Nvidia Kepler - Geforce GTX680 Thread - Now with reviews

I'm sure it's way more expensive and more power guzzling than I'd like. I hope that we'll see more GTX 680s available now that this is rolling out.
 
Jtrizzy said:
this. and the Crysis 3 footage was streaming terribly.
Click to expand...

everything wass streaming terribly.

Anyway, could someone explain to me why they'd make such a big deal out of a graphics card that is probably gonna be a super niche product, due to it's undoubedtly skyhigh pricetag. Wouldn't it make more sense from a busines standpoint, to announce and focus on their GTX660 and/or GTX670 cards?
 
it wouldn't surprise me if this 690 is close to or even above $1k... this shit is just for bragging rights to have the fastest PC. it's really unnecessary and over the top if you're just an average gamer.

still... a tri-SLI setup with 690s would be undeniably badass :]

Trickster said:
everything wass streaming terribly.

Anyway, could someone explain to me why they'd make such a big deal out of a graphics card that is probably gonna be a super niche product, due to it's undoubedtly skyhigh pricetag. Wouldn't it make more sense from a busines standpoint, to announce and focus on their GTX660 and/or GTX670 cards?
Click to expand...

the halo effect... having the fastest graphics card ever is what in turn sells the 670 and lesser cards!
 
Also...these are going to be so rare, they will almost be mythical. The 680 has the worst availability issues I've ever witnessed since I started caring about graphics cards like 15 years ago. Don't know if it's purely a foundry issue or what. But now that you can get a 7970 for $450, I'm not sure if its worth checking newegg every fucking day to see if I happen to run into a 680...
 
if im reading article correctly it's almost 2 full 680 cores on the same board unlike the 590 situation compared to 580s?

Performance
A dual-GPU graphics card is similar to two-way SLI condensed into a single graphics card. Historically, though, the dual-GPU card has always lagged behind its SLI counterpart in terms of performance. When two GPUs are brought onto the same card, their combined heat output outstrips the capacity of even the most capable cooler. As a result, clock speeds must be lowered. For example, in the Fermi generation, the fastest single-GPU graphics card had a graphics clock speed of 722 MHz and a memory data rate of 4008MHz. On the dual-GPU card, the graphics clock was 607 MHz and the memory data rate was 3212 MHz.

This is where Kepler's fanatical focus on power efficiency pays off most handsomely. The GPUs on the GeForce GTX 690 have a boost clock of 1019 MHz, just a hair (2.8%) shy of the GeForce GTX 680 at 1058 MHz. What's more, all other specs are identical; the number of cores, memory speed, and memory bandwidth per GPU are the same on both cards.

What this means is that the GeForce GTX 690 performs more or less just like a pair of GeForce GTX 680s in SLI; almost nothing was compromised in bringing two Kepler GPUs to the same board.
Click to expand...

if so that's pretty sweet
 
People laughing at the 1k price tag...that's about what it is for SLI 680s. Don't see anything wrong with that price especially since it's almost as fully clocked as the 680 on both GPUs, and takes up 1 slot.
 
Will companies even release higher vram cards for this for $1200? I might just pick up a 680/sell 580, or even just stay with my 580 1.5 gb.

If I drop 1K on a card I want it to last for 3 years, and that VRAM seems like it is going to cause problems a year from now. Otherwise I'd buy the 690, I'd think with more vram it would last at least a few years into the next console gen.
 
The crowd's non-reaction to "WHO HERE LIKE CRYSIS?" was hilarious. Hell, the whole thing was hilarious. Nvidia has a weirdly self-inflated "gamer cred" image when it comes to stuff like this sometimes.

Also a 999 dollar graphics card. Ok.
 
Smokey said:
People laughing at the 1k price tag...that's about what it is for SLI 680s. Don't see anything wrong with that price especially since it's almost as fully clocked as the 680 on both GPUs, and takes up 1 slot.
Click to expand...
facepalm

Dual-GPU cards have never been 2x the cost of a single-GPU variant. But yeah, keep justifying the price.
 
artist said:
facepalm

Dual-GPU cards have never been 2x the cost of a single-GPU variant. But yeah, keep justifying the price.
Click to expand...

until now

nvidia will release the card what the market will pay..its obvious there is a demand for the 680 as evidenced by the fact that they still sell out in 2 minutes.

also the 690 features two 680s that are extremely close to being clocked the same as a single 680 with everything else being the same. in the past the dual gpu cards featured heavily downclocked cores.

it's a fine price to me and is essentially the same as two 680 cards in SLI anyway which is pretty much who this card is geared towards. only thing shitty about this is the 4gb of VRAM shared between the two cores.

