and can only adjust it to 20%, not even 32%. Not that I find it a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Printable View
and can only adjust it to 20%, not even 32%. Not that I find it a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
As one running 301.10, it is not fully compatible yet...on certain boards not starting with AS.. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
I really don't understand why they impose this kind of artificial limitations in the first place. Why not set the slider limit to 2000% like MSI Lightning cards allow us to? Because they are afraid that people are going to burn their cards? Well, overclocking isn't covered by warranty either way...Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
That was quite educational for an XS news post. o.O
I'll know how to OC it by the time I get it.
Oh boy, lucky you, that looks awesome.Quote:
Quote Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe View Post
just arrived---
*Jelly*Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe
Unfortunately the only webshop that wasn't price gouging here also takes 2 days to have it shipped out here, and since it's a weekend it's monday earliest for me, if i'm unlucky it might even be tuesday :(
the one thing that i wonder about overclocking new gps, are people limited by artifacts, or their artificial TDP limit set by cardsQuote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
i havnt used one with either power tune or gpu boost, but it looks really tough to overclock to the point where games crash, unless your specific chip is a lower grade one.
is this the case, or are 90% of the overclockers out there on air/water really limited by the mhz and just cant fry a card by smashing it with volts?
I managed P11,100 on air :) Keep pushing!Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Is that single card, if so that's very niceQuote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Yup, singe card, 300.99 drivers. 1316 MHz :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
http://i.imgur.com/H2qxg.jpg
Yes, I was benching at 2am... only way to do it.
http://translate.google.com/translat...20120323002%2FQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
My 6990CF barely beats that at stock clocks. @.@Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Keep up the good job.
How close? I may be motivated to go higher if you give me a number to break :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
Very nice, mine drops gpu drivers above 1238mhz at any voltage .... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
:)
Try +200 and +30 on the GPU power, then start tweaking from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
i just noticed...
2 card in sli run automatically at 2 different clock.. one @ 1097 and other @ 1110
strange....
That means that the boost technology does not work equal in SLI!:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe
So I believe that it also will not scale properly. :rolleyes:
I have 2x680, and applyed the fix. Now my first card is 3.0 and the second 2.0. How to fix the second card?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
I lost 1k points in 3d11 P. Maybe I drop this fixing ;)
I tried these last night, I already have power increased to max and Im lucky if +180 will pass, +170 is solid, +200 no chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
:(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuroimaho
My old single 6990 got more than 9500 GPU points on 3DM11 on default underclocked speeds (830/1250) . So i really doubt that 2 cards would just "barely" beat it.
My new HD 7950 gets 9500 around 1150mhz gpu and hits 10K with 1260mhz gpu.
GTX 680 is a little better scorer compared to HD7K on 3DM11.
lolwutheivybridge
Wow, 6GHz Ivy Bridge possible?
correct version : Wow, only 6GHz Ivy Bridge possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I just had to throw this in here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER3nv7NTwbs
It's the live review of the GTX 680 that PC Perspective did with Tom Petersen from Nvidia. Probably a little "light" for the most people here but still great stuff!
Single radeon to compare. 1305MHz :0Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=1#post5073648
Es un photo espectacular!!! (hope I got that right)Quote:
Originally Posted by Handrox
What's your fan running at? I think that some of the failures are a result of the heat from the GPU causing some of the memory chips to overheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
My CPU was running at 3.3GHz though... yours looks to be a bit quicker. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Expound upon this statement, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Could you overclock your CPU too please and show us what you get on your max CPU clock and 1300 Mhz GTX 680?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
I will try to do something fun this weekend. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
My max OC will be ~4.6GHz.
Heres my feeble score to compare it too, 4662 Mhz I7 980, 1000 Mhz GTX 560 tis:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2300377
P9849 :(
I'm never ramping my CPU that high again, so wont get any better, its on 4.4 Ghz @ 1.35v for 24/7.
Ha, target score for my hardware - P8700, thats funny :D
My current PB with cpu at gaming clocks and my gaming rams in:
P10713
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3029687
:D
Deleted.
Thats with fan set to max as stated, so 85%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
:(
Bollocks. Maybe I got really lucky, then. Because most reviews were OC'd to about where you got your card. I don't quite get how I managed to get so lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Mine wont even pass at +180 all the time, its right on the edge, +170 is pretty stable.
Im running 3D11 right now and +180 just dropped gpu drivers again.
:(
OK new PB at +170:
P10862
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3035620
Edit: Bettered again
P10937 http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3035660
Edit: I did it ... cracked 11k...
