Jump to content



Photo

GTX 680 Specs + Benchmarks

benchmarks 680 7970

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:13

In a leaked Nvidia slide, the final GeForce GTX 680 specifications are revealed and more...

In a leaked slide coming out of the Chinese web-site PCOnline.com.cn, we see an official Nvidia slide listing the GeForce GTX 680 specifications. The GeForce GTX 680 is based on the 28nm Kepler GK104 chip and is said to launch around March 22nd. The GTX 680 features clock speeds of 1006 MHz (base), and 1058 MHz (boost). The memory is clocked at 6 GHz (1500 MHz actual), and 2 GB GDDR5 memory running across a 256-bit wide interface. As we know, the GK104 will feature 1536 Stream Processors, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. As with the AMD Radeon 7000 series cards, the GeForce GTX 680 will be based on a PCIe 3.0 bus interface with support for DX11.1, Quad Way SLI and display outputs of two DL-DVI, a HDMI and Display port 1.2. The card will utilize two 6-pin PCIe power connectors and has a TDP of 195W.
Posted Image
As we saw at the Game Developers Conference, Epic showed the infamous Samaritan Demo running on a single Nvidia's Kepler GPU, which could be the aforementioned GTX 680. Now, we see a slide coming out ofNGF community that shows the performance of the GTX 680 versus AMD's top two cards, the HD 7970 andHD 7950. The slide uses the HD 7970 as the baseline for performance comparison. Looking across the board, the GTX 680 outperforms the HD 7970 by roughly 20 percent in the seven games/benchmarks utilized. The one benchmark that stands out the most is the performance increase with Battlefield 3 (4xAA). The GTX 680 shows over a 40 percent performance increase, which could be related to use of Nvidia's FXAA technology.
Posted Image
Back in early March, we saw the first images of the GK104 card thanks to a leak coming from Chinese web-site Chiphell. Today, Chiphell has provided us with other leaked images and this time it is a near-final version of the graphics card. From these images, we see the cards Quad Way SLI support, along with its unique stacked power connector setup.
Posted Image
Posted Image

TomsHardware




For skeptics who refuse to believe randomly-sourced bar-graphs of the GeForce GTX 680 that are starved of pictures, here is the first set of benchmarks run by a third-party (neither NVIDIA nor one of its AIC partners). This [p]reviewer from HKEPC has pictures to back his benchmarks. The GeForce GTX 680 was pitted against a Radeon HD 7970, and a previous-generation GeForce GTX 580. The test-bed consisted of an extreme-cooled Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition processor (running at stock frequency), ASUS Rampage IV Extreme motherboard, 8 GB (4x 2 GB) GeIL EVO 2 DDR3-2200 MHz quad-channel memory, Corsair AX1200W PSU, and Windows 7 x64.

Benchmarks included 3DMark 11 (performance preset), Battlefield 3, Batman: Arkham City, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Lost Planet 2, and Unigine Heaven (version not mentioned, could be 1). All tests were run at a constant resolution of 1920x1080, with 8x MSAA on some tests (mentioned in the graphs).

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

TechPowerUp




#2 OP Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:25

I say it looks solid for what?... 50 USD more than 7970? (Y)

#3 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:26

the gtx 680 will be 1000mhz/6000mhz stock ?

Wonder how much room for oc this card will have.

#4 BillyJack

BillyJack

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 20-December 05
  • Location: Florida, United States

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:38

I am not impressed. The Battlefield 3 benchmarks at that resolution are only 72 fps. I get that with my (4870x2) x 2. What I am looking for is a card that can push about 70 fps at 2560 x 1600 in Battlefield 3 which my cards cannot do.

#5 OP Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:41

I am not impressed. The Battlefield 3 benchmarks at that resolution are only 72 fps. I get that with my (4870x2) x 2. What I am looking for is a card that can push about 70 fps at 2560 x 1600 in Battlefield 3 which my cards cannot do.


You can't notice anymore fluidity than that

#6 Miuku.

Miuku.

    A damned noob

  • Joined: 10-August 03
  • Location: Finland, EU
  • OS: :: OS X :: SLES ::

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:44

I'm not really impressed by the advances in GPU's currently - we're looking at a transition to 4k displays soon and these cards can barely do 2k without choking.

