Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

690 vs 680

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 9, 2013 7:00:42 AM

How much better would two 4GB 680s perform over one 4GB 690? Would it be significantly better? Cost isn't an issue, but electricity is, as I know two GPUs would be eating way more electricity.

Also, doesn't 690 have HDMI output? I see 3 x DVI-I and 1 x mDP (which I don't even know what that is). 680 has HDMI and is 3D Vision Ready, so if 690 isn't then that's another advantage of the less powerful GPU.

More about : 690 680

a b Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 7:08:45 AM

This is another "price-performance is all that matters" discussion. Since the options, 680 SLI, 690, 670 SLI all perform reasonably about the same, you need to take into account some other variables.

I would go for the GTX 690 for several reasons, not least of which would be the very high quality components and materials. There is literally no plastic used in it's construction. They also use the highest binned chips which are more energy efficient and more overclockable. As a result, the GTX 690 is the most efficient video card ever made. On top of that, the GTX 690 will be quieter than the other two options, and use less power. The 690 really is the Ferrari of video cards.

The other consideration should be the make and model of the 670's/680's under consideration. Reference models, then I'd get the 690 hands down. But if you are considering some of the higher performing, yet quieter, custom models (and all the heat they blow around inside your case), then that may sway me towards the SLI option. A pair of Asus DirectCU II's in SLI would probably get my vote, provided you can fit a pair in your case.

AND YES mDP means mini display port.

February 9, 2013 7:09:20 AM

Also, I've seen this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-ben...

It shows that best GPU from AMD, 7970 is eating twice as less electricity as 690 does. Is that true? Because I always heard people saying that 7970 is performing better, but uses more power, is louder and gets hotter quicker.
Related resources
February 9, 2013 7:09:25 AM

A GTX 690 is two GTX 680 2GBs on a single PCB. It is not a single GPU card; it is a dual-GPU card. It uses significantly less power than two GTX 680s in SLI and it has pretty much identical performance. There's no practical advantage to have two 680s over a single 690.

Dvi and HDMI have the same digital video signaling. Unless you intend to use audio through HDMI, you can simply use a DVI-D to HDMI cable because they don't even need translation through an active adapter since they use the exact same signaling. mDP is a small form factor Displayport output. It's another type of digital output that has its own signaling that is not compatible with HDMI and DVI-D, but has a few minor advantages in some situations.

The 690 works no worse with 3D Vision than two 680s do.

Regardless, if you're looking for a top-end dual-GPU solution, two 670s would be better. They perform basically the same as two 680s or a single 690, but they use power consumption similar to the 690 and are much cheaper than two 680s or a single 690.
February 9, 2013 7:11:49 AM

Powka said:
Also, I've seen this: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-ben...

It shows that best GPU from AMD, 7970 is eating twice as less electricity as 690 does. Is that true? Because I always heard people saying that 7970 is performing better, but uses more power, is louder and gets hotter quicker.


The 690 is more efficient than the 7970. The 7970 is comparable to the 680 overall in gaming performance. It uses less power than the 690, but it performs much worse than the 690 (it's also less than half the price, so it's still a good value). Also, the best graphics card from AMD is the 7970 GHz Edition which is a little faster than the 680 on average, but it's still just a single GPU card whereas the 690 is a dual-GPU card.
February 9, 2013 7:13:14 AM

thanks! So is there no HDMI in 690? Is it also not 3D Vision ready? And does the standard 690 come with liquid cooling, or do you have to order the set of liquid cooling separately? I'm ordering a new case, and I hope to put there as many fans as possible. Kind of have a phobia of PC overheating.
February 9, 2013 7:16:20 AM

Some 690s may have HDMI, some others may not. It'll depend on the model.

They are all 3D vision ready.

They do not come with liquid cooling by default.
February 9, 2013 7:24:34 AM

I see.

I see that the price of 3 x 670 2GB is the same as 1 x 690 4GB, so the question is which one would perform better and how much more electricity would it consume?
February 9, 2013 7:29:17 AM

Found this video that answers my performance question: http://youtu.be/ynqNCcVBd0E

3 x 670 destroyed 1 x 690 over here.

Does anybody have a clue how much more power consumption would 3 x 670s require? Is it worth it?
February 9, 2013 7:31:59 AM

They'd need about 40-60% more power than a single 690. Whether or not it's worth it would depend on whether or not you really want something that extreme in performance. Technically, it's worth the money and the power consumption, but it's very extreme of a setup.
February 9, 2013 7:36:59 AM

blazorthon said:
They'd need about 40-60% more power than a single 690. Whether or not it's worth it would depend on whether or not you really want something that extreme in performance. Technically, it's worth the money and the power consumption, but it's very extreme of a setup.


Thanks for replies man! One more question: how do I go about getting liquid cooling for 690, is there the best type and is it hard to build it onto 690?
February 9, 2013 7:38:05 AM

IDK. I'm not very knowledgeable about liquid cooling for graphics cards, especially for dual GPU cards. You might need to do a custom loop to liquid cool the 690.
a b Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 8:02:06 AM

yes as far i know there is no ready-made liquid cooled solution in the market right now

if you really want a liquid cooled GTX 690 then you need to do a custom loop
these products will be best for you. :) 

VGA waterblock.

http://www.ekwb.com/shop/blocks/vga-blocks/fc-geforce/g...