P11080 http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3035720
:D
Got bored since my third 680 isn't in to run my 3x FW900 setup so I tested one FW900 at 2560x1600 with each applicable game having all settings maxed.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...02560x1600.jpg
The most VRAM use I saw in BF3 was 1930 MB, Crysis 2 was 1971 MB, and the most in Skyrim was 2028 MB, all with no slow-downs with the 680's. The other games were well under 2GB usage.
I am not sure if the limit on the 8x/8x PCI-E 2.0 slots were hurting the 680's more than the 3GB 580's but the 680's in SLI only ended up an average of 24% faster than the 580's. A bit lower than I was expecting.
There was an anomaly that I reproduced having over 100% scaling in 680 SLI Skyrim. If you include that result, SLI scaling is a perfect 100%. If you exclude that result and go off the other four games, the SLI scaling is 90%. Still pretty darn good. As for the reason Skyrim was scaling so incredible in SLI, might be a driver issue with single card as in both instances the GPU's were at max utilization.
^^ AA enabled?
What you clock used in these tests, stock or have something Overclocking? Good day!Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Yes, beautiful photography, PcL2Criminal was happy in that capture.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMTB1963
Yes, to be correct:D
have a good Day!
Mate, it wont do that at stock, thats cranked right up - 1230/6908 with 2600K @ 4500 for 10862, 5000 for 10937 and 5200 for 11080.Quote:
Originally Posted by Handrox
:)
Thanks, so he used the 1.2GHz GPU, that's what I wanted to know. Good day!Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
I still feel this is a highly tuned mid range card rather than a high end offering, it seems to lack the muscle of a high end card even though it does produce the results, maybe its the narrow headroom it has when compared to the 7970. BF3 results like these tell the story though:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,87...e/Test/?page=6
:)
CF does that with some titles too. With the 6870s I saw CF scaling at up to 110% in heaven and some games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
the big chip will have loads of compute stuff though similar to 7970..Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
I expect the big chip will jump perf on a similar level of 7870 to 7970!
PcCI2iminal's - Geforce GTX680 OC SLI Surround 5760x1080
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGI9...ture=autoshare
double.. sorry! :D
If you look at the Fermi generation, the GTX *70 and GTX *80 were GF 1*0 parts while the GTX *60 is a GF1*4 part. I think this may have been planned as a GTX 660, not even GTX 670 Ti.
This will probably irritate fanboys from both camps, but both companies deserve a bit of a knuckle-rapping. As good as Tahiti is, AMD got caught with their pants around their ankles this round, and Nvidia took full advantage by raping the customer. Look at the GTX 680, if you ignore performance there's nothing about it which screams high-end SKU. Four phase power, dual 6-pin power connectors, a PCB basic enough to have been designed by a first year engineering student. I can imagine the conversation at Nvidia:
Engineering: Behold, here's the GK104, a true successor to the 8800GT 512MB :D
Marketing: Holy :banana::banana::banana::banana:, look at that performance! Do you KNOW what we can sell this for?
Engineering: $299? It's a mid-range card?
Marketing: So? $499 :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:es!
Once you've seen 6.5 GHz or higher, 6 GHz seems like 5.4 GHz on SB :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I couldn't agree more, if the GTX 680 were priced at $400 if could be the second coming ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Most of what you've said is right... except for that exchange.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Think of it this way... Marketing has little to do with the actual price of the cards and which cards get sold as what.
The truth is that the management of the company makes such decisions and when they see that their middle range card is on-par with the performance of AMD's high-end there is absolutely no reason for them to release it as a mid-range card at mid-range prices. If they're going to beat AMD in either case, why should they be doing it for $200 (or $250) less? Realistically, this will be one of the first GPUs in a LONG time that NVIDIA is actually able to sell at a huge profit margin without having to sell it as a TESLA or Quadro. Because of this, I hope, we'll see NVIDIA coming out with more less expensive GPUs with better performance... AND once the GK110 stuff comes out, I think we may see a STEEP drop in GK104 prices which would be good for everyone.
The market for GK104 (and 7970) isn't there. I don't think nVidia and AMD is going to kill their markets starting a price war. Games doesn't need these GPU's, even 30" (2560x1600) will not require these GPU's.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Be realistic. If Nvidia had other cards ready for launch, they would launch them. AMD has entire series out. HD79xxs are just one piece of GPU markets. Im quite sure that Nvidia wants to release something to compete with 77s and 78s asap, since they are late already.
You may call GTX 680 what ever you like. If it competes with AMD high end. Its a high end card. Its power draw indicates to high end aswell, even tho theres room for more, but so has AMD. 240W vs 190W TDP is misleading. Real world test show that their power draw is inside 20-23 watts from eachother.
