GTX 680 Specs + Benchmarks


Recommended Posts

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.

Nvidia-Kepler-GK104-GeForce-GTX680,S-G-330208-13.jpg

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.

Nvidia-Kepler-GK104-GeForce-GTX680,S-E-330206-13.png

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.

Nvidia-Kepler-GK104-GeForce-GTX680,S-F-330207-13.jpg

Nvidia-Kepler-GK104-GeForce-GTX680,T-E-330242-13.jpg

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).

179a_thm.jpg179b_thm.jpg179c_thm.jpg179d_thm.jpg179e_thm.jpg179f_thm.jpg179g_thm.jpg

TechPowerUp

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1064584-gtx-680-specs-benchmarks/
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Not really - LG and other manufacturers have 4k displays already ready and the only thing we're really waiting for is a few specs to be finalized and the manufacturing costs to go down, naturally.

I'm personally salivating at the thought of getting a 4k "UltraHD" 30"+ screen on my table.

Not really - LG and other manufacturers have 4k displays already ready and the only thing we're really waiting for is a few specs to be finalized and the manufacturing costs to go down, naturally.

I'm personally salivating at the thought of getting a 4k "UltraHD" 30"+ screen on my table.

Yeah cost is the killer. Do they have a decent response rate? The ones I see out now are at 7-15ms, which isn't that great compared to most other monitors.

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.

Oh sure 500$ for high end gfx card is perfectly fine. But i just don't think those new card bring enough to justify an upgrade from the previous generation. If you are 2 generation behind maybe.

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

Maybe at first they were designed for graphics but they have become common for gaming. Specially for the people who spend the money. That is why games support that resolution. At first game developers had to start supporting that resolution but now they all do or at least close to them all. I do realize that due to the price of the monitor most gamers have just stuck with HD resolution. Therefore the slow adoption rate makes it to a point where no manufacturer or developer really care. The next thing that they care about is multi-monitors and 3D. So if you throw out the resolution is not made for gaming aspect the cards still need the power to support multi-monitors.

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.

Really? So a card with a single GPU can push the same performance as 4 GPUs from 3 generations ago? I'd call that pretty impressive. Besides, as others have said, resolution isn't everything. If it's pixelated and jagged, I don't care how high the resolution is. You want 70+ FPS @ 2560x1600? Buy two of them and SLI them.

  • Like 1

Really? So a card with a single GPU can push the same performance as 4 GPUs from 3 generations ago? I'd call that pretty impressive. Besides, as others have said, resolution isn't everything. If it's pixelated and jagged, I don't care how high the resolution is. You want 70+ FPS @ 2560x1600? Buy two of them and SLI them.

Do you have a 30" monitor and play games with a 2560 x1600 resolution? Or have you ever experienced playing games like this on another person's computer? Games at this resolution are not pixelated or jagged. Unless you were letting a GPU upscale a game that did not support this resolution the image will look the same as 1920x1080.

Everyone's opinion is there own. Some people rather have anti aliasing rather than resolution and others rather have resolution rather than anti aliasing. Hell, some people like playing games on consoles better than PCs. Some people even like using multiple monitors for there games.

My cards are direct x 10.1, I do not have all the settings set that high and they only use about 65% of the GPU in crossfire. Plus my fps can sometimes drop as low as 30 fps and go as high as 100 fps depending on the scene. On average they are around 70 fps in BF3.

Thirty inch monitors have been out for a while now and plenty of people own them and game with one. So I feel that these state of the art top leading graphic cards should be able to push a game at a resolution of 2560x1600. I remember when graphic cards could barely push a game at the resolutions that were the norm at the time. Since then graphic cards have come a long way and so have monitors. I know that the games have come a long way too. My point is why is a graphics card always behind. The number one card seems like it can never push a certain game to the max, or resolution, or something. You think that it would be able to do anything the most recent game and hardware allow and a decent performance. That is why I am not impressed.

Wow. Really?

:s

If that's true how do you explain most gamers buying 27"+ or multiple displays for strictly gaming. :rolleyes:

That's a completely unrelated matter. He was talking about monitors that run at 2560x1600 resolution. Newegg sells 4 monitors that support that and they run over $1k each. They don't have a great response time, so it's a pretty clear indicator that they aren't made for gaming. Hense why games play like crap at that resolution. ;)

I think some people are gravely mistaken that we're on the "cusp" of super high resolution monitors.

Yes, there are 2560 x ____ resolution monitors out there, but they've been there for many years, and they have not gained any traction. The new iPad is the first real attempt at making super high resolution screens a mainstream thing, but I still think it will be be 4+ years before we even see 1080p start to fade. Heck, when 1080p first came out, it took quite a few years before 720p TVs dwindled out. Plus with telecom and cable companies fighting tooth and nail to throttle our bandwidth consumption and 1080p just now starting to become standard for TV shows, I really doubt they are going to want to start moving to even higher resolutions.

Not to mention that console makers have no intention of pushing ending the lifecycle of our current consoles anytime soon, that will also prolong the life of 1080p.

Don't get me wrong, I am a PC enthusiast, and I want nothing more than to see the PC system get pushed as far as possible, but with profitability being a key factor these days, companies just can't afford to keep doing that.

Luckily it seems like nVidia is doing a good job of spending a lot of their money on R&D and is expaning their portfolio and prowess.

-Tegra is still slow to gain market share but they are gaining some traction

-The Kepler chips seem to be VERY fast compared to AMD's offering, and that's only the GK104 chip. I think they're going to use that advantage to give the GK114 chip more time to bake so they don't have a Gen 1 Fermi repeat.

-The 300 series drivers/cards are bringing 3 potentially awesome new features: TXAA, Quad-monitor support, and Adaptive VSync

-The kepler cards have pushed clocks higher and driven power usage down by a lot

-Preliminary benchmarks are showing that SLI is scaling very well

So yes, while I don't think video cards are jumping by leaps and bounds like they used to, I feel like nVidia is making great efforts to improve the quality/value of their products

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!