Nvidia Kepler - Geforce GTX680 Thread - Now with reviews

Any details as to when the GTX 690 will launch?

Rumors suggest that the 690 are just 2 680's GPU's on one board. However, like the 590's, unless you are cramped for space, you get more power out of SLI's 2 680's. For example with the 580's, 2 580's in SLI were alot more faster than a 590, even though the 590 had 2 580GPU's. The reason for this is that the GPU's that are in the 590 are downclocked due to power/heat on the overall card.

Most people that opt for a single card with 2 GPU's on them is for room of if you plan to get 2 of them and have more space in your case.
 
After some more testing, I am really liking the improvement in performance over my 580 Classified.

I retested Witcher 2 in Uber Mode and for the most part my FPS has gotten a bit better. I am now getting 50-60fps, with only occasional dips into 40's, but that has been primarily in intense scenes...for example, when you are at the start of the game and you leave the tent with Trish, you are on top of a small till, with anywhere from 20-30 troops walking around, flags flying in the air, to the left tree swaying in the wind, catapults launching stuff..I mean very intense it drops to around 42 or so. Most of the time when fighting enemies etc, I am usually right around 60fps.

I did boost the GPU offset by +100 and for me in SLI that is the best I can do. At 110+ while testing I do crash. Like all reference cards, you miles may vary as a user over in the eVGA forums has the same cards in SLI like I do and he is about to easily get a 125+ on his core in SLI. Cards do vary and it is the luck of the draw..some cards will "boost" a bit higher as well.

Another example, is this same user running Unigine at all default GPU settings he gets a score of 91fps. For me I get around 83fps. I can achieve 92.5 with a +100 offset and memory at 400mhz+...so I get 1.5 fps versus his stock cards. So, it seems one of my GPU's is not a very good clocker/booster, but it still runs within spec...so I really cant complain. Until "binned" GPU's are available as custom releases, this is what can and does happen with reference cards.

At the end of the day however, I am extremly pleased. In Metro2033 Benchmark, in DX11 and everything set to the highest level on my 580 SLI Classy's I average 58.2 FPS through 3 runs. With the 680's I get 78.8fps in the same test.
 
Stock
stockvj.jpg


Overclock
680overclock.jpg



pretty awesome card
 
Just to confirm what others have said, got a response from EVGA about stepping up from a 2GB 680 to a 4GB:

For the Step-Up program the 4GB versions will not be a reference design so it will not be on the list to Step-Up to when it is released.

Damn.
 
I know there are third party waterblocks available for these GTX680 cards but does anyone know if there will be some third party air coolers?

I know like for the GTX590 they never made them only just waterblocks.
Arctic Accelero Hybrid. Combo air-water cooler that's compatible with the reference stacked power.

http://www.pcinpact.com/news/69759-arctic-accelero-hybrid-geforce-gtx-680-water.htm
111281-arctic-accelero-hybrid.png




It's stock on one of Inno3D's GTX 680s.

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/News/294823,inno3d-gtx-680-built-in-water-cooling-system.aspx
ImageResizer.ashx
 
Cheers for that. HPC cards are gimped in other ways that makes them dogs for gaming aren't they? I'm a bit hazy about this.

Be a shame if the beast never sees the light of day in a gaming card.
Not really. They just carry some functionality that isn't used in typical gaming scenarious (under DX / OpenGL). That functionality takes space on the chip and may cause higher power draw even while not in use. But that doesn't make them gimped in any way. On the contrary it makes them too advanced for today gaming needs.
 
Cheers for that. HPC cards are gimped in other ways that makes them dogs for gaming aren't they? I'm a bit hazy about this.

Be a shame if the beast never sees the light of day in a gaming card.

If you considered the Fermi (GTX 480 / 580) a 'dog', then maybe, since these were similar cards built with compute as well as graphics in mind.

GK110 (if that's what it's called) will not be as efficient as GK104 as far as power/perf efficiency, but it's almost certain to be faster in an absolute sense, otherwise it will not be released as a workstation / gaming card. The market for compute-only cards is not robust enough yet (IMHO) for Nvidia to completely disregard the gaming and graphics workstation markets. If GK110 sees light of day as a non-compute card, and I think it will, then it is most likely going to be faster than GK104 as a gaming card. Whether it will be released this year on not, or whether it makes it out in GK110 trim remains to be seen.