:shrug
 
Jtrizzy said:
Will companies even release higher vram cards for this for $1200? I might just pick up a 680/sell 580, or even just stay with my 580 1.5 gb.

If I drop 1K on a card I want it to last for 3 years, and that VRAM seems like it is going to cause problems a year from now. Otherwise I'd buy the 690, I'd think with more vram it would last at least a few years into the next console gen.
Click to expand...

funny you should mention that, because Gainward just launched a (real) 4GB 680

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26872-gainward-gtx-680-phantom-4gb-previewed

at ~€600 it does seem like a better deal in the long run, although current games aren't pushing it enough for the extra memory to make a difference.
 
Smokey said:
until now
Click to expand...
Wasnt that obvious?

Smokey said:
nvidia will release the card what the market will pay..its obvious there is a demand for the 680 as evidenced by the fact that they still sell out in 2 minutes.
Click to expand...
680s would have sold out at $599 too, why did they decide to price it at $499?

Smokey said:
also the 690 features two 680s that are extremely close to being clocked the same as a single 680 with everything else being the same. in the past the dual gpu cards featured heavily downclocked cores.
Click to expand...
Clocks dont impact the price that much really, functional units do. Besides that, the 690's clock ratio with the 680 is pretty similar to that of the 295/280, that argument doesnt hold up.

Smokey said:
it's a fine price to me and is essentially the same as two 680 cards in SLI anyway which is pretty much who this card is geared towards. only thing shitty about this is the 4gb of VRAM shared between the two cores.

:shrug
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems like there is a joke to be had here. $1K for a product that is essentially a 2GB VRAM limit. I expect the press conclusions on Thu's review to pretty much get a pair of 680s over this.
 
Interesting question would then be, what about overclocking? I'm assuming it still has a throttle-back threshold like the 680 and this card will get even hotter, whilst still have a smaller overclocking headroom due to the increased power usage over two cores? Especially if we're talking stability.

If you have room for it, dual SLI still seems preferable, for the better heat management and potential headroom on the cards. Still kudos to Nvidia for being able to only be shy 2.8% of target speeds with this card, price not so interesting.

I'll stick with my 4GB cards.
 
MrBelmontvedere said:
it wouldn't surprise me if this 690 is close to or even above $1k... this shit is just for bragging rights to have the fastest PC. it's really unnecessary and over the top if you're just an average gamer.

still... a tri-SLI setup with 690s would be undeniably badass :]



the halo effect... having the fastest graphics card ever is what in turn sells the 670 and lesser cards!
Click to expand...

Well for one you cannot tri-sli the 690's. It is only capable of 2xSLI since each card contains 2 GPU's...so by pairing 2 of them you get 4-Way SLI.
 
artist said:
facepalm

Dual-GPU cards have never been 2x the cost of a single-GPU variant. But yeah, keep justifying the price.
Click to expand...

While this is true, in the past a dual-gpu card like the 590 was severely handicapped and downclocked alot. The 690 is within 2.5% at is stock boost versus a standalone 680. Memory speed is the exact same, uses less power, less noise and better thermal versus 2x680's in SLI.

The reason past dual GPU's were less was because the did not give the performance of 2 of the equal GPU's in SLI. However, with the way the 680's are very power efficient they were able to maintain, for the most part very close speed to a standalone card, but with the benefits as well.

While this is very expensive, it is the same price if you were to buy 2x680's. The difference is that you have less heat, less noise and less power draw to power this one card than you would 2x680's. I would think anyone considering going SLI with 680's would go with the 690 instead.
 
Hawk269 said:
While this is true, in the past a dual-gpu card like the 590 was severely handicapped and downclocked alot. The 690 is within 2.5% at is stock boost versus a standalone 680. Memory speed is the exact same, uses less power, less noise and better thermal versus 2x680's in SLI.

The reason past dual GPU's were less was because the did not give the performance of 2 of the equal GPU's in SLI. However, with the way the 680's are very power efficient they were able to maintain, for the most part very close speed to a standalone card, but with the benefits as well.

