# GTX 680 Generally Faster Than HD 7970: New Benchmarks



## btarunr (Mar 16, 2012)

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). 



 

 

 



More graphs follow.





 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Mar 16, 2012)

i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm


----------



## Sihastru (Mar 16, 2012)

The videocards aren't OC'ed, they are all on stock clocks, only the CPU is, to remove any possible bottleneck.


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 16, 2012)

Will be getting a 7950 and clocking it if the 680 clocks like a Mellon. For a 1000 core GPU it is certainly not embarrassing the 7970.

And looking at its specs Nvidia are taking us all for a ride pricing this at or above 7970 prices. It's obvious this a mid-high range part boosted to an high end part through high clocks and the fact it competes with the 7970.


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Mar 16, 2012)

1000mhz vs 925 core, memory 6000 mhz vs 5500  for me looks like a stock oc


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

FXAA available through NVCP, TXAA is the new AA mode. Performance is good (at least in tested games/benchmarks) and perf/W is also good. Nice!


----------



## Jermelescu (Mar 16, 2012)

So, this is it? With this nVidia bashed AMD?
I'd expect a lot more from a gpu 2/3 months late.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Mar 16, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm



Even so amds to nvidias clock to clock isn't the same.


----------



## Kaynar (Mar 16, 2012)

7700 3dmark11 points is kind of low for an HD7970 since mine get 8100 stock, 8400 oc and 9100 at max OC (with an i7 930)

That still puts the stock GTX680 above the HD7970 oc'ed. The defeat of AMD clearly depends on the overclocking ability of the GTX680 and the future drivers AMD can release to catch-up, if thats possible.


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 16, 2012)

So default is 706 core and the boost clock is 1006?


----------



## DarkOCean (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm very inerested in how this thing oc and the real world tdp.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Mar 16, 2012)

Original screenshots here:

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162497

They were originally posted on Hexus and OcUK.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Mar 16, 2012)

Still not drawing any final conclusions until W1zz' review drops next week. I don't recall many of these pre-release benchmarks being too reliable.


----------



## Jurassic1024 (Mar 16, 2012)

crow1001 said:


> Will be getting a 7950 and clocking it if the 680 clocks like a Mellon. For a 1000 core GPU it is certainly not embarrassing the 7970.
> 
> And looking at its specs Nvidia are taking us all for a ride pricing this at or above 7970 prices. It's obvious this a mid-high range part boosted to an high end part through high clocks and the fact it competes with the 7970.




Are you new to PC gaming, because nVIDIA cards are ALWAYS priced higher, because they are 9 times out of 10, the higher performing card, and because no one does desktop and workstation GPU's better than nVIDIA, for as long as nVIDIA has been doing it.  Or have you not noticed... somehow?

A midrange card "boosted" to compete with AMD's flagship and you're complaining?!, or just mad?  Either way, stay off the crack!

=======
I can't wait to see the GK100.  It's gonna be a beast.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

The 7970 review from TPU (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/9.html) has the 580 at 52.3fps at 1920x1200@4xAA.  This looks comparable in benching terms.  Dunno what he 7970 gets but it does make the 680 33% faster than the 580 on this bench.


----------



## Jurassic1024 (Mar 16, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm



Clock for clock, really?  LMAO.  

With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other.


----------



## Initialised (Mar 16, 2012)

So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?

Apples vs Oranges!


----------



## robal (Mar 16, 2012)

Nice !

I can already feel those ridiculous HD79xx prices falling.


----------



## DarkOCean (Mar 16, 2012)

Initialised said:


> So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?



They are also showing gpu scores which are not influenced to much by the oc on the cpu.


----------



## blibba (Mar 16, 2012)

crow1001 said:


> http://i.imgur.com/mcHWN.png
> 
> So default is 706 core and the boost clock is 1006?



No. Base stock clock will be 1006MHZ, boost maybe 40-80MHZ higher.



Jurassic1024 said:


> Clock for clock, really?  LMAO.
> 
> With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other.








You're in one of the bottom two tiers, Jurassic.

The main issue with a clock for clock comparison is that, as others have suggested, we do not know that the two architectures will have comparable maximum stable frequencies or comparable thermal efficiency.



Initialised said:


> So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?



No. Please read the article and above comments before posting.


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 16, 2012)

Jurassic1024 said:


> Clock for clock, really?  LMAO.
> 
> With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other.



troll face, new account and probably a returnee previously banned, GTFO of the thread if you're just game insult other members and act like a complete dick.

You like to be taken up the ass by inflated GPU prices that's fine, you're a sucker and a gimp. This 256 bit, 2GB 680 is nowhere near a $500+ card regardless of performance which by the way sucks if there is not much overclocking headroom left.


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

I was expecting a lot more from this, waiting for the W1zz to work his magic  The best thing i see coming out of this is ATi price's _SHOULD_ come down


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

blibba said:


> No. Base stock clock will be 1006MHZ, boost maybe 40-80MHZ higher.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love that heirarchy dude


----------



## mamisano (Mar 16, 2012)

What AA are they using? All the slide show a generic 8xAA.


----------



## Mistral (Mar 16, 2012)

Very nice benchmark selection there...

I really hope it ends up faster than AMD's offerings. Can't wait for the actual reviews and the thing to reach stores in the real world so we can have some competition at last. Then I'll either end up getting a 7950 or just skip this pricey generation altogether.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> I was expecting a lot more from this, waiting for the W1zz to work his magic  The best thing i see coming out of this is ATi price's _SHOULD_ come down



I think people always have too high expectations. Chip is quite a bit smaller than Tahiti so it is great feat if it even gets on par with HD 7970 performance. Like others, interesting to see if it also is better perf/w than Tahiti.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Mar 16, 2012)

So here is what I've concluded, the 680 is going to be $600+. Good thing I've been saving for months to build my new rig. !