VGA back plate-

http://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-fc690-gtx-backplate-black.h...

search the store. they also have pump, fittings, tube and every thing you need for a watercooled system
February 9, 2013 8:16:37 AM

Buy a dual HD 7970 that is 7990 from POWERCOLOR ( DEVIL 13 ) and HIS or buy a single 690 they are all powerful GPUs.
But my vote goes for a 690 since its a single GPU and you can always run SLI once it starts lagging in 10-15 years...LOL
February 9, 2013 12:13:08 PM

The 690 is not a single GPU card. It is a dual GPU card.
February 9, 2013 1:32:06 PM

Whats all this talk about electricity?? We are only talking about 50 watts max difference unless you leave your computer on 24/7 full load 365 days a year than yes expect to pay through your nose?? ....No!
a b Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 2:16:15 PM

The GeForce GTX 690 is comprised of two GeForce GTX 680 "Kepler" GPUs on a single printed-circuit board. These are exactly the same GPUs used on GTX 680 video cards.

690 is not a single GPU card. please don't confuse yourself.


i always prefer nvidia cards, reason : CUDA is very useful in video converters, renderers etc., physX support , better drivers, 3D vision.

AMD cards are good. they provide more value for money than nvidia cards [better performance at same price] but their drivers are crap. u will be banging your head against keyboard with their crappy drivers.


i would suggest u buy nvidia cards if u want hassle free gaming. or u can go for amd cards if u want 'slightly' more value for money compared to nvidia cards.

February 9, 2013 2:28:10 PM

Crap drivers is wrong. Both AMD and Nvidia have occasional issues. AMD's main problem compared to Nvidia is that it takes them longer after a new generation of graphics cards to get good drivers. They are already far beyond that point with the Radeon 7000 generation.

Furthermore, CUDA is being more or less abandoned in the face of OpenCL and Direct Compute, both of which run far better on AMD's Radeon 7000 cards than on Nvidia's GTX 600 cards. AMD also has their own advantages such as advanced lighting features that can be said to compete with PhysX, better MSAA performance, and better overclocking headroom. Having Nvidia cards doesn't make gaming hassle free nor even less of a hassle than using AMD cards and I speak from experience having used dozens of cards from each company.
a b Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 2:42:16 PM

MAYBE. BUT I REALLY HAD SOME BAD EXPERIENCE WITH AMD.

I REALLY DONT WANT TO GET BSOD on start up usually indicating "atikmdag.sys" or "atikmpag.sys" AGAIN.

AND YES I WAS USING 2 7870 ON CX.
February 9, 2013 2:46:09 PM

We could troubleshoot that if you want, but it's simply not the average experience (well, at least with drivers that were more than a few months older than launch, such as Catalyst 12.6 and newer). Keep in mind that one or even a few bad experiences may simply be statistical flukes.
a b Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 3:14:18 PM

yeah ! i hate the drivers not the card after all..

by the way is there any solution of that problem ?

if there is then please PM me.
February 9, 2013 3:22:14 PM

You could open a thread or PM me the details and I could see if I can help.
February 9, 2013 3:22:29 PM

I didn't have any problems with AMD's drivers. You just have to wait a little longer after a new GPU launch if you want quality drivers.

Actually, you should be waiting at least a month or two after new Nivida and AMD GPUs are launched for the prices to drop from $700 down to something more reasonable.
a c 81 Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 3:55:30 PM

I've seen a lot of people have issues with newer than 12.10 drivers, probably because the auto overclocking is too aggressive. You may just want to go back to 12.10 or earlier.

Anyways, you seem to have been interested in 3D Vision, if so, you'll have to switch over to Nvidia anyways.
a b Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 4:15:07 PM

Also, just throwing out there to the people who completely missed it:

1) The 690 is NOT exactly the same as two 680s on a single circuit board - the chips are fairly down-clocked.

2) It's fine if you're playing on one monitor, but as soon as you hit high resolutions or triple monitor setups, the 690 crashes and burns. Everyone is talking about it like it's a 4GB card - it's not. That's marketing BS... it's two 2GB cards in SLI, meaning there's only 2GB usable VRAM.
February 9, 2013 4:19:18 PM

DarkSable said:
Also, just throwing out there to the people who completely missed it:

1) The 690 is NOT exactly the same as two 680s on a single circuit board - the chips are fairly down-clocked.

2) It's fine if you're playing on one monitor, but as soon as you hit high resolutions or triple monitor setups, the 690 crashes and burns. Everyone is talking about it like it's a 4GB card - it's not. That's marketing BS... it's two 2GB cards in SLI, meaning there's only 2GB usable VRAM.