While this is very expensive, it is the same price if you were to buy 2x680's. The difference is that you have less heat, less noise and less power draw to power this one card than you would 2x680's. I would think anyone considering going SLI with 680's would go with the 690 instead.
Click to expand...

What? How can two chips on one board means less noise and heat? Both the 680 and 690 use vapor chamber technology and both sport a single-fan design. So the 690 will have to work harder to dissipate the extra heat which most likely means more work for that one fan, when ultimately leads to more noise - Particularly if you start using custom fan profiles, like any enthusiast would do especially on a 1000 dollar card. The 680 also has a larger chamber to dissipate the heat and only has to work one core. The 690 has two cores that is being covered by smaller heatsinks that needs to be cooled by one fan. SLI 680 are two separate cards that has a lot of advantages PLUS they are both benefited from each their airflow in the case.

Then you add the power to the card, two 8-slot pins I'm guessing? Some 680s are being shipped with that for improved stability when overclocking, even a standard 6+8 means a decent amount of power to one card. Supplying that power to two cores and maintaining that stability just seems a lot harder - I think the heat profile will go all to hell once you start overclocking this thing.
 
there's no way i could ever justify a 1000 dollar card.

for one thousand dollars you can buy a top of the line cpu, motherboard, ram and case, with maybe some left over money for aftermarket coolers. when i think of it that way, i just can't invest in a gpu that expensive regardless of power

im a user that usually buys the X70 models and sli's them in the future, though, so i guess im not their target anyway :x
 
Sethos said:
What? How can two chips on one board means less noise and heat? Both the 680 and 690 use vapor chamber technology and both sport a single-fan design. So the 690 will have to work harder to dissipate the extra heat which most likely means more work for that one fan, when ultimately leads to more noise - Particularly if you start using custom fan profiles, like any enthusiast would do especially on a 1000 dollar car. The 680 also has a larger chamber to dissipate the heat and only has to work one core. The 690 has two cores that is being covered by smaller heatsinks that needs to be cooled by one fan.
Click to expand...

According to the articles from various sites:

AnandTech:

"NVIDIA tells us that they’ve done some further work here to minimize noise by tweaking their fan ducting to reduce obstructions – primarily by eliminating variations in baseplate height that had previously been necessary to accommodate the GPUs – and are claiming that the GTX 690 should be notably quieter than the GTX 680 SLI. The GTX 590 was already a small bit quieter than the GTX 580 SLI, so given the quieter nature of the GTX 680 SLI this is something we’ll be paying particular attention to."

Most sites that have some initial reports are stating that a single 690 will run cooler than 2 680's in SLI. It will draw less power and run quieter as well.

Until the official reviews that come on Thursday are available most if not all this information is coming from Nvidia and the sites are just repeating what they have been told.

Thursday should be insteresting...release date and review date all in one.
 
ShadowOS said:
there's no way i could ever justify a 1000 dollar card.

for one thousand dollars you can buy a top of the line cpu, motherboard, ram and case, with maybe some left over money for aftermarket coolers. when i think of it that way, i just can't invest in a gpu that expensive regardless of power

im a user that usually buys the X70 models and sli's them in the future, though, so i guess im not their target anyway :x
Click to expand...

Actually you are. If you plan to go SLI 680's you are spending the same amount of money as you would for a 690. But for most people, spending 1k in one shot is a bit crazy and a bitter pill to swallow....alot of people I know go with one GPU and then a year later or so add a second when they are cheaper, but then you have the "power gamers" that go SLI from the get-go. For those people, a 690 might be better just depending on their needs and if they want to go 4-Way SLI in the future.
 
Hawk269 said:
According to the articles from various sites:

AnandTech:

"NVIDIA tells us that they’ve done some further work here to minimize noise by tweaking their fan ducting to reduce obstructions – primarily by eliminating variations in baseplate height that had previously been necessary to accommodate the GPUs – and are claiming that the GTX 690 should be notably quieter than the GTX 680 SLI. The GTX 590 was already a small bit quieter than the GTX 580 SLI, so given the quieter nature of the GTX 680 SLI this is something we’ll be paying particular attention to."

Most sites that have some initial reports are stating that a single 690 will run cooler than 2 680's in SLI. It will draw less power and run quieter as well.