Good thing that Notebook and Tablet market producs are going well at least. Its way bigger market for them anyway.
Realistically why wouldn't a company want to milk the prices for as much as they can. 560-580s can compete with AMDs midrange for now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
500$ cards have never been the cards who sold the most... Dont believe they have make that cause they think their midrange can compet with high end of AMD .... and so ? where is the GK100? what was the spec of it ?
Marketing at his best. This is as good of the woodscrew tentative. " We have a so good 300$ card, we will sell it to you for 549$" ...
I'd like to see the 7970 with the compute stuff disabled vs. the 680, that would be a good comparison.
Any of you who say that NVIDIA would release GK110 or GK100 if they had it do not understand business or the business of silicon.
GK-104 is a cheap chip to produce and it has good yields. Therefore, NVIDIA is making a killing on all of these cards, as are their board partners. Since that is the case, why wouldn't they release the cheaper to produce relatively fast GPU that makes them a crapton of money? Then, once they have proper volumes and yields on the bigger/hotter chip, release that. To me, it seems that NVIDIA is in no rush to release their fastest, hottest, obviously lower yielding chip. If anything, they can continue to make those chips in preparation for thousands of TESLA and Quadro orders when they're announced. NVIDIA has a pretty good strategy if you ask me and they're executing it fairly well.
I partlially agree with you here. If they dont have enought room on GPU production to procuce mid range cards then theres no point going on them right now. But if they do, they would surely benefit from relising the mid range asap.
People who are waiting for mid range cards, will not buy GTX680 anyway. Instead they rather wait, go for 40nm cards or choose AMD 28nm midrange instead.
Think Tesla and Quadro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
nVidia will launch big compute oriented chip ASAP if only to professional markets. A lot of supercomupters are waiting for that chip to be delivered. Granted they will not rush it to consumer market as they would do if GK104 was loosing to AMD, but they wont sit on ready chip when it can be sold for massive profits as Tesla or Quadro.
Also arguing that GK104 is not high end is a bit silly. At this moment in time it is, period. You can debate as much as you want, but this will not change facts. nVidia adjusted they consumer chip strategy and executed very well indeed delivering efficient, small and fast gaming chip. I have a feeling we will see GK104 dual card for gamers but GK110(100?) will exist solely as a single GPU product.
If AMD got big bolls with their tahiti cards, nVidia would be in serious trouble. As they got little ones, nVidia feels good right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Their middle chip perform better than what AMD can deliver with its big dog chip.
If you blame nVidia, don't forget to blame AMD ;)
So they are likely to release a 670 with 1344 shaders, would the 660 end up being a die harvested GK104 @ 768/960 shaders or GK106? Assuming they all have a 192 shader SMX configuration that is.
GK107 = 384
GK106 = 768/960?
GK104 = 1536
GK110 = 2304?
I am both amazed and a little perturbed by the lack of information on any other chips besides the GK104 & GK107. I would be surprised if the GK106 is a 128bit card, most likely it's 192bit and should provide competition for the 7700's & maybe 7850, but unlikely the latter.
Come on man, you cannot say that only nvidia is ripping/raping off the customer and AMD wasn't aggressive. Thats giving AMD way to much benefit of the doubt. The entire lineup from AMD is a rip off or and the little to no jump in price to performance shows this if you say Nvidia is doing itQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
The best value card from AMD this generation is probably the 7870. Look at the card itself and the performance and it will be hard to see why this thing is priced at 350, specially when you compare jumps from last generations. Look at earlier x870 series and the value is completely absent this generation. The card get 10% better performance than a gtx 570 which was launched 17 months ago and is the same price(this is launch price which is even worse) and is well under half the die size. Same problem compared to the 6970 as well.
The idea is, if you consider Nvidia raping the customer, AMD is even worse because they are doing it with the whole line up. And even with the higher than expected pricing of Nvidia gtx 680, once supply of gtx 680 comes about, AMD will be forced to do a price drop across almost everything above 350. Price drops not at the end of a products shelf life means too a high a price and thus means ripping off the customer.
Even you AMD lovers have to see, if Nvidia priced this thing at $300 or what you guys believe what the true pricing is(to put Nvidia in a bad light somehow), then honestly AMD would be completely done this generation. I.e 280 dollar 7970, 230 dollar 7950, 180 dollar 7870s and 100 dollar 7770. AMD would be hemorrhaging so much money that it would make the 2900xt years look fantastic. And we all know that everyone wants AMD to makes some money, especially you AMD fans.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
A. Nvidia's mid-range beats AMD's high-end.
B. Nvidia sets the price as if their mid-range part was a high-end part.
C. Nvidia rakes in huge profit margins and tweaks GK110.
D. Extreme enthusiasts all over the planet rejoice.
E. I make plans for a new 5x1 120hz setup to be powered by 3-4 GTX 685s/GTX 780s.
Even at the prices you mention the cards would be making money to AMD. Certainly less then they do right now. Certainly they would choose a lower cost BOM to make up for the lower margin. BUT, they would still be making money.