Even triple 1080p almost never runs into memory capacity issues with 2GB cards. I've yet to hear of any issues with the 690 in 5760x1200 and lower resolutions, although I have read about occasional issues with three-way SLI of 670s and 680s running into memory capacity bottle-necks (easily fixed by changing the settings a little). Not really "crashes and burns" unless you throw something at it that it doesn't have enough GPU performance for either. Now two 690s in SLI may crash and burn in something like triple 2560x1440 in the most intensive games whereas four 670 or 680 4GB cards may handle it, but that's a whole other level of extreme.
a c 81 Î Nvidia
February 9, 2013 4:25:19 PM

DarkSable said:
Also, just throwing out there to the people who completely missed it:

1) The 690 is NOT exactly the same as two 680s on a single circuit board - the chips are fairly down-clocked.

2) It's fine if you're playing on one monitor, but as soon as you hit high resolutions or triple monitor setups, the 690 crashes and burns. Everyone is talking about it like it's a 4GB card - it's not. That's marketing BS... it's two 2GB cards in SLI, meaning there's only 2GB usable VRAM.


Unless you use a lot of mods in your games, such as some high texture mods for Skyrim, 2GB is enough for 5760x1080p. Except in the case of mods, I have never seen a benchmark where the 4GB 670/680's ran at playable FPS, where 2GB was not enough. As mentioned by someone else, it takes about 3 or 4 way SLI before you can turn the setting high enough for that to happen and slightly lower AA levels generally fix it.
February 9, 2013 4:38:24 PM

TDP and power draw are totally different things. Also, I suggest waiting for official benchmarks before passing judgement on it.
a b Î Nvidia
February 10, 2013 1:40:32 AM

what this is all about ? we are here to help someone out with his problem right ?
and i think noone is going to get any kind of help out of this.

lets make a quick conclusion [ and i know i'm not the right guy here to make this. But someone has to make it right ? ]

Dear Powka,

hope you are not get bored and reading this..

I was in the same situation as you. So I went ahead and ordered both. I had a 690 and a pair of 680s in my house. In the end I stuck with the 680s SLI. A few reasons as to why.

1. Heat. Many people think you'd get less heat with 1 card vs two. In this case you don't. The 690 gets pretty hot. As does 680 SLI. Big difference between the two? How the heat is moved. With the 690 heat will exhaust inside of your case. Your case will get very hot. Temps raised inside my case by about 10C with a 690. All because it was exhausting all that heat inside of the case. Sure, my pc could handle it. But either way it's not good for everything inside. That alone was enough to make me not want to keep the 690.

2. Future proof. In the end it's cheaper t buy two 680's and enjoy them for all they are worth. Once it's time to upgrade. Throwing another one in shouldn't be a problem. I don't have to fork out another 1k. I'm sure by then. Whatever knew card were coming would most likely make the 690 feel dated or at least not worth another one.

3. Resale Value. There is going to become a time where I don't game as much. Or maybe I'll end up seeing SLI as overkill. With 680SLI I will be able to sell one of the cards and keep the other inside my case. So I'll still have a GPU if I need it and not lose everything. Also, people are willing to spend less when used. Not more. So it's going to become a lot harder to sell a 690 in the future.

4. What If A Card Breaks? Lucky me. If I had two I could use one while the other gets fixed. 690 craps out. You'll be waiting a while for the fix and be out of a GPU.

5. In this case the positives just don't out weigh the negs. Is the 690 the sexiest case to date? You bet! Does it have pros!? Sure. Less power and 1 PCI slot. Also it runs on PCI 3.0 even if your running a SBE.

6. But it also isn't as fast as 680 SLI. Pay the same for less speed? The power difference isn't huge. I'm willing to bet anyone spending that much on a GPU would have a decent GPU to begin with. 680 SLI has more connections. Looks sexier in a case. Fills it up more vs 1 card.

7. In short. I'll say this. Get a 690 only if you plan to buy another one in the future. IMO that's its only selling point. You'll be running quad SLI with only two slots taken. If you only plan to run 1 690 then I see no point in getting one. As 680/670 will work better and keep your case cooler.







or You can buy two 7970 also. Performance-wise, the Radeon HD 7970 should theoretically be a lot superior to the Geforce GTX 680 in terms of memory bandwidth [37%]


If using lots of anti-aliasing is important to you, then the Geforce GTX 680 is superior to the Radeon HD 7970, but not by far [only 9%]



Hope that helps.
February 10, 2013 2:01:24 AM

Thanks!

I was actually looking at 2 x 4GB 680s (not 2 x 2GB 680) vs. 4GB 690... but I've just enquired my PC shop about when are they planning on getting GTX Titan, as it really does look promising, so I'll see what they say. If it really is as rumored - less power consumption and outperforms 690, then I'll probably go for that one.
February 10, 2013 2:03:44 AM

One quick question off the topic though: what's the best game now or in a month to try out GPU's max performance with ultra settings?
a b Î Nvidia
February 10, 2013 2:16:43 AM

always crisis 3

Crysis 3 on PC has a confirmed release date on Tuesday 19 February 2013

and for now i will prefer battelfield 3.
a b Î Nvidia
February 10, 2013 2:39:46 AM

Powka said:
One quick question off the topic though: what's the best game now or in a month to try out GPU's max performance with ultra settings?


Right now Metro 2033 & Far Cry 3 are torturing graphics cards across the world.
February 10, 2013 5:06:49 AM

Sleeping Dogs is another good example.
!