• NVIDIA GTX 680
    187 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Makol;35254531]What? $500 is a great price for that card.[/QUOTE] $500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;35254446]Nvidia is pricing it at $500 because they know they can label their midrange card as high end when it's on par with the AMD 7970. This is an amazing time for Nvidia to profit, but a terrible one for us consumers.[/QUOTE] This is a fantastic time for a consumer. There is so much god damn value going around. Just wait for the 660's. [editline]22nd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GreenDolphin;35255001]$500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.[/QUOTE] Then don't buy the 680. Whether or not the GK104 was supposed to be midrange should be irrelevant. It beats the 7970 is nearly every aspect and was priced since it competes so well. Pricing it so low would be silly for Nvidia.
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;35255001]$500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.[/QUOTE] Are you high?
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;35255001]$500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.[/QUOTE] If you knew anything about the manufacturing process of a new GPU like Kepler, you wouldn't be saying this utter bullshit. They should literally cost $250 more MINIMUM.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;35255002]This is a fantastic time for a consumer. There is so much god damn value going around. Just wait for the 660's.[/QUOTE] Since it seems don't know much about economics in this case then I should probably back off a bit then. [QUOTE=Brt5470;35255002]Then don't buy the 680. Whether or not the GK104 was supposed to be midrange should be irrelevant. It beats the 7970 is nearly every aspect and was priced since it competes so well. Pricing it so low would be silly for Nvidia.[/QUOTE] I am aware of this though. I'm not saying that Nvidia [I]should[/I] have priced the cards lower, I'm just saying it's a bit of let down since Nvidia have much more behind their sleeves with their new architecture but have to work alongside AMD's current cards in terms of performance and price. Perhaps I'm just terrible at explaining things and I'm sending the wrong message or I have no idea what I'm talking about.
[QUOTE=_Chewgum;35246927][url]http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-680/specifications[/url] *GeForce GTX 680 supports PCI Express 3.0. The Intel X79/SNB-E PCI Express 2.0 platform is only currently supported up to 5GT/s (PCIE 2.0) bus speeds even though some motherboard manufacturers have enabled higher 8GT/s speeds.[/QUOTE] But would it be worth it to use it in a 2.0 slot? like would it affect it much? or would it make more sense to just buy a 3.0 compatible board?
Considering this card for all the new features. But i'm almost 100% sure that it's not a good idea with just a Q9550 and an old p43 Motherboard.
[QUOTE=bobsynergy;35255331]But would it be worth it to use it in a 2.0 slot? like would it affect it much? or would it make more sense to just buy a 3.0 compatible board?[/QUOTE] Not noticeable.
[QUOTE=GreenDolphin;35254446]Nvidia is pricing it at $500 because they know they can label their midrange card as high end when it's on par with the AMD 7970. This is an amazing time for Nvidia to profit, but a terrible one for us consumers.[/QUOTE] It's dumb for people to accept it as a mid-range chip when it consumes more power than the 560Ti, on a smaller process and less die space. I just find it amusing how the number of the chip it represents is a similar number to their previous generation mid-range chip yet people just accept it as mid-range because of the number Nvidia decided to call it, but whatever. It is considerably cheaper for Nvidia to make that chip for it's relative performance versus Fermi, so in that sense it costs them the same amount to produce that chip as it would if it was being marketed as a mid-range card. Using that same logic though, since Fermi chips cost significantly more money to produce and compete with the same performance as AMD cards (due to such a big die space) that the cards from the 5870, 6970, and part of the 7970 were technically mid-range chips as they were much smaller chips with a lot less power consumption but were able to keep up with Nvidia's high-end chips. just my $0.02
The ranges (low/mid/high) all derive from the price, and performance to some degree but mostly the price on modern hardware, $500 is most definitely not mid-range, not unless we all start earning twice money we currently make come next week, not to say nVidia won't have a higher end single GPU up their sleeves, but calling it mid-range at $500 is just plain wrong.
Remember that the first set of drivers will have a few games seeing a 10%-20% increase in performance. It's always like that.
[QUOTE=David Tennant;35248679]So the GTX 680s hype was once again blown widely out of proportion, as Tom put it, it's about the same as a 7970 in games, give or take a little.[/QUOTE] For everyone disagreeing about the performance being similar to the 7970. If 1-5 fps is not similar performance then what is.