----------



## NHKS (Mar 16, 2012)

I am more worried abt the final retail price @ the moment 

when i see the GK104 inside the GTX680, I think what could have been if GK100 had actually existed.. if so were the case, rightfully, i would have got my GK104 inside a GTX660Ti for around 300$


----------



## entropy13 (Mar 16, 2012)

Initialised said:


> So it only beats the 7970 when you pour liquid nitrogen over it and run the CPU at 5GHz and 2.4GHz RAM to boost the CPU score?
> 
> Apples vs Oranges!



Except it's in stock frequencies, the CPU I mean. And you're saying that as if the 7970 isn't using the very same motherboard, RAM and CPU.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm



The gtx680 reference clock is 1GHZ. If these benchmarks are true and the spec sheet bellow is also true, nvidia has done a DAMN good job this round.


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Mar 16, 2012)

If you look at the game benchmarks the GTX680 is only around 27% faster oveall than the GTX580 tested. This is less than the GTX285 to GTX480 transition,the HD4890 to HD5870 transition and the HD6970 to HD7970 transition.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> If you look at the game benchmarks the GTX680 is only around 27% faster oveall than the GTX580 tested. This is less than the GTX285 to GTX480 transition,the HD4890 to HD5870 transition and the HD6970 to HD7970 transition.



as far as we know right now in the few we have seen.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:


> If you look at the game benchmarks the GTX680 is only around 27% faster oveall than the GTX580 tested. This is less than the GTX280 to GTX480 transition,the HD4890 to HD5870 transition and the HD6970 to HD7970 transition.



You forget that this is done with chip 200mm2 smaller than GTX 580.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> You forget that this is done with chip 200mm2 smaller than GTX 580.



indeed. along with a TDP lower then 200w. If these benchmarks are true then the GTX680 is going to be one epic card, and im hoping if I get this job I'll get one sometime when they release


----------



## Boljack (Mar 16, 2012)

Nvidia pls, this is clearly a milking process, you stopping the inovation, were getting old.. 
Clearly it's supposed to be a mid range card Y change the plan? you want to dominate the market? It's now the time! just put the price as mid range like 300+ .. but, maybe it's DOUPOLY!..


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 16, 2012)

crow1001 said:


> http://i.imgur.com/mcHWN.png
> 
> So default is 706 core and the boost clock is 1006?



tasty score is tasty!!

seeing as I get over 10k P-Score with my 6790's when i push 940core shadedshu:shadedshu.

Just for the lower power usage alone, is probably worth switching to a 680 depending on the price. Im not keen on the UK prices for AMD's 7xxx series. Maybe this will be different..


----------



## KainXS (Mar 16, 2012)

this fanboy shit needs to stop, half the thread is bullshit


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

KainXS said:


> this fanboy shit needs to stop, half the thread is bullshit



bold claim. got anything to back that up?



Boljack said:


> Nvidia pls, this is clearly a milking process, you stopping the inovation, were getting old..
> Clearly it's supposed to be a mid range card Y change the plan? you want to dominate the market? It's now the time! just put the price as mid range like 300+ .. but, maybe it's DOUPOLY!..



It may seem like a mid range card, but when nvidia relized there mid range card was able to compete will with AMD high end, why not charge money for it as if it is high end if its got the performance too.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 16, 2012)

i would be tempted, if this card was like $299


----------



## v12dock (Mar 16, 2012)

I can see amd pulling out a 1050Mhz 7970 and "new" driver improvements


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 16, 2012)

v12dock said:


> I can see amd pulling out a 1050Mhz 7970 and "new" driver improvements



They are gonna need too!


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Mar 16, 2012)

interesting, with only 192,3 GB/s bandwidth, 32,2 GPixel/s pixel filrate, 256 bit and lower memory clcok can outperform the HD7970 even on Powerconsumption at OC state...
very interesting if this all are true..


----------



## Boljack (Mar 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> bold claim. got anything to back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> It may seem like a mid range card, but when nvidia relized there mid range card was able to compete will with AMD high end, why not charge money for it as if it is high end if its got the performance too.



For that reason my money goes to 7870..  They are really smart ass, imagine stressing that midrange card to run 1ghz and if it died prematurely, "Nvidia, well it's price is double send another one to that guy."


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

Rahmat Sofyan said:


> interesting, with only 192,3 GB/s bandwidth, 32,2 GPixel/s pixel filrate, 256 bit and lower memory clcok can outperform the HD7970 even on Powerconsumption at OC state...
> very interesting if this all are true..



lower memory clock? the memory clock on Kepler is at an effective 6ghz. HD7970 is at like what 5.5ghz-5.7ghz


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 16, 2012)

v12dock said:


> I can see amd pulling out a 1050Mhz 7970 and "new" driver improvements



Nonsense, obviously if needed amd will just tell the retailers to sell oc'ed 7970 at the same $549, and then we'll have to equal performing cards at the same price.

Thanks amd and nvidia for being so greedy.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Mar 16, 2012)

*..*



nvidiaintelftw said:


> lower memory clock? the memory clock on Kepler is at an effective 6ghz. HD7970 is at like what 5.5ghz-5.7ghz



ahh yeah my bad , I mean higher memory clock but still low power consumption

btw, the shader clock is very high, 1411 to 2012, does it effect to bench score?


----------



## Dimi (Mar 16, 2012)

I really don't get why people are complaining about nVidia. I mean, they are about to release a "mid range" card that outperforms AMD's flagship.

