nVidia 'Kepler' GeForce GTX 680 Reviews

[paulbagz]

What about good drivers for 400 series and 500 series..

Then make 600 series

Probably what they do to force to buy new hardware :P

-PB

[Rollo]

The card seems impressive, however if this indeed only a mid ranged card aka replacement for the 560Ti then nVidia should price it accordingly.
Or are rumours of the 780 complete nonsense?

John

Why would they do that?

Let's say all the conspiracy theories are true and there's a card a card that performs 20% higher than the GTX680, ready to go. What makes you think they wouldn't price that one at $599 or $699?

Parts are usually priced relative to their spot in the performance hierarchy. The GTX680 actually bucks that trend in that it's the highest performing part available and launched for less than it's competition.

If the 680 was originally to be the 670Ti as some theorize, it may well have been slated for a $499 launch price all along.

[Mungri]

Prices historically are not based on their heirachy to the last gen.

5850 and 6950 were both launched at £225. 4870 and 4890 were both £200. The 6950 was faster than the 5850, but launched at the same price while prices on the previous generation fell. Because AMD had a temporary lead this generation, they overpriced the 7950 and 7970 to make more profit. NVIDIA followed along and priced the GTX 680 based on the 7970 price. If the GTX 680 had been 10% slower instead of 10% faster than a 7970, Nvidia would have never named it a GTX 680 or priced it the same as a 7970, it would have been released at a lower price. If the 7970 cost £350 instead of £450, then the GTX 680 would have been released at £325.

If graphics cards were always priced based on their relative performance to the previous gen like the 7970 was, then every generation prices would only ever increase based on the new cards being faster each time. According to this kind of reasoning, £425 is too low for the performance that a 680 GTX offers compared to previous generations, it should be more like £2000 per card.

[Rollo]

Prices historically are not based on their heirachy to the last gen.

5850 and 6950 were both launched at £225. 4870 and 4890 were both £200. The 6950 was faster than the 5850, but launched at the same price while prices on the previous generation fell. Because AMD had a temporary lead this generation, they overpriced the 7950 and 7970 to make more profit. NVIDIA followed along and priced the GTX 680 based on the 7970 price. If the GTX 680 had been 10% slower instead of 10% faster than a 7970, Nvidia would have never named it a GTX 680 or priced it the same as a 7970, it would have been released at a lower price. If the 7970 cost £350 instead of £450, then the GTX 680 would have been released at £325.

If graphics cards were always priced based on their relative performance to the previous gen like the 7970 was, then every generation prices would only ever increase based on the new cards being faster each time. According to this kind of reasoning, £425 is too low for the performance that a 680 GTX offers compared to previous generations, it should be more like £2000 per card.

All conjecture on your part.

You don't know:

A. If ATi had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to 28nm limitations
B. If NVIDIA had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to 28nm limitations
C. If ATi had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to not being done
D. If NVIDIA had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to not being done
E. If ATi and NVIDIA took a smaller chip strategy to keep margins in the face of higher silicon costs due to new process or worse deals with TSMC
F. If ATi and NVIDIA took a smaller chip strategy due to the market buzz demanding greater efficiency, lower power, less heat, less noise
G.If ATi and NVIDIA took a smaller chip strategy because systems assemblers told them "We can't profit having to use big PSUs and cases that dissipate a lot of heat".

You and the other ATi fans are basically spinning a conspiracy theory fantasy that "NVIDIA "could" have done a 500mm chip last year even! They "could" have priced it at $500 and given people more for their money!".

You don't know any of this. I'm under multiple NDAs with NVIDIA and talk to them on the phone when I want to and I don't know what the deal is with rumored "BigK".

I do know that at the most popular monitor resolution of all (1080p) the 680 stomps a 7970 by way more than 10% on average. I also know that at the rare 25X16 resolution it still comes out on top by around 7%. And I know that at the most common surround resolution (57X10) it trades blows with the 7970 and the differences a 7970 offers aren't enough to make me want to give up PhysX, 3d Vision, forced AO, having game profiles on launch day, having unique things like AA in Batman AA, CUDA enhanced water in Just Cause2, and the texture compression in Rage. Also, I know that although heat and power don't matter to me with my HAF932/watercooled CPU/Silverstone 1200W PSU, this stuff does matter to some people and NVIDIA wins here too.

[SabreWulf69]

Sweet, that extra bit o' money that just came in will come in handy for this :-) now to just find somewhere in AUS stocking them, let alone anywhere else, hmm any opinions on brand bias? was just thinking something like EVGA or ASUS, any opinion as to one or the other?

[Mungri]

You and the other ATi fans

Wut? I absolutely hate the 7970, 6970, GTX 580, and GTX 480.

Im no 'fan' of either band

The GTX 680 is the first high end card in a long time I've liked. Im actually blaming AMD here not Nvidia for price gauging the market with their 7970.

However Nvidia could have made a higher performing part easily - 2x8 pin connectors on GK104, and higher clockspeeds. That wouldnt really have taken too much effort, especially not at the £425 asking price. Reference designs from both AMD and Nvidia are always beyond terrible.