Neither company is better than the other, both are "raping" the customer.
A: Nvidia's "midrange" "beats" AMD's "midrange" (remember their "high-end" is the dual GPU for years now.)Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
B: Agreed
C: Agreed
Its amazing how everyone in here KNOWS that this IS a mid-range card. You guys don't know anything. Stop stating things like it is FACT!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
And how do you KNOW that Nvidia is making a killing? Show me your proof that shows what the card costs and how much the markup is.....
I think this whole argument revolves around the GK104 chipset name, if it had been named GK100 with the same performance level as GK104 then we probably would have swallowed it all a lot easier. So now, after all the waiting and speculation we are already looking past Gk104 to any future release we can find.... It's tragic
:)
I cannot reveal sources but I can tell you that vendors alone (Asus, GBT, etc) are making profits nearly twice as large as they make on the 7970.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmy
Not with four phase power, an elementary PCB and twin 6-pin connectors. That all points towards mid range (GTX x60).Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Agreed. Though it has to be said that most nvidia cards in the past had elementary PCBs and just "almost fair" power circuitry...
Are you so easily disillusioned? LOL, looks like Nvidia's plan is working easily on you, friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmy
It's a known fact that GK104 is the Kepler mid-range GPU.
I'm thinking GK106 would be 768 CCs and 192-bit bus with up to 6 GHz GDDR5 (is that memory too expensive or in short supply for that segment?) or 256-bit bus and 4-5 GHz GDDR5. Performance wise I expect it to be worse compared to Pitcairn than GK104 is to Tahiti, mainly because Pitcairn has 62.5% the SPs of Tahiti, not 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathReborn
This seems similar to the G92 generation. There was the G92, a roughly 1/2 G92 (G94), and a roughly 1/4 G92 (G96), plus a larger and more compute-focused chip afterwards (GT200). I don't think GK110 will have as much of a CC increase over GK104 as GT200 did over G92. I'm thinking 2304 CCs if a SMX = 192 CCs and 2048-2560 CCs if a SMX = 128 or 256 CCs.
Hahaha.... You might want to recheck your sources cause they are BSing you.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
Yeah well those points also contribute, so this would have been a phenomenal mid range card and if there re no further releases until GK110 then this will make a great 760Ti Along with the $299 price tag .....Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101
:D
Your the one disillusioned.... It IS NOT a mid range part until a higher end part hits the market. For now it IS the high end part.Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I also asked you for proof that the vendors are making a huge profit. SHOW ME PROOF!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYMnAUGFuG0
If that was the case amd wouldn't have released their own mid range products selling your previous high end card for half the price isn't that profitable lol so much bs in this thread anyway....Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordell Cahill
I was thinking and reading for long time if its worth the upgrade from my GTX580 SLI, to GTX680 SLI, especially with all the argument about the GTX680, and it is a mid-range card , and latter Nvidia will release its (GTX685 or GTX780) high-end card.
Then i take my decision to enjoy the new card (whatever its called) , then i upgrade again if Nvidia release another (better) card Q3 2012 or Q1 2013. :)
That is what is sad about the current situation. If the conspiracy theorists are correct and NVIDIA is selling their midrange card as top end, the GPU market parallels the CPU market. AMD can't compete in either market, intel and NVIDIA just smack them around like cats with rubber mice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
AMDs limited funds and low market share may finally have caught up with them, money talks and BS walks in silicon valley as elsewhere.
Price cuts upcoming for the AMD line. With all this talk of the influence of marketing departments, how would you like to be AMD marketing these days trying to sell a Bulldozer/Tahiti "high end" rig?
Looks to me like they've been reduced to "We're number two, but at least we're tryin' ".
I just dont understand, what is it you CANT game at 30+ FPS now?Quote:
Originally Posted by koc
Quote:
Originally Posted by koc
Yes, GTX680 is mid range. HD7970 and 7950 are also mid and low-mid range. The names are just for distraction for us. 190W TDP and 2x6pin is obviously the best indicators of that card being mid range. Even tho both cards are consume over 210W in peak, this doesnt mean anything. Their all MIDRANGE, people!!!