The way i see it, AMD has got their loyal fanbase to buy *expensive* cards that are being outperformed by nVidia's mid range card.

We haven't seen W1zzard's benchmarks yet nor pricing for these cards.

I hope these cards retail for 399 or less though, i'll buy 2 then, if 499+ i'll buy 1 and one later on. I'm not paying 549 for a less performing 7970.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 16, 2012)

You can always trust extremely low res graphs 

I don't see anything except games Nvidia bought for themselves.


----------



## Jon A. Silvers (Mar 16, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> Nonsense, obviously if needed amd will just tell the retailers to sell oc'ed 7970 at the same $549, and then we'll have to equal performing cards at the same price.
> 
> Thanks amd and nvidia for being so greedy.



Totally truthful .

I am waiting till may 1`st and buy best price/performance gpu to 250 euros. I hope to se some price drops.


----------



## swirl09 (Mar 16, 2012)

Must be getting sceptical in my old age, looking at these new set of images thinking - I still just wanna see my fav sites put the card thru the ringer.

I cant help but notice the pic which shows the temps and puts the 580 neck and neck with the 7970, because any review I looked at on the 7970 launch put it in or around 10% cooler than the 580. Altho temps are subject to some degree of change from each review (for obvious reasons), the fact these "independents" managed to find them the very same reeks of BS tbh ^.^'

We'll find out soon enough I guess. Plus all these images so far have been at 1080p, its going to have to hold those gains at higher res's to be of any use to me.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

Dimi said:


> I really don't get why people are complaining about nVidia. I mean, they are about to release a "mid range" card that outperforms AMD's flagship.
> 
> The way i see it, AMD has got their loyal fanbase to buy *expensive* cards that are being outperformed by nVidia's mid range card.
> 
> ...



Wait i thought you just said that nvidia mid range out performs AMD's flagship?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

Jon A. Silvers said:


> Totally truthful .
> 
> I am waiting till may 1`st and buy best price/performance gpu to 250 euros. I hope to se some price drops.



okay and then nvidia could do the same?


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

GTX 680 isn't mid range part. Its priced at highend, so does it perform too. It is not even certain GK110 is 6xx series, if it is it might take the slot of dual gpu models at the enthusiast segment (ultra highend).


----------



## Slizzo (Mar 16, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> GTX 680 isn't mid range part. Its priced at highend, so does it perform too. It is not even certain GK110 is 6xx series, if it is it might take the slot of dual gpu models at the enthusiast segment (ultra highend).



Core designation on the "GTX680" is GK104, which typically is a mid-ranged GPU from nVidia.  GK107 is generally low end.  GK100 would be full blown enthusiast part.


Quite telling that GK104 is outperforming AMD's enthusiast 7970 parts at first glance.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> GTX 680 isn't mid range part. Its priced at highend, so does it perform too. It is not even certain GK110 is 6xx series, if it is it might take the slot of dual gpu models at the enthusiast segment (ultra highend).



well at the beginning GK104 was suppose to replace GF114 which is the mid range chip(GTX560ti) but when performance numbers were releasing and nvidia saw what tahiti had to bring I guess it performed well enough to be high end, and with that coems the price of high end.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

Slizzo said:


> Core designation on the "GTX680" is GK104, which typically is a mid-ranged GPU from nVidia.  GK107 is generally low end.  GK100 would be full blown enthusiast part.
> 
> 
> Quite telling that GK104 is outperforming AMD's enthusiast 7970 parts at first glance.



So far only one generation has used 104 as indicator of mid-range GPU. Naming changes, just like AMD named 58x0 replacement as 69x0.


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Mar 16, 2012)

Jurassic1024 said:


> Clock for clock, really?  LMAO.
> 
> With a system like yours (dual core + DDR2 RAM), maybe you should work on fixing that before you worry about how $500+ graphics cards perform against each other.



with a system like mine i playing more games without spend billions, if you have to waist money for make uber for nothing its your problem not mine,look the screen on top of you, its not a default clock but oc = all highend videocards oc vs default go much faster ,im worry of what i want i dont have to give you explanation xd


----------



## amdftw (Mar 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> lower memory clock? the memory clock on Kepler is at an effective 6ghz. HD7970 is at like what 5.5ghz-5.7ghz



256bit vs 384bit.
Higher stock does not make sense, lower clock with 384bit outperform the higher clock with 256bit.
The other thing is on the gtx680 and the 7970 builded with the same memory chip, so easily overclock both card around 1600-1700Mhz, but the 384bit still the best.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

amdftw said:


> 256bit vs 384bit.
> Higher stock does not make sense, lower clock with 384bit outperform the higher clock with 256bit.
> The other thing is on the gtx680 and the 7970 builded with the same memory chip, so easily overclock both card around 1600-1700Mhz, but the 384bit still the best.



yeah I guess your right.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> well at the beginning GK104 was suppose to replace GF114 which is the mid range chip(GTX560ti) but when performance numbers were releasing and nvidia saw what tahiti had to bring I guess it performed well enough to be high end, and with that coems the price of high end.



Or, GK100 was deemed impossible to mass manufacture at current 28nm process and GK104 became the top model till revised GK110 is ready. Speculation is fun, no way to know what really happened.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> So far only one generation has used 104 as indicator of mid-range GPU. Naming changes, just like AMD named 58x0 replacement as 69x0.



For a long time it's always been a number ended in 4, while it used to be a 3 before that. 