"NVIDIA "could" have done a 500mm chip last year even! They "could" have priced it at $500 and given people more for their money!".

Erm, not quite, but Nvidia surely could have priced the GTX 680 £100 lower and given me more for my money by making me spend less.

was just thinking something like EVGA or ASUS, any opinion as to one or the other?

Id go with EVGA for the step up program and use it to upgrade to the classified version later on.

[jjj]

Wut? I absolutely hate the 7970, 6970, GTX 580, and GTX 480.

Im no 'fan' of either band

The GTX 680 is the first high end card in a long time I've actually liked. Im actually blaming AMD here not Nvidia for price gauging the market with their 7970.

However Nvidia could have made a higher performing part easily - 2x8 pin connectors on GK104, and higher clockspeeds. That wouldnt really have taken too much effort, especially not at the £425 asking price. Reference designs from both AMD and Nvidia are always terrible.

You look at pricing all wrong.Beating the competition means little if you don't offer consumers a reason to upgrade.Pricing should be in correlation to previous gen prices and offer a significant perf/$ gain.
The clocks of the 680 might be about power consumption,they simply wanted to keep it lower than AMD,it also could be that the process is much more efficient around 1GHz than at 1.2GHz but i got no info on that.

[Mungri]

These cards are overclocking to 1.3 Ghz on stock cooler and minimal voltage increase, and 1.9 Ghz on LN2. Seriously with 2x8 pin connectors, aftermarket cooling and a higher voltage tweak allowed, they will be pushing 1500 Mhz on air with ease.

Just wait and see.

[Russian]

These cards are overclocking to 1.3 Ghz on stock cooler and minimal voltage increase, and 1.9 Ghz on LN2. Seriously with 2x8 pin connectors, aftermarket cooling and a higher voltage tweak allowed, they will be pushing 1500 Mhz on air with ease.

Just wait and see.

Agreed. I cannot WAIT until I get my hands on something like an EVGA Classified or EVGA FTW.

[Kristoferr]

Lol. 1500 on air will MAYBE do only very few cherry picked cards. Dont live in dreams.

[Manicdan]

Im actually blaming AMD here not Nvidia for price gauging the market with their 7970.

if were looking at all current offerings, both were pricing within reason honestly
the new generation is a slight price/perf improvement over anything currently out there, nvidia more than AMD on the high end, but the 7800s are great deals, especially the 7850 for 250$.

the weird part has been that the prices were nearly static for the last year. when the 5800s launched they were up to 400$, when the 6900s launched they were up to 370$, but only like 20% faster. and even today a 6970 is only a few $ cheaper than when it launched over a year ago. 2011 and 2010 had price/perf increase of only ~15%, instead of the usually ~30% per year

before we even look at 28nm chips, the 40nm ones should be down ~20% less than they currently are. i honestly can only think of price fixing as the culprit. if demand was high we would see more deals trying to persuade us to one side vs the other. if supply was high we would see price drops to persuade us to buy more. but since its like technology stood still for 2010/2011 we get left with a very ugly price/perf ratio starting this new generation. and while we hope they correct over time, we cannot expect someone to come out and give us that 20% up front by seeing the first cards (7970) coming out at 400$. it will take time to see if things fall back into normal pricing levels

wheres an economic major to help us understand why crap costs so much theses days.

[Russian]

Lol. 1500 on air will MAYBE do only very few cherry picked cards. Dont live in dreams.

1300 on air with a cheap cooling solution and cheap vrm, i'd say 1500 is pretty doable.

[Kristoferr]

Reference HD7970 are doing 1300 from day 1 too. Do they do 1500? No. Just isnt going to happen. Not on air. At least not on + degrees

[Iconyu]

All conjecture on your part.

You don't know:

A. If ATi had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to 28nm limitations
B. If NVIDIA had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to 28nm limitations
C. If ATi had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to not being done
D. If NVIDIA had a higher performing part they couldn't release due to not being done
E. If ATi and NVIDIA took a smaller chip strategy to keep margins in the face of higher silicon costs due to new process or worse deals with TSMC
F. If ATi and NVIDIA took a smaller chip strategy due to the market buzz demanding greater efficiency, lower power, less heat, less noise
G.If ATi and NVIDIA took a smaller chip strategy because systems assemblers told them "We can't profit having to use big PSUs and cases that dissipate a lot of heat".

You and the other ATi fans are basically spinning a conspiracy theory fantasy that "NVIDIA "could" have done a 500mm chip last year even! They "could" have priced it at $500 and given people more for their money!".

You don't know any of this. I'm under multiple NDAs with NVIDIA and talk to them on the phone when I want to and I don't know what the deal is with rumored "BigK".

We do know the model name of the 680GTX which, strangely enough, is the same model number they give to all their mid range cards. And the 7970 is overpriced, and by charging for it in direct comparison to a 580 they allowed Nvidia to charge in comparison to the 7970. For this pricing situation I can only put the blame on AMD, they've taken all the pressure off nvidia this generation. For nvidia to charge much lower for a superior product would be silly.