Until the official reviews that come on Thursday are available most if not all this information is coming from Nvidia and the sites are just repeating what they have been told. Then you also have two individual cards that will each benefit from their own airflow in your case, unlike one big hunk of heat that only gets the benefit of one.

Thursday should be insteresting...release date and review date all in one.
Click to expand...

Interesting, however I still have my doubts especially since this is all measured with default fan profiles which is a thing Satan created in anger, but I'm hoping for the best. Power is believable in the sense that it's one fan, one board and a slightly lower clock ( Just to claim lower TDP I presume ) compared to two fans, two boards. Then again, who genuinely worries about power when you buy 1000 dollars worth of GPU? Heat I'm still very much doubtful, as logically it doesn't make much sense to me. However, I still believe it'll overclock like a stick in a turd and the heat profile will get shot.

Ultimately single cards have another unique advantage, lots of factory overclocked designs with much better coolers that puts them way in front of a reference design.

In any case I would never touch a dual core GPU design ever again, proper SLI with some proper cooling designs and some overclocking.
 
Hawk269 said:
Actually you are. If you plan to go SLI 680's you are spending the same amount of money as you would for a 690. But for most people, spending 1k in one shot is a bit crazy and a bitter pill to swallow....alot of people I know go with one GPU and then a year later or so add a second when they are cheaper, but then you have the "power gamers" that go SLI from the get-go. For those people, a 690 might be better just depending on their needs and if they want to go 4-Way SLI in the future.
Click to expand...

a 690 woud be a nice update from my 580 SLI.... but it's not 4Gb of VRAM. :( think I'll wait for the 4gig versions of the 680s or something next year...
 
game-performance-new.png

quad-sli-performance-new.png


So wait, does Metro 2033 run at 60+fps or 30fps? These graphs are weird.
 
Top one it runs Crysis 2 at about 55-58FPS, bottom one it's at 63-65FPS.

Top one Battlefield 3 is 80FPS, bottom it's 75FPS.

You can do exactly one thing with official graphs: Wipe your ass with them.
 
They don't really say if it's min fps, avg fps or max fps. I'm assuming the bottom metro one is min FPS or it makes no sense.
 
Sethos said:
There's not a 5-10FPS difference between min. avg. or max. it'd fluctuate more than that, especially when it isn't locked. Seems like a weird form of padding.
Click to expand...
From looking at these 2 charts it seems that there is a large difference. Top one has the 690 be small amount over 60 whereas the bottom has it at 30ish for a single 690 and a bit bellow 60 for 2 690s in quad-SLI. Makes sense to me if they want to make their numbers look more impressive to be playing the min, max avg game here.
 
Theonik said:
From looking at these 2 charts it seems that there is a large difference. Top one has the 690 be small amount over 60 whereas the bottom has it at 30ish for a single 690 and a bit bellow 60 for 2 690s in quad-SLI. Makes sense to me if they want to make their numbers look more impressive to be playing the min, max avg game here.
Click to expand...

There are some discrepancies for sure but in any case, official graphs are still worthless no matter how they are doing it, especially when they are playing the deceit game.
 
Sethos said:
There are some discrepancies for sure but in any case, official graphs are still worthless no matter how they are doing it, especially when they are playing the deceit game.
Click to expand...
No doubt about that, my point was that they aren't necessarily made up numbers, but very dubiously reported ones and ultimately useless by not specifying what it is they are measuring. At least review sites are relatively reliable in their numbers and they tend to specify what the numbers represent.
 
Theonik said:
No doubt about that, my point was that they aren't necessarily made up numbers, but very dubiously reported ones and ultimately useless by not specifying what it is they are measuring. At least review sites are relatively reliable in their numbers and they tend to specify what the numbers represent.
Click to expand...

Never implied they were made up, just the fact that they were all over the place and very much useless.

In any case, will be interesting to see what it can do when real reviewers get their hands on it. Because the chance of any actual customers getting this are slim to none :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nvidia Releases GeForce Now App for the Steam Deck
44
4K
jshackles replied
Nvidia Community Stream - 18th August (12pm PT // 3pm ET // 8pm UK) 'Major Geforce NOW news'
1
169
tronied replied
Anyone here use Geforce Now (Ultimate?)
48
372
Three replied
Geforce Now getting 5080-class GPUs
11
370
peish replied
GeForce RTX 5060/5060 Ti review thread
2 3
145
11K
ThisIsMyDog replied
Top Bottom