NV43 (6600 GT)
G73 (7600 GT)
G84 (8600GT) 
G94 (9600 GT) 
GT214 (GT 240)
GF104 (GTX460)
GF114 (GTX560)

But it's kinda irrelevant. High-end *always* ends in 0.  GK104 does not end in 0 so it's not high-end clearly. Plus the fact it's < 300 mm^2, 256 bit... 256 bit has not been used in a high-end card since the 7900GTX.


----------



## jpierce55 (Mar 16, 2012)

this post needs renamed to Nvidia's flaming fanboys. Good grief!


----------



## amdftw (Mar 16, 2012)

Guys!
Good to know, these benches are made with overclocked GTX680 (1006/2012MHz), not with stock boost clock.
The boost clock is around 50-80Mhz.

So the stock GTX680 is equal with 7970.
7970 with 1125Mhz is perform around 9200 GPU score in 3dmark11, same the OC-ed GTX680.


----------



## Sanhime (Mar 16, 2012)

I want to see 680GTX vs 680GTX SLI vs 580GTX SLI.

I want to see if its worth selling my 580's for this.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 16, 2012)

My OCed 7950 is still shaking it's ass ahead of this card and that's with much less beef cake ram and CPU.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Mar 16, 2012)

While this may not be their original high-end design it does seem like it was tweaked to be. It uses similar power to the 7970 with similar temps despite them equipping it with their top tier cooler, which I assume was meant for the GK100. This may mean it's highly overclocked out of the box with not much headroom left. Though if it has insane overclocking abilities to begin with we may never notice.


----------



## farquaid (Mar 16, 2012)

Funny thing how they pick the game titles to test. All of the games except MW3 favours NVIDIA cards. Still With gk104 on tie with 7970 in MW3 with lower power conumption would indicate some good potential in the kepler.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 16, 2012)

farquaid said:


> Funny thing how they pick the game titles to test. All of the games except MW3 favours NVIDIA cards. Still With gk104 on tie with 7970 in MW3 with lower power conumption would indicate some good potential in the kepler.



Exactly where does BF3 favor NVIDIA over AMD cards?


----------



## amdftw (Mar 16, 2012)

Corrected BF3 benches:


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Mar 16, 2012)

> an extreme-cooled intel core i7-3960x extreme edition processor (running at stock frequency),



HUH?!?!?!?!?!?1 Why???

As for the benchmarks, I'll wait for Wizz's


----------



## magibeg (Mar 16, 2012)

I really hope that given the slightly smaller die size, that nvidia can drop the prices slightly. Maybe make it $500 instead of $549. Or lower


----------



## CAT-THE-FIFTH (Mar 16, 2012)

amdftw said:


> Corrected BF3 benches:
> [url]http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/5830/1702470727834307124.png[/URL]



I hope btarunr updates the article!


----------



## farquaid (Mar 16, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> Exactly where does BF3 favor NVIDIA over AMD cards?



Yeah youre right BF3 doesnt favour nvidia. So maybe BF3 MW3 should tell the performance you can expect from gk104.


----------



## OneCool (Mar 16, 2012)

I think this mofo is going to be  HOT!


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> For a long time it's always been a number ended in 4, while it used to be a 3 before that.
> 
> NV43 (6600 GT)
> G73 (7600 GT)
> ...



Man, i guess it's also irrelevant if the name is gk104. If it performs like a 7970 or better, AND there isn't any higher performer nvidia product, AND it's priced equal to amd's highend part, then IT IS highend FFS.

There isn't any other nvidia card is it?, so, until nvidia releases a higher performer, GTX680 IS THE F** highend period.

It doesn't matter nvidia did an amazing job with gk110, the fact of the matter is that IT IS NOT EXISTENT, and when it is released then amd will have an answer, maybe not a better performer, maybe, but it won't be like nvidia will release that super duper hyper mega ultra uber monster gk110 and amd will only have 7970 as its highest performer (singlegpu). By that time amd may already have 8970, for all we know.


----------



## LagunaX (Mar 16, 2012)

Don't see NVIDIA's pricing any cheaper than AMD's 7970 if it outperforms it.
I do see NVIDIA's stock price of $14.50 going closer to $16.
Buy and sell 1k shares and there's your SLI setup after taxes.


----------



## HTC (Mar 16, 2012)

There's a good thing and a bad thing coming out of this (if true).

The good thing: AMD will be forced to lower their prices on current offerings.

The bad thing: nVidia will probably sell these @ the price AMD is selling theirs right now and charge even more for the top cards (assuming this is the mid-range card).


I really was hoping for a tighter race here. I don't care who wins as long as it's done so by a small margin so that more aggressive pricing is warranted.

This is bad ...


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 16, 2012)

HTC said:


> There's a good thing and a bad thing coming out of this (if true).
> 
> The good thing: AMD will be forced to lower their prices on current offerings.
> 
> ...



That's so true man...


----------



## amdftw (Mar 16, 2012)

I' ve got a sure source that the GPU-z clocks are totally wrong...
GTX680 works other clocks...


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 16, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i wanna see real bench and gtx 680 vs 7970 same mhz of core and memory, make a test qith oc card vs stock is autofanboysm



880MHz HD6970 VS 732MHZ GTX 570, Is that an overclocked HD6970???


----------



## Frizz (Mar 16, 2012)

Please be true please be true please be true. I want AMD's 7970 to free fall price-wise.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

This is the correct picture from source... (not killing the 7970.) http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view

Just realised....

772 --> 1006 = 30% core clock increase

4008 ---> 6008 = 50% memory clock increase

54.2 ---> 72.2 fps = 33% fps boost

Now, given the clocks are 30% higher and there is likely a AA algorithm at work, I've just had a terrible dawning of, "it's not a super performer at all".  The 28nm process just makes it allow for faster clocks.  And with some clever tech helping out AA (which isn't a bad thing) it takes the biscuit.