[QUOTE=Civil;35257919]For everyone disagreeing about the performance being similar to the 7970. If 1-5 fps is not similar performance then what is.[/QUOTE] 5 FPS is not similar performance (it is if it's all runnin g at 150+, but at 60 it's a difference). Also drivers.
Not to be a fuckwit, but I just looked up comparisons with overclocked cards: XFX 7970: [url]http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/XFX_R7970_BE/[/url] GTX 680: [url]http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Nvidia_GTX_680/[/url] And while you generally shouldn't cross-compare GPUs, this gives a different result. The GTX 680 and the 7970 perform pretty much equally when overclocked, with the GTX 580 winning at stock clocks. power consumption and so on still favors Nvidia, but if AMD puts down the price, the 7970 isn't bad by any means. Just my two cents. [editline]23rd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=acds;35258141]5 FPS is not similar performance (it is if it's all runnin g at 150+, but at 60 it's a difference). Also drivers.[/QUOTE] True, but these cards are really only doing chomps at 2560x1600.
2GHz core clocks from Zotac soon. [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/162935/ZOTAC-Working-On-GeForce-GTX-680-with-2-GHz-Core-Clock-Speed.html[/url]
so the 680 uses slightly less power than the 560ti... I'll probably buy it (or buy the 660ti) and sell my 560ti to a friend
[QUOTE=Makol;35258705]2GHz core clocks from Zotac soon. [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/162935/ZOTAC-Working-On-GeForce-GTX-680-with-2-GHz-Core-Clock-Speed.html[/url][/QUOTE] That's gonna cost a billion bucks. Performance would be amazing, though.
[QUOTE=Makol;35258705]2GHz core clocks from Zotac soon. [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/162935/ZOTAC-Working-On-GeForce-GTX-680-with-2-GHz-Core-Clock-Speed.html[/url][/QUOTE] I highly doubt that. It would need to be water cooled if they did successfully do it though. [editline]23rd March 2012[/editline] Dumb because...? The highest I've seen a professional overclocker go with the 680 is around 1.4-1.6Ghz and that's with the fan on 95%. Even if 2Ghz was possible it would have to be water cooled unless you want to keep replacing your fan because of a broken bearing every week.
Sorry, the dumb rating was a mistake. I was on my phone and was going to reply but I missed the reply button. I'll give you a rainbow instead. What I was going to say was that if they did give it a water cooler it'd probably be like PNY's water cooled GTX 580. [editline]23rd March 2012[/editline] Like this. [IMG]http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1318091029r5slG3IwUp_2_12_l.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Makol;35260196]Sorry, the dumb rating was a mistake. I was on my phone and was going to reply but I missed the reply button. I'll give you a rainbow instead. What I was going to say was that if they did give it a water cooler it'd probably be like PNY's water cooled GTX 580. [editline]23rd March 2012[/editline] Like this. [IMG]http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1318091029r5slG3IwUp_2_12_l.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] This type of cooling is absolute shit to be honest, especially for a high end GPU. They should just make a full body bare waterblock instead.
[url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/[/url] Yay. SLI review.
[QUOTE=Makol;35261305][url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/[/url] Yay. SLI review.[/QUOTE] Holy shit!
Hoping the 660 wont be meh and has atleast 2gb of VRAM for EVGA boards
[QUOTE=Makol;35261305][url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_680_SLI/[/url] Yay. SLI review.[/QUOTE]That scaling doubled in Bf3! Niceeeee
Oh boy I can't wait to pay GTX 680 price for a 670 ti! Proof. [url]http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1681551[/url] I understand they want to make money, it just doesn't seem right.
inching ever closer to that Crysis 1200p 60 fps average landmark
[QUOTE=luishi5000;35264887]Oh boy I can't wait to pay GTX 680 price for a 670 ti! Proof. [url]http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1681551[/url] I understand they want to make money, it just doesn't seem right.[/QUOTE] afaik the 680 and 670 Ti are two different cards.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;35260586]This type of cooling is absolute shit to be honest, especially for a high end GPU. They should just make a full body bare waterblock instead.[/QUOTE] From what I remember of the reviews on it, it was actually one of the best performing and quietest cards you could get.
[QUOTE=Odellus;35264910]inching ever closer to that Crysis 1200p 60 fps average landmark[/QUOTE] 'Bout damn time!
Being a person that is into [URL="http://folding.stanford.edu/"]Folding@Home.[/URL] I am quite fond of the tripling of the CUDA cores. GTX 580=512 GTX 680=[B]1536[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.