#7 BillyJack

BillyJack

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 20-December 05
  • Location: Florida, United States

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:54

You can't notice anymore fluidity than that


You are right but I have not seen benchmarks for 2560x1600 in Battlefield 3. Currently my cards cannot push the game in that resolution. Since this card is the latest and greatest I would expect it to do better than my cards. However, at the 1920x1200 resolution the new king of the hill is pushing the same fps as my current, several generations behind, cards. That is why I am disappointed. I would like to replace my cards with the newest card so that I can play Battlefield 3 at 2560x1600 around 70 fps.

I'm not really impressed by the advances in GPU's currently - we're looking at a transition to 4k displays soon and these cards can barely do 2k without choking.


I agree, if this card is still struggling with the latest games at 2560x1600 resolution then why bother making screens with larger resolutions. Despite graphic cards have advanced a lot since ten years ago they are not advancing fast enough or at least that well.

Maybe rather than making graphic cards that burn up so much energy they should focus on changing the paradigm of physics engines, textures and how games are coded. There is no way we will ever get photo realistic games if something does not change drastically.

#8 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:55

I'm not really impressed by the advances in GPU's currently - we're looking at a transition to 4k displays soon and these cards can barely do 2k without choking.

resolution aint everything, my friend. what about AA, AF, tessellation, DirectX11, and all the other technology that goes into video games? subsurface scattering, bump mapping, ambient occulsion, motion blur...

you also have to realize that the drivers for these cards are probably pretty rough. The 1st driver release for the AMD 7970 was rough. Took a 2nd round to get better performance.

i think it's pretty funny that the tester has a extreme-cooled cpu running at stock speed :p

also, i will be buying (2) of these cards :woot:

#9 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:55

I'm not really impressed by the advances in GPU's currently - we're looking at a transition to 4k displays soon and these cards can barely do 2k without choking.


Yep i'm not impressed either. Specially at the price asked if it's 50$ more than a already overpriced 7970. The price of the 7950 is ridiculous too. What will be interesting to see when real professional benchs will come in is the overclocking abilities of this card. The memory clock and core clock are already high for a card of this power. With a stock fan there might not be that much more room left for overclocking if you want to keep the jet engine out of your home (most stock coolers sound like jet engine when you oc too much).

Gonna keep my oced 6950 with a custom cooler. I can get it to 900/1400 (fan at 60%) without any voltage tweak and it can runs current games fine. I only wish i had bought the 2gb version i fear that 1gb might not be enough for upcpming games.

#10 OP Muhammad Farrukh

Muhammad Farrukh

    The End is Nigh

  • Joined: 15-August 11

Posted 16 March 2012 - 17:58

Some reports suggest that 680 will be priced at 500 USD.

#11 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 16 March 2012 - 18:02

Yep i'm not impressed either. Specially at the price asked if it's 50$ more than a already overpriced 7970. The price of the 7950 is ridiculous too. What will be interesting to see when real professional benchs will come in is the overclocking abilities of this card. The memory clock and core clock are already high for a card of this power. With a stock fan there might not be that much more room left for overclocking if you want to keep the jet engine out of your home (most stock coolers sound like jet engine when you oc too much).

high end cards have always had an MSRP of $500. Based on supply and demand, though, they can reach $550. you'll never see a high-end card go for <$500.

#12 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 16 March 2012 - 18:08

resolution aint everything, my friend. what about AA,


Imo resolution > AA

I prefer high resolution with low AA than lower resolution with higher aa.

#13 rajputwarrior

rajputwarrior

    olé olé olé olé

  • Joined: 20-June 04
  • Location: BC, CANADA

Posted 16 March 2012 - 18:21

i bought my 5850 almost a year ago for 125 bucks. i oc'ed it and it performs similar to 6890. there is still nothing out there that I can REMOTELY justify upgrading to.

#14 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 16 March 2012 - 18:23

Imo resolution > AA

I prefer high resolution with low AA than lower resolution with higher aa.


i agree - but you could probably dumb down the graphics to such a low level that 4k and 2k (as they put it) run smoothly. but what fun is that? they want cards that can handle 4k for some reason, but to do that, you need to dumb down all the other effects, and that's no fun.

#15 Astra.Xtreme

Astra.Xtreme

    Electrical Engineer

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 02-January 04
  • Location: Milwaukee, WI

Posted 16 March 2012 - 18:27

I agree, if this card is still struggling with the latest games at 2560x1600 resolution then why bother making screens with larger resolutions. Despite graphic cards have advanced a lot since ten years ago they are not advancing fast enough or at least that well.


Displays with that resolution capability are designed for graphic design. Certainly not gaming.