But I'm just thinking if those 1GHz clocks and memory speed are true then it's simply a logical performance increase based on clocks, not architecture.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> Man, i guess it's also irrelevant if the name is gk104. If it performs like a 7970 or better, AND there isn't any higher performer nvidia product, AND it's priced equal to amd's highend part, then IT IS highend FFS.
> 
> There isn't any other nvidia card is it?, so, until nvidia releases a higher performer, GTX680 IS THE F** highend period.
> 
> It doesn't matter nvidia did an amazing job with gk110, the fact of the matter is that IT IS NOT EXISTENT, and when it is released then amd will have an answer, maybe not a better performer, maybe, but it won't be like nvidia will release that super duper hyper mega ultra uber monster gk110 and amd will only have 7970 as its highest performer (singlegpu). By that time amd may already have 8970, for all we know.



Yeah that's called adjusting to market, but that does not change the fact that this is Nvidia's mid-range GPU, and it WAS going to be priced at $300, before they realised they can price it higher.

Need to differentiate between high-end card/SKU and high-end chip. It's not the same. AMD's X2 cards where high-end cards, made of 2 mid-range GPUs. That is what their "small die" strategy is about. Apparently now Nvidia will do the same except with 1 GPU lol.


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> I think people always have too high expectations. Chip is quite a bit smaller than Tahiti so it is great feat if it even gets on par with HD 7970 performance. Like others, interesting to see if it also is better perf/w than Tahiti.



I never have expectation's of anything  I've been around enough GFX card release's to know that 99% of the time it's nothing special, maybe every 3 - 5 year's is cause to get excited because you KNOW the tech/performance is going to be massive but between card's 1 - 3 "series" apart the difference's aren't great enough for me to get my panties wet 

I was only expecting more of it because of all the "great" HYPE this card got! IF Nvidia did cut out the top performing card and send out it's mid range chip in it's place that is a TOTAL low blow to the customer's. If they have/had a monster they should have put it on the shelve's. Lord know's they always charge top $$$ might as well get top performance, when i say "top performance" i don't mean 5% - 10% more performance


----------



## thematrix606 (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> This is the correct picture from source... (not killing the 7970.) http://www.hkepc.com/7672/page/6#view
> 
> Just realised....
> 
> ...



A 7970 can't reach that FPS in BF3 on average, impossible.


----------



## jpierce55 (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah that's called adjusting to market, but that does not change the fact that this is Nvidia's mid-range GPU, and it WAS going to be priced at $300, before they realized they can price it higher.
> 
> Need to differentiate between high-end card/SKU and high-end chip. It's not the same. AMD's X2 cards where high-end cards, made of 2 mid-range GPUs. That is what their "small die" strategy is about. Apparently now Nvidia will do the same except with 1 GPU lol.



yet, nobody knows for 100% certain it WAS intended to be the high end. They MAY leave the gk100 for the x2 style card. Or maybe they called it 104 to get fanboys excited about how the mid-range card kicked AMD's butt so hard that they did not even release it


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

jpierce55 said:


> Or maybe they called it 104 to get fanboys excited about how the mid-range card kicked AMD's butt so hard that they did not even release it



Ah the ol' bait 'n switch! Wouldn't be the first time (or the last) for shady tactic's, Nvidia style


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah that's called adjusting to market, but that does not change the fact that this is Nvidia's mid-range GPU, and it WAS going to be priced at $300, before they realised they can price it higher.
> 
> Need to differentiate between high-end card/SKU and high-end chip. It's not the same. AMD's X2 cards where high-end cards, made of 2 mid-range GPUs. That is what their "small die" strategy is about. Apparently now Nvidia will do the same except with 1 GPU lol.



Doesn't matter man, "WAS" past tense. Still GTX680 = Highend.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

3DMark11 Extreme - 52.3%
3DMark11 Performance - 41.4%
BF3 - 33%
Batman AC - 35.7%
COD MW3 - 10%
Heaven Benchmark - 33.2%
Lost Planet 2 - 34.4%

This is how much faster it is over the GTX 580.  Not bad at all for the 'mainstream card'.  But again, those clock speeds make a big diff.

Given that a 14% clock increase on a GTX580 Lightning resulted in a 10% 3DMark11 Performance score on this review (http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-gtx-580-lightning-review/20) you could argue that a 'X' % clock increase gives a ~70% 'X' increase in performance.

So by default with nothing else considered the architecture explains 30% of it's improvement but it's higher clocks make up 70%.  Or in laymans terms, *more than 2/3 of the extra fps from the GTX 680 are due to higher clocks.*

This is simple percentages here based on figures. Not opinions and not conjecture.  I know folk will argue but I dont care, to me, the clocks make the biggest impact.  

Need a good W1zz review to make it all clear.


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Need a good W1zz review to make it all clear.



Exactly! So stop this:



the54thvoid said:


> 3DMark11 Extreme - 52.3%
> 3DMark11 Performance - 41.4%
> BF3 - 33%
> Batman AC - 35.7%
> ...



Thank's for another post


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

I like numbers...
And I like reviews...
It gives me the right to post things and then demand validation of my thoughts.

Thanks for giving me an excuse to reply!!  

Okay, next question for Btarunr and W1zz.

WHEN IS THE FRICKIN' NDA UP?


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

jpierce55 said:


> yet, nobody knows for 100% certain it WAS intended to be the high end. They MAY leave the gk100 for the x2 style card. Or maybe they called it 104 to get fanboys excited about how the mid-range card kicked AMD's butt so hard that they did not even release it



Sure you can find all the "IF"s and "maybe"s you want but for the people who have nothing to fear, common sense prevails. 

a) It looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, but it was all part of a covert plan to confuse people. (And badly loose the high-end to AMD, had Tahiti performed as it should -> comparably as well as Pitcairn)

b) it looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, because it IS a mid-range chip.