I think it will be interesting to see how much of the extra bandwidth a presumably 384-bit Kepler card can make use of, and whether it helps across the board or not.
 
So, who wants to buy my GTX 680?

I'm serious. Free shipping anywhere in the US. Used but in perfect condition. I'll even give it to you $20 off or so. Send me a PM if you're interested :-)



Yeah...guess it was a hell of lot more bottlenecked by my GTX 680 than I could have ever dreamed it would be.

Battlefield 3 Ultra settings (including 4xAA)
6850 - 15.57
GTX 680 - 41.4

Serious Sam 3 Ultra settings
6850 - 25.9
GTX 680 - 30.7

Tribes Ascend maxed out
6850 - 40.1
GTX 680 - 59.2

Metro 2033 DX11 + 4xMSAA
6850 - 6.5
GTX 680 - 27.8
GTX 680 + PhysX - 25

Hard Reset everything maxed out (4xFSAA)
6850 - 30.1
GTX 680 - 69.9

Starcraft 2 everything maxed out
6850 - 43.1
GTX 680 - 53.5 (that's pretty awful....)

Dawn of War Retribution
6850 - 33
GTX 680 - 33 (wtf??)
 
So, who wants to buy my GTX 680?

I'm serious. Free shipping anywhere in the US. Used but in perfect condition. I'll even give it to you $20 off or so. Send me a PM if you're interested :-)



Yeah...guess it was a hell of lot more bottlenecked by my GTX 680 than I could have ever dreamed it would be.

What CPU do you have?
 
So, who wants to buy my GTX 680?

I'm serious. Free shipping anywhere in the US. Used but in perfect condition. I'll even give it to you $20 off or so. Send me a PM if you're interested :-)

If you had waited to post this Friday, I'd definitely jump on it. No money until payday. Fuck :(
 
Yeah...guess it was a hell of lot more bottlenecked by my GTX 680 than I could have ever dreamed it would be.
Going off a cursory glance, and knowing absolutely nothing about your build, I'd imagine your CPU may not be fast enough, and/or in need of an overclock.

Potential candidates: Core 2, Athlon II/Phenom II, even possibly a gen 1 Core i_.

Or, not...
 
So, who wants to buy my GTX 680?

I'm serious. Free shipping anywhere in the US. Used but in perfect condition. I'll even give it to you $20 off or so. Send me a PM if you're interested :-)

Tempting, but I'll pass. Still haven't done enough research/thinking to make up my mind on which GPU I'm getting.

Battlefield 3 Ultra settings (including 4xAA)
6850 - 15.57
GTX 680 - 41.4

Serious Sam 3 Ultra settings
6850 - 25.9
GTX 680 - 30.7

Tribes Ascend maxed out
6850 - 40.1
GTX 680 - 59.2

Metro 2033 DX11 + 4xMSAA
6850 - 6.5
GTX 680 - 27.8
GTX 680 + PhysX - 25

Hard Reset everything maxed out (4xFSAA)
6850 - 30.1
GTX 680 - 69.9

Starcraft 2 everything maxed out
6850 - 43.1
GTX 680 - 53.5 (that's pretty awful....)

Dawn of War Retribution
6850 - 33
GTX 680 - 33 (wtf??)

What resolution are these running at?

Not really. They just carry some functionality that isn't used in typical gaming scenarious (under DX / OpenGL). That functionality takes space on the chip and may cause higher power draw even while not in use. But that doesn't make them gimped in any way. On the contrary it makes them too advanced for today gaming needs.

I thought nvidia's non-GeForce cards (e.g. Quadro) have a different drivers, which are not optimized for gaming, right? So even if the hardware isn't gimped for gaming, the drivers might make it so.

On a separate note, I wonder if all these people saying "I'll wait for GK110" realize that it's going to be priced well above the 680 (currently at $500 for 2GB reference cards). What price range do you expect a GK110 GeForce (if nvidia releases one) will come at? I know it depends on when nvidia releases it (this year vs next year), and also on whether AMD puts up a good fight or not... but I'm interested in what $from-$to range would be expected.

If people think $500 for 2GB GK104 is too much, would they you be willing to pay $700+ for 4GB GK110?
 
So, who wants to buy my GTX 680?

I'm serious. Free shipping anywhere in the US. Used but in perfect condition. I'll even give it to you $20 off or so. Send me a PM if you're interested :-)



Yeah...guess it was a hell of lot more bottlenecked by my GTX 680 than I could have ever dreamed it would be.

Battlefield 3 Ultra settings (including 4xAA)
6850 - 15.57
GTX 680 - 41.4

Serious Sam 3 Ultra settings
6850 - 25.9
GTX 680 - 30.7

Tribes Ascend maxed out
6850 - 40.1
GTX 680 - 59.2

Metro 2033 DX11 + 4xMSAA
6850 - 6.5
GTX 680 - 27.8
GTX 680 + PhysX - 25

Hard Reset everything maxed out (4xFSAA)
6850 - 30.1
GTX 680 - 69.9

Starcraft 2 everything maxed out
6850 - 43.1
GTX 680 - 53.5 (that's pretty awful....)

Dawn of War Retribution
6850 - 33
GTX 680 - 33 (wtf??)

That's kind of pathetic. My EVGA GTX 570 1.28 gig gets higher frames than the 680. What's the issue? Are the drivers not up to scratch yet?
 
Sorry, I thought I put my CPU in the post. It's a Q9550, stock at 2.83GHz. I knew it would be a bottleneck, but I didn't realize it would be that bad.

Attempted an overclock, but with the stock cooler it was hitting 80-90C easily at a modest overclock to 3.4GHz. Normally it's comfortable at 40-50C.

Don't feel like bothering with aftermarket coolers, and definitely don't want to go through with buying a new CPU+mobo+ram+rebuilding my entire case from scratch.

Running at 1920x1200 resolution/
 
Heh, first on the list. Even with recent-ish die shrinks, overclocking on your average stock HSF is not advisable.

"Don't feel like bothering with aftermarket coolers, and definitely don't want to go through with buying a new CPU+mobo+ram+rebuilding my entire case from scratch."​
Something has to give. Either one of those two routes are taken, or you find happiness in your current clock results. Most self-respecting Q9550s will do at least 3.8GHz. North of 4.2GHz depending on skill, stepping, luck of the draw, and components.

You need a much higher OC for your IPS to be within range of stock SB/IB.
 
Sorry, I thought I put my CPU in the post. It's a Q9550, stock at 2.83GHz. I knew it would be a bottleneck, but I didn't realize it would be that bad.

Attempted an overclock, but with the stock cooler it was hitting 80-90C easily at a modest overclock to 3.4GHz. Normally it's comfortable at 40-50C.

Don't feel like bothering with aftermarket coolers, and definitely don't want to go through with buying a new CPU+mobo+ram+rebuilding my entire case from scratch.

Running at 1920x1200 resolution/
SMH. You really should have done more research/asked GAF before wasting money on a $500 GPU. Don't even bother keeping the GPU if you're not going to be buying a new CPU as well. My advice is to just stick with the 6850 and pick up a newer, faster GTX 780 when it comes out along with a new Ivy Bridge system.
 
So, who wants to buy my GTX 680?

I'm serious. Free shipping anywhere in the US. Used but in perfect condition. I'll even give it to you $20 off or so. Send me a PM if you're interested :-)



Yeah...guess it was a hell of lot more bottlenecked by my GTX 680 than I could have ever dreamed it would be.

Battlefield 3 Ultra settings (including 4xAA)
6850 - 15.57
GTX 680 - 41.4

Serious Sam 3 Ultra settings
6850 - 25.9
GTX 680 - 30.7

Tribes Ascend maxed out
6850 - 40.1
GTX 680 - 59.2

Metro 2033 DX11 + 4xMSAA
6850 - 6.5
GTX 680 - 27.8
GTX 680 + PhysX - 25

Hard Reset everything maxed out (4xFSAA)
6850 - 30.1
GTX 680 - 69.9

Starcraft 2 everything maxed out
6850 - 43.1
GTX 680 - 53.5 (that's pretty awful....)

Dawn of War Retribution
6850 - 33
GTX 680 - 33 (wtf??)
BF3 likes CPU and SC II is almost all CPU (Ultra is a waste here).
Buy a cooler and OC and run at high instead of Ultra.

Running an old C2Q isn't super great with a 680 because so many games that need the horse power also want a fast quad.
 