The saddest thing is that they reduced themselves to that second position. Nobody puts a gun in their head to not build big chips and base their high-end offering in dual nonsenses with crappy driver support, o to not base their new top cards in the more efficient and faster Pitcairn core. IMO, they did a great job with 4800s series, but didnīt take advantage of that in the next generations to build a stronger marketing position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Now Nvidia have a free highway to put the prices they want, and rule the discrete market at will.
... really, now? Your definition of mid-range is by power consumption?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
Peeps here are defining "mid range" based on anything as you see. If you like to call GTX 680 as a mid range, then there is absolutely no reason to call 7970 a mid range as well.
Similar power consumtion. Similar perfomance. Both names are indicating to last generation single GPU flagships. GTX has smaller dye due 256bit and missing crunching abilities. There is no official info of either company coming out with bigger single GPU card any time soon.
All we have is 500$ midrange cards. :shakes:
Ah, I get your concept now... but I don't agree :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristoferr
Be funny if both of these companies had to release their cards on the same day. Then we'd really see some impressive numbers and price wars. It's like playing paper, rocks, scissors with AMD going first and Nvidia winning easily at the end. The worst part, the customers pay for it all in the end. Just makes me want to stop PC gaming all together.
yes gtx680 and 7970 are both midrange cards and they use midrange chips.
So basically Nvidia isn't selling right now a card for 999$ because they don't need and don't want. Amazing. It's a shame i don't "understand business" or "the business of silicon", because that's look like incredible retarded to me, but i'm sure it would make sense if somehow i understood business. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
I bet Nvidia could have been selling GTX680 since dec 2011, they just didn't felt like releasing it sooner.
lolwut, you got all wrong. AMD 7xxx are all the lower end, middle chip is coming end of year. And they are ready, they could have been out since 1 year ago, they just want make money first with the cheaper ones, higher yields ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
So basically Nvidia mid range barely beats AMD lower end. Nvidia is going to need their big dog chip to fight against AMD midrange 8xxx series. WOW if AMD's lower end and midrange 8xxx are like this i can only think what their BIG DOG CHIP is going to do... is coming out in 2054, it's going to be a beast. Poor nvidia...
Piledriver, thats so true lol.:p:
I agree with you, that my GTX580 SLI is enough right now, but man the new GTX680 (mid-range or low-range i really don't care),Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech0z
kick ass my high-end GTX580 in every single test + the new features (TXAA, adaptive vsync, dynamic overclocking, more realistic game physics) it is very tempting.
I REALLY CANT RESIST AND I WANT JOINT THE CLUB :D
:rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Piledriver
Delusion at its best right there....with just the right amount of "whoops, madeya look!" at the end. Brilliant. :up:
wow people sure make assumptions on here
So I guess a Prescott is faster than a Core and a Core is faster than a Ivy Bridge since the others use more wattage to get the job done???
Dual 6 pins on a more effective core doesn't mean its "midrange"
If its so midrange why didn't NV launch in December ?? If its so midrange why is it faster than the 580 ??
"Delusion at its best right there" You said it right Skymtl
This is getting sad...
Sarcasm? I thought the big dog coming in 2054 was pretty obvious... but yeah while i was joking, some really believe in what they say, so i agree delusional at their best.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
NO BECAUSE you measure performance using benchmarks and not power consumption, YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT ?Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
YES IT DOES mean it is midrange, it is acceptable for a high-end card to have atleast 6+8 pin power requirements, and they could have easily made use of it by raising the core clock and thus making their card more competitive, but decided to stick to a thermal envelope of a midrange part, YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT ?Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
Because a new generation mid-range part SOMETIMES outperforms old generation high-end part, i.e. GTX460 outperformed GTX280, Geforce 6600GT outperformed FX5800, YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT ?Quote:
Originally Posted by iboomalot
Hence why I thought it was quite brilliant. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Piledriver
I agree with ice_chill above, to me its fairly obvious this is NOT the high end part, Is it a great card? Sure.....but not the big one IMO.
fact, its the highest end part you can buy until something higher comes.
myth, people who think they know what it was intended to be before the 7970 even launched.
This thread, at least it's somewhere certain people can blow of some fan smoke. Probably should stop it now, it's served it's purpose until further information comes along.
Here, watch Darth Vader playing a bagpipe on a unicycle instead!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8rzkCkFIus
So that means 6870 "was" the high end untill 6970 came along, even "higher end" than 5870? :rofl::ROTF:
No whats fact is that GTX 680 uses a GK104 core, GF 104/114 anyone?
What pin number the power connector has does not make a said card an high end or low end. The performance and power consumption does not to mention the companies designation for the card.
GTX 680 eats almost the same as the HD7970 and performs almost the same. So if AMD can call the 7970 high end why cant we call GTX680 high-end on bases of comparison?