Occam's Razor== b) 



N3M3515 said:


> Doesn't matter man, "WAS" past tense. Still GTX680 = Highend.



We are discussing different things. I'm not discussing at which price segment it belongs now, but which chip in the Kepler line this is. Now some people even pretend that GK100 and GK110 never existed and never will, but it does exist and will be released. Just because it may come several months later that does not change the fact that it will and it will be Kepler and it will be bigger than GK104. So by the fact that a faster/bigger Kepler chip is going to be released and was always planned to be released, GK104 is NOT, never was and never will be a high-end chip. it cannot be high-end, when there's something bigger on top of it. Period.


----------



## HTC (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> I like numbers...
> And I like reviews...
> It gives me the right to post things and then demand validation of my thoughts.
> 
> ...



That information in under NDA.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 16, 2012)

what about if we run 7970 at same clocks ??


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> I like numbers...
> And I like reviews...
> It gives me the right to post things and then demand validation of my thoughts.
> 
> ...





NDA lift is 22nd of March IIRC and further reason why i don't FULLY believe/trust any of these released "stat's" 



			
				Hayder Master said:
			
		

> what about if we run 7970 at same clocks ??



If both card's were at same clock's i think 7970 would just barely pass (1% - 2%) it or they would be dead even.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 16, 2012)

Fixed the Battlefield 3 slide.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> 3DMark11 Extreme - 52.3%
> 3DMark11 Performance - 41.4%
> BF3 - 33%
> Batman AC - 35.7%
> ...



So basically higher clocks are achieved with fairy dust and have nothing to do with architecture.

Hmm that's weird because isn't Nvidia the one with the Fairy girl and AMD the one with Ruby? How come did AMD get that fairy dust first and for so many generations?!??!


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> a) It looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, but it was all part of a covert plan to confuse people. (And badly loose the high-end to AMD, had Tahiti performed as it should -> comparably as well as Pitcairn)
> 
> b) it looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, because it IS a mid-range chip.



Yup.

*GF 104 = GTX 460*
GF 100 = oven, I mean GTX 480
*GF 114 = GTX 560*
GF 110 = GTX 580
*GK 104 = GTX 660*   whoops GTX 680
GK 100 or 110 = GTX 680 whoops GTX 780?



Benetanegia said:


> So basically higher clocks are achieved with fairy dust and have nothing to do with architecture.
> 
> Hmm that's weird because isn't Nvidia the one with the Fairy girl and AMD the one with Ruby? How come did AMD get that fairy dust first and for so many generations?!??!



Always so feisty Ben   Process shrinks allow faster clocks due to all the power hoo ha that happens at lower scales.  I can't explain that in tech terms but i know it's a facet of process shrinking up to logical point.  I know the architecture is different but if 40nm allowed 1GHz clocks we'd be seeing far lower improvements.

It's all moot anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the pricing and then I can decide what to get until GK100/110 comes out


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 16, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> If both card's were at same clock's i think 7970 would just barely pass (1% - 2%) it or they would be dead even.




and if booth of them but them on max overclock without voltage increase i think 7970 will rock.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Okay, next question for Btarunr and W1zz.
> 
> WHEN IS THE FRICKIN' NDA UP?



According to 3DCenter.org, it's 22nd March.


----------



## BlackOmega (Mar 16, 2012)

Pathetic.  It barely beats a 7970. But there's something awry with the results. The 7970 should've scored higher than 7700, especially with the CPU clocked as high as it is.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 16, 2012)

btarunr said:


> According to 3DCenter.org, it's 22nd March.
> 
> http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/673/soon (1).jpg



Oh you so know when it is you big tease you.


----------



## jpierce55 (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Sure you can find all the "IF"s and "maybe"s you want but for the people who have nothing to fear, common sense prevails.
> 
> a) It looks like a mid-range chip and is called like a mid-range chip, but it was all part of a covert plan to confuse people. (And badly loose the high-end to AMD, had Tahiti performed as it should -> comparably as well as Pitcairn)
> 
> ...



Excuse me, but you are the one doing the maybe's. Maybe this was intended to be the high end. Due tell me how you define "looks like a mid-range chip". I am amazed you can visibly see that. I guess my years in college electronics did not pay off.

Edit: Does it smell like a mid-range chip too?


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Always so feisty Ben



I was actually being playful.

I was just pointing out that it's not as simple as you made it to be. You are disregarding that it's a 256 bit 32 ROP card. That shaders are running at 1000 Mhz instead of 1544 Mhz, so lower and not higher as you suggest and many other things. It's not justas simple.



> Process shrinks allow faster clocks due to all the power hoo ha that happens at lower scales.  I can't explain that in tech terms but i know it's a facet of process shrinking up to logical point.  I know the architecture is different but if 40nm allowed 1GHz clocks we'd be seeing far lower improvements.



I know that smaller processes help with clocks, but usually it is better clocks at same power consumption or same clock at lower consumption, not both.

For example, AMD obtained a 100 Mhz increase in best case scenario. 25 mhz from high-end to high-end. Nvidia suposedly achieved a 230 Mhz increase, you can't just atribute it to process. Not lightly and without giving it a thought or two.


----------



## mandis (Mar 16, 2012)

Although i'm an avid nvidia fan and expect the new core to perform better overall, I somehow find this test very odd. Lets all wait and see how the cards perform in real world tests, shall we?