Nvidia GK110 isn't ready to go, it's fairly certain they canned the GK100 when it ran into trouble and they saw the 7970 was barely a match for the GK104. Unless nvidia have started calling their dual core GPU's GK110, which would probably mean hell had frozen over.

[Russian]

Reference HD7970 are doing 1300 from day 1 too. Do they do 1500? No. Just isnt going to happen. Not on air. At least not on + degrees

Uh, there are 1600Mhz designs coming out, I thought. Doesn't MSI have a 1600MHz 7970??

[mAJORD]

Nope

Where are you ppl getting these crazy bs rumors from?

[paulbagz]

Id go with EVGA for the step up program and use it to upgrade to the classified version later on.

Sabre, just be aware that EVGA don't do the Step Up program in Australia. That's an American only (and dissapointing) thing.

-PB

[GoldenTiger]

Sabre, just be aware that EVGA don't do the Step Up program in Australia. That's an American only (and dissapointing) thing.

-PB

Additionally, you cannot step-up within the same series, regardless, except for rare cases. Generally it must be a full GPU upgrade to a higher-end chip in the same series or a full series jump, RAM doesn't count as better.

EXAMPLE: Can go from GTX 590 to GTX 680. It is a full generation jump.
EXAMPLE: Can go from GTX 570 to GTX 580. It is a higher model chip.
EXAMPLE: Cannot go from GTX 580 1.5GB to GTX 580 Classified 3GB.
EXAMPLE: Cannot go from GTX 680 2GB to GTX 680 4GB.
EXAMPLE: Cannot go from GTX 680 to Classified, FTW, Superclock, etc. of GTX 680 series, or any hypothetical GTX 670 card at all.

[Manicdan]

Uh, there are 1600Mhz designs coming out, I thought. Doesn't MSI have a 1600MHz 7970??

i do remember when it first came out, sapphire had a list of skus and one showed a 1300+mhz option.
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/18072-...2304-sp-model/

but its clearly a rumor and so far no one has done anything super special yet.

[UrbanSmooth]

If the 680 was originally to be the 670Ti as some theorize, it may well have been slated for a $499 launch price all along.

You don't get it.

Nvidia renamed it the GTX 680 when they saw that it performed a little better than the 7970, thus, they claim that it's a high-end GPU to get more money out of it.

Also, look at the chip, it's the GK104, which has been confirmed to be the mid-range chip (look at the GF104 from a previous gen, it was the GTX 460 part).

Why is this so hard for folks to understand? Nvidia's marketing department is getting more money out of disguising a mid-range GPU as a high-end GPU.

[Stevethegreat]

@Rollo:
It's uncharacteristic of nVidia to release two consecutive flagship cards which are only 20%-30% better than its predecessor. For example they did that with 9800 GTX, but then they came up with GTX 280 which blew 9800GTX out from the water (as far as performance goes). Then they did that with GTX 285, but again GTX 480 blew GTX 285. This generation's "9800 GTX" was the GTX 580 (an improved version of 480) so we would expect the GTX 680 to literally blow GTX 580 but it didn't...

Also its codename points to a midrange card (GTX 660!) which makes the absence of a true flagship even more felt... who knows maybe they do have one such card in the works, maybe they don't. But if they don't, performance wise GTX 680 is rather unimpressive (perf/watt is another story altogether of course).

[kuroikenshi]

wheres an economic major to help us understand why crap costs so much theses days.

Mate, I am very sure not even an Economics Major or MBA would have the answer without doing a lot of fieldwork. I agree that the most sensitive thing to do (if one doesn't need overpriced hardware) is to wait. At the end of the day is sales slow down on the market prices will subsequently fall, at the end of the day companies thrive on stock turnover.

P.S. there is not enough stock on the top end from either company to justify the lowering of prices, and TBH I don't even know how much 40nm stock is floating around.

[jaredpace]

GF104 from a previous gen, it was the GTX 460 part).
Why is this so hard for folks to understand? Nvidia's marketing department is getting more money out of disguising a mid-range GPU as a high-end GPU.

Rollo likely knows this already, and is in damage control mode. Anybody who says otherwise about GK104 = GF104 successor is either 1) unaware or 2) highly motivated. 8^D

[Russian]

Mate, I am very sure not even an Economics Major or MBA would have the answer without doing a lot of fieldwork. I agree that the most sensitive thing to do (if one doesn't need overpriced hardware) is to wait. At the end of the day is sales slow down on the market prices will subsequently fall, at the end of the day companies thrive on stock turnover.

P.S. there is not enough stock on the top end from either company to justify the lowering of prices, and TBH I don't even know how much 40nm stock is floating around.

I'm in the process of my Economics Major and I think i'm pretty well involved with most of the Fab companies as well as the chip companies. Hence why i'm relatively qualified to answer these questions and give you my insight. Once I get my full degree I'll be even more-so inclined

There really isn't much to explain that I haven't already explained in my previous posts

[kuroikenshi]

My Major was international business and Asian Studies, but unlike you I am not involved with the semiconductor industry at the professional level.

It's good to have someone who's educated enough to give us some educated opinions.