I did a bunch of research before buying, but there weren't any direct comparisons I could find for exactly what I was looking for. I knew I'd be CPU limited, but I thought maybe just 20-30%.

Anyway, I've turned a new leaf :-) I'm fine hanging onto the card for now after playing Battlefield 3 maxed out at a smooth 40-60FPS and 1920x1200, and I'll be upgrading to Ivy Bridge when it comes out at the end of April.
 
It's a CPU Bottleneck, that's the issue.

Oh okay.

I think a 680 purchase right now would be a little premature. Currently there are no games out that require a 680 unless you're really determined to ubersample on Witcher 2.

Of course, I'm saying all this with a 1920 by 1080 resolution in mind, which is what I'm rocking for the next few years.

I'm hoping my 570 will last me for a few years before I get a 7xx series card.

My Core i7 2600 is not a bottleneck for now but I feel kind of bad for not getting a 2600k. Overclocking doesn't seem to work well on my processor.
 
Not to derail thread but can I step up from an EVGA GTX 480 to a 580? I mean hell if I only have to pay shipping like previous poster said, I would do it.
 
I'm sorry if this has been asked/answered before in the thread (if it was, I didn't catch it,) but would a 680 be bottlenecked by a Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.51 Ghz? My 5850 is pushing along just fine for most things, but these 680s are pretty tempting. :)
 
I'm sorry if this has been asked/answered before in the thread (if it was, I didn't catch it,) but would a 680 be bottlenecked by a Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.51 Ghz? My 5850 is pushing along just fine for most things, but these 680s are pretty tempting. :)

I'd say yes, as that is in the same range as dLMN8R's CPU, so you could definitely see some bottlenecking.
 
I'd say yes, as that is in the same range as dLMN8R's CPU, so you could definitely see some bottlenecking.

Hmph. That's kind of disappointing to hear. I guess I'll just hold out 2-3 years and get a new machine all at once then, unless you guys think an x4 980 (3.7Ghz stock) would do it.
 
You can only FSB OC which is awful.

I have a pretty good BIOS from MSI so FSB OCing is okay, not an issue. But the CPU I have must not be the best yield.

I'm not too worried as a stock 2600 with turbo boost at 3.8 Ghz will play anything I need at 1080p paired with my 570, but after the Sandy Bridge E line dropped a couple of weeks after I built my PC, the 2600k had a price drop on Newegg.

I'm kind of new to PC. The last computer I had before this rig I made was an HP netbook and the computer before that was a Gateway laptop from 2006.

Ivy Bridge and Kepler are both efficiency upgrades. No major leaps in performance to be had until the tail end of both lines. I'll upgrade to Haswell and 7xx in a few years.
 
Yes. The rule of thumb from here on out is that if it's an AMD processor, it's going to bottleneck newer high end cards. At least, it's my rule of thumb.
I think most processors are going to bottleneck a GTX 680 at 1080p unless you start cranking up the AA. The Phenom should have enough poop to stay over 60fps though. It has an unlocked multiplier so just overclock it into dust.
 
I think most processors are going to bottleneck a GTX 680 at 1080p unless you start cranking up the AA. The Phenom should have enough poop to stay over 60fps though. It has an unlocked multiplier so just overclock it into dust.

Depends entirely on the game. When we're talking about games than can go sub 60fps at 1080p with a 2500K and GTX 680, the GTX 680 is still going to be the bottleneck most of the time (The Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Shogun 2, etc..).

Will the Phenom x4 955 bottleneck a 680?

It's best if you name specific games. An overclocked 955 is still a perfectly capable GPU, and only a handful of games are going to be seriously bottlenecked by it...the Blizzard games come to mind, especially SC2, which is very CPU dependent.
 
I think most processors are going to bottleneck a GTX 680 at 1080p unless you start cranking up the AA. The Phenom should have enough poop to stay over 60fps though. It has an unlocked multiplier so just overclock it into dust.

That's wrong. No Intel CPU of any recent release date will bottleneck it. i7 9xx, i5 2500k, i7 2600k, i7 3930k, etc. etc.

As long as you have a decent quad core (Intel from within the last 2 years) you're set.

That's one reason why everyone has hated on Sandy Bridge E from a gamer's perspective - 6 cores is HUGE overkill right now for games...and they're HOT and power hungry. That said, I love mine. heh.
 