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> We are discussing different things. I'm not discussing at which price segment it belongs now, but which chip in the Kepler line this is. Now some people even pretend that GK100 and GK110 never existed and never will, but it does exist and will be released. Just because it may come several months later that does not change the fact that it will and it will be Kepler and it will be bigger than GK104. So by the fact that a faster/bigger Kepler chip is going to be released and was always planned to be released, GK104 is NOT, never was and never will be a high-end chip. it cannot be high-end, when there's something bigger on top of it. Period.



It doesn't matter for crying outloud! GK110 desn't exist in any stores!, and when it is released do you think amd will be empty handed? really?
You can talk all you want about highend midrange, whatever, the fact is GK104 IS highend in the areas that matter and right now it is price, it doesnt matter if internally in nvidia headquartes it is the hero overclocked midrange that beats tahity. When GK110 is launched you can say whatever you want but right now it is as good as NOTHING, vaporware, nada, zero.

So, if i follow your logic, then when in 3 months gk110 is released i can say, bah, that's not 7XXX competition, wait 5 more months for the next amd big thing! and so on and so on, come on......


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> It doesn't matter for crying outloud! GK110 desn't exist in any stores!, and when it is released do you think amd will be empty handed? really?
> You can talk all you want about highend midrange, whatever, the fact is GK104 IS highend in the areas that matter and right now it is price, it doesnt matter if internally in nvidia headquartes it is the hero overclocked midrange that beats tahity. When GK110 is launched you can say whatever you want but right now it is as good as NOTHING, vaporware, nada, zero.
> 
> So, if i follow your logic, then when in 3 months gk110 is released i can say, bah, that's not 7XXX competition, wait 5 more months for the next amd big thing! and so on and so on, come on......



Again it doesn't matter at what price is sold. HD4800 sold for $250 and was high-end chip, because there was no bigger chip in AMD's lineup. Nvidia designed and taped out from bottom to the top: GK107, GK106, GK104, GK100 and 2 months ago GK110 refresh. *Suposedly* GK100 was dropped, so it didn't go into production. The fact that Nvidia will not produce a card based on it, does not make it magically dissapear.

So, I don't care if GK100 or GK110 are released in 50 years from now, those are the high-end Kepler and GK104 is mid-range, plain and simple. The fact that Nvidia is able to sell their mid-range chip at high-end prices means nothing.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Again it doesn't matter at what price is sold. HD4800 sold for $250 and was high-end chip, because there was no bigger chip in AMD's lineup. Nvidia designed and taped out from bottom to the top: GK107, GK106, GK104, GK100 and 2 months ago GK110 refresh. *Suposedly* GK100 was dropped, so it didn't go into production. The fact that Nvidia will not produce a card based on it, does not make it magically dissapear.
> 
> So, I don't care if GK100 or GK110 are released in 50 years from now, those are the high-end Kepler and GK104 is mid-range, plain and simple. The fact that Nvidia is able to sell their mid-range chip at high-end prices means nothing.



well it means that nvidia mid range is able to compete with AMD High-end


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> well it means that nvidia mid range is able to compete with AMD High-end



Ha. Yeah. But it does not make a chip that sits in the middle of the lineup and hence is mid-range by its very definition, a high-end chip.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 16, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> Pathetic.  It barely beats a 7970. But there's something awry with the results. The 7970 should've scored higher than 7700, especially with the CPU clocked as high as it is.



What's pathetic? A smaller chip designed initially to be "performance" that uses less power beats the AMD high-end? What did you expect +40%?? 

But just let's wait for proper reviews. As far as I know there's no 8xAA setting in BF3. Instead there's 4XMSAA.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 16, 2012)

BlackOmega said:


> Pathetic.  It barely beats a 7970. But there's something awry with the results. The 7970 should've scored higher than 7700, especially with the CPU clocked as high as it is.



I agree its disappointing (not pathetic), lets be honest, its bearly faster than the 7970, at par at best. Only Lost Planet shows a significant lead.

Arkham City gets disqualified because its Nvidia optimised with Physx.

Pricing, not performance is going to seperate these two beastly cards. Hopefully Nvidia isnt silly enough to price the GTX 680 $100 above the 7970 for neglectable performance increase.


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

Maybe 7970 is "high end" because they knew Nvidia was left pissing in the wind early this round so they held back?  We can all speculate all we want, and we have been! I can't recall the last time i saw SO much hype over a freakin' GFX card! :shadedshu

Nvidia REALLy know's how to get people going 

My money, if these card's don't get down to ~$300 in a hurry, will be on the next "gen" card's which will more than likely be refreshed 28nm GPU's, early adopter's ALWAYS pay the price  Thank you 

@ Bene: Untill they put it into MFG and off the paper it DOES NOT EXIST. None of it does.

w00t^^ Another useless post!


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Mar 16, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> 880MHz HD6970 VS 732MHZ GTX 570, Is that an overclocked HD6970???



i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz


----------



## General Lee (Mar 16, 2012)

Yeah, the 8xAA is kinda fishy. Even if it were possible to force it in BF3 (I doubt it since the deferred lighting engine probably won't accept override MSAA) I doubt these tests are all that relevant for most people.

Looks like GK104 will be the only card Nvidia has to compete against AMD for the time being. That's what ultimately matters, what cards people can buy. There's always a faster card coming at some point, but do you really want to wait that long?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> I agree its disappointing (not pathetic), lets be honest, its bearly faster than the 7970, at par at best. Only Lost Planet shows a significant lead.
> 
> Arkham City gets disqualified because its Nvidia optimised with Physx.
> 
> Pricing, not performance is going to seperate these two beastly cards. Hopefully Nvidia isnt silly enough to price the GTX 680 $100 above the 7970 for neglectable performance increase.



how is it dissapointing? again, The GTX680 uses the GK104 chip which is the mainstream performance chip to replace the gtx560ti. It uses less power and quite a bit smaller and its on par if not a bit better then AMDs flagship. That in my books is not dissapointing.


