concerned,you don't need to spend extra $$ for 4gb vram when you get the same performance with a 2gb card.as long as skyrim is concerned,it's more of a cpu demanding game(i hope you know it),modding and stuff in skyrim heavily depends upon your cpu.
and about crysis 3,it's clear as water that it's graphics and stuff is same as crysis 2 except gameplay.
conclusion:
you show me a link where you can get a reasonable fps boost in modern games with more vram(2gb vs 4gb in this case)
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 6:02:09 PM

hellfire24 said:
^i never said anything about eyefinity


"^no use of 4GB."

hellfire24 said:
you show me a link where you can get a reasonable fps boost in modern games with more vram(2gb vs 4gb in this case)



Check the last topic: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6032


Anyway, current games were not my main point of concern at the beginning of the discussion, my main point is that 4GB is just more future-proof for upcoming games, since current games are already on the edge of using full potential of 2GB VRAM VGAs. Of course, there is no a real performance boost when you put 4GB instead of 2GB VRAM. Actually, some guy here posted benchmarks showing comparison of an identical cards, one with double more of VRAM than another, and the one with more VRAM was showing a decrease in performance by 1-2 FPS (eg. 580 GTX 1.5GB>580 GTX 3GB by 1-2 FPS, where games are not hitting over 1.5GB of VRAM). 4GB is just an extra security in case 2GB card will start chocking of a highly modded game because of lack of VRAM, that's all (for modern games at least).
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 6:13:32 PM

^i am sure something was wrong with 2GB 680 there.

source
why talk about future when we don't know $hit about future,live your present as best as you can.
nothing is 'futureproof' in computers,technology changes so fast that you can't mark anything as 'futureproof'
back when 990x was out,it was marked as the "gaming monster" but now a $220 cpu(2500k) beats it gaming,so don't consider anything as future proof.
once again i say-
there's no use of 4GB vram right now when you can get the 2GB card for cheaper with same performance.
source-
personal experience as mentioned in my previous post(580 3gb).
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 8:15:39 PM

No one knows what the future specs will require so pay a couple $ more and get the GTX 680 4GB and hedge your bet. My bet is that it will be a good idea in the next few years. JMO
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
June 16, 2012 8:34:35 PM

me and my brother thought the same way a few moths ago but now i am dissapointed .
BTW,you are my favorite handgun ;) 
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 9:11:49 PM

So how about the GTX 670 with 4GB, would that make more sense than a 680 with 2GB?
m
0
l
June 16, 2012 10:58:07 PM

hellfire24 said:
^i am sure something was wrong with 2GB 680 there.
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1332370311kfvezRMQlH_11_1.gifp
source
why talk about future when we don't know $hit about future,live your present as best as you can.
nothing is 'futureproof' in computers,technology changes so fast that you can't mark anything as 'futureproof'
back when 990x was out,it was marked as the "gaming monster" but now a $220 cpu(2500k) beats it gaming,so don't consider anything as future proof.
once again i say-
there's no use of 4GB vram right now when you can get the 2GB card for cheaper with same performance.
source-
personal experience as mentioned in my previous post(580 3gb).

Hm, interesting. You might be right about that graph is not being very accurate, could be just a fake as well.... Marketing trolling in full power:D 

Too bad VRAM does not add up in SLI/Crossfire mode. That would make a choice so much easier...
m
0
l
June 17, 2012 12:37:19 AM

okay,thnx all for the info.
m
0
l
!