That's wrong. No Intel CPU of any recent release date will bottleneck it. i7 9xx, i5 2500k, i7 2600k, i7 3930k, etc. etc.

As long as you have a decent quad core (Intel from within the last 2 years) you're set.

That's one reason why everyone has hated on Sandy Bridge E from a gamer's perspective - 6 cores is HUGE overkill right now for games...and they're HOT and power hungry. That said, I love mine. heh.
If you drop res and the framerates don't go up you're CPU limited. But if that happens and your framerates are in the high hundreds then it doesn't really matter.

If we're defining a CPU bottleneck to be framerates under 60 at any res then no, that's not gonna happen on any decent quad.
 
That's wrong. No Intel CPU of any recent release date will bottleneck it. i7 9xx, i5 2500k, i7 2600k, i7 3930k, etc. etc.

As long as you have a decent quad core (Intel from within the last 2 years) you're set.

That's one reason why everyone has hated on Sandy Bridge E from a gamer's perspective - 6 cores is HUGE overkill right now for games...and they're HOT and power hungry. That said, I love mine. heh.

....and no game uses them, and sometimes perform worse than SB and cost a small fortune and increase cost of motherboard and need to buy more ram for quad channel and finally THEY ARE FUCKING BALLER AND AWESOME.
 
If you drop res and the framerates don't go up you're CPU limited. But if that happens and your framerates are in the high hundreds then it doesn't really matter.

If we're defining a CPU bottleneck to be framerates under 60 at any res then no, that's not gonna happen on any decent quad.

Is this all over a typo? You said "are" - perhaps you meant "aren't"? Has to be it.
 
Depends entirely on the game. When we're talking about games than can go sub 60fps at 1080p with a 2500K and GTX 680, the GTX 680 is still going to be the bottleneck most of the time (The Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Shogun 2, etc..).



It's best if you name specific games. An overclocked 955 is still a perfectly capable GPU, and only a handful of games are going to be seriously bottlenecked by it...the Blizzard games come to mind, especially SC2, which is very CPU dependent.

Mainly BF3, shogun 2 and DoW R

at 1920x1080
 
Mainly BF3, shogun 2 and DoW R

at 1920x1080

The first 2 are rather GPU intensive, so you'll definitely make use of a 680. If it's not overclocked, it may bottleneck you slightly in BF3...Shogun 2 will depend on your settings.

I'd still say it's a worthwhile purchase even with that CPU, but you'll definitely be on the edge of being CPU bottlenecked for many titles, so I wouldn't get any faster GPU than that.
 
The first 2 are rather GPU intensive, so you'll definitely make use of a 680. If it's not overclocked, it may bottleneck you slightly in BF3...Shogun 2 will depend on your settings.

I'd still say it's a worthwhile purchase even with that CPU, but you'll definitely be on the edge of being CPU bottlenecked for many titles, so I wouldn't get any faster GPU than that.

Thank you for the help:P
 
That's a 590, which is faster than the 680, and even then, the x4 Athlon goes just below 60fps. He also has an overclocked x4 which should b e a bit faster than the 980 in that bench.

Also, that is benched in some of the easier to run areas...probably the tutorial chapter. Later chapters become far more GPU dependent, as far as I know (especially Flotsam).
 
The 590 is still a fair bit faster than the 680 when SLI scaling is good. 680 is about 50% faster than a single 570.

Not sure how well The Witcher 2 scales with SLI though.

I'd estimate that I get roughly 45-50fps in the tutorial chapter at 1080p with my GTX 570 at Ultra (minus Uber), and sub 30fps in Flotsam. It's been a while since I've played, though.
 
The 590 is still a fair bit faster than the 680 when SLI scaling is good. 680 is about 50% faster than a single 570.

Not sure how well The Witcher 2 scales with SLI though.

I'd estimate that I get roughly 45-50fps in the tutorial chapter at 1080p with my GTX 570 at Ultra (minus Uber), and sub 30fps in Flotsam. It's been a while since I've played, though.

This is a benchmark played in a different area than the stuff I posted above, but it shows how much faster the 680 is than the 580... basically it's got the same performance leap over the 580 as the 590 does. So the 680 too will be CPU limited.

GTX-680-73.jpg


1920_HighUltra.png
 
Top Bottom