----------



## m1dg3t (Mar 16, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz



They prolly showed the new "dynamic clocking" feature


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 16, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz



That's the default clock. But it's more complicated with Kepler clocks, Wizz will explain better.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 16, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> @ Bene: Untill they put it into MFG and off the paper it DOES NOT EXIST. None of it does.



And lol, of course they manufactured it. Test samples. How do you think they (suposedly*) decided to scrap it? What do you think that tape out means to begin with? Tape out means to send it for production. You think they intercepted the mail once they sent it out? Called TSMC and cancelled the waffers in mid-production? LOL. No. They sent it, TSMC manufactured test waffers, Nvidia got fisrt silicon, they tested it and didn't like what they saw. They probably made changes and went for A2 silicon and only after seing that GF100 story was somehow repeating, then decided to scrap it.

*Because we don't know 100% if it trully is cancelled and not just post-poned (B1 silicon) either.


----------



## MetalRacer (Mar 17, 2012)

crow1001 said:


> http://i.imgur.com/mcHWN.png
> 
> So default is 706 core and the boost clock is 1006?



I was expecting more from the GTX 680.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

MetalRacer said:


> I was expecting more from the GTX 680.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120316/Capture405.jpg
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120316/Capture406.jpg



Expected more from a mid-ranged card?


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

MetalRacer said:


> I was expecting more from the GTX 680.
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120316/Capture405.jpg
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/120316/Capture406.jpg




Oh my! that's impressive(@1006MHz).. I *dont* mean to say this is the end all way to compare the 2 cards(at same clocks).. but.... what i am saying is 7970 is definitely no push over and nvidia must not take it lightly.. surely, once reviews come out we will get a clearer picture..

thanks, MetalRacer..


so nvidia, if u really want to be unbeatable.. bring out the GK100/110


----------



## Evolved (Mar 17, 2012)

Too bad the GTX 680 is just a rebranded GTX 670.

Nice little trick Nvidia is doing there.

This is not the "official" GTX 680 (which they will rebrand as GTX 690).

Also, just OC the 7970, and you have the equivalent. I betting the GTX 680 (aka 670) will be slightly more in price.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

Evolved said:


> Too bad the GTX 680 is just a rebranded GTX 670.
> 
> Nice little trick Nvidia is doing there.
> 
> ...



what? the 670 isn't even out, how is the 680 rebranded 670? And how will they rebrand it a 690 when the 690 is coming in may apparently which is 2 GK104s on one PCB.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 17, 2012)

This is gold, if this is all true Nv must be laughing.  The margins on this little monster are gonna be great.

Guys, get buying those 7970's now, AMD would appreciate the cash.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

Some info on nV's GPU Boost..














if these are known already, pls let me know..

& 3Dmark11 power consumption..


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

NHKS said:


> Some info on nV's GPU Boost..
> 
> http://tof.canardpc.com/view/28ba9ad6-5b06-4d4a-a060-8d8188651334.jpg
> http://tof.canardpc.com/view/185d26e8-60eb-4ad2-b0af-61e2b4b2b343.jpg
> ...



thats pretty cool actually.


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 17, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> i talk about the topic, if the default clock is not 1000ghz why make a benchmark without overclock the other side? make a benchmark with the 7970 oc at 1ghz



Nah, you asking about benchmarking 680 and 7970 at same mhz core and memory, and you called 1006mhz 680 is overclocked. According to previews news, 1006mhz is the GTX 680 base clock, and turbo clock is 1058mhz. So, if you still asking about benchmark with same core clock & memory, It's like comparing 880mhz HD6970 with *880mhz* GTX 570, is that fair enough for you?


----------



## Steevo (Mar 17, 2012)

So more demand means less base clock.



And I read no where that it uses less power than the 7970.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

Steevo said:


> http://tof.canardpc.com/view/185d26e8-60eb-4ad2-b0af-61e2b4b2b343.jpg
> 
> So more demand means less base clock.
> 
> ...



the TDP is less then the HD7970. 195w TDP  vs 210w TDP. Im pretty sure you can assume it'll use a bit less power then the 7970


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> the TDP is less then the HD7970. 195w TDP vs 210w TDP. Im pretty sure you can assume it'll use a bit less power then the 7970



smaller die size too


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> smaller die size too



supposively same performance if not better too


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

Steevo said:


> And I read no where that it uses less power than the 7970.



Perhaps this might help.. 





More pics.. not of NV's slides but GK104/GTX680

Chip(GK104), Measure1, Measure2, Heatsink1, Heatsink2, Hynix-RAM?, Blower fan, on-board chip?, stacked power conn


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 17, 2012)

NHKS said:


> Perhaps this might help..
> http://www.hkepc.com/database/images/2012/03/source/16235232521973668591.png
> 
> More pics.. not of NV's slides but GK104/GTX680
> ...


Nice info. Hey, looks like both Nvidia and AMD moving away from Samsung to Hynix


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> Nice info. Hey, looks like both Nvidia and AMD moving away from Samsung to Hynix



yes, seems that way..7970 uses hynix too.. 
apparently they moved way back in 2008 with their 40nm performance cards..

nvidia also have 1 year long collaboration with hynix in co-developing car infotainment systems.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 17, 2012)

We can only hope those graphs are good, and are not going to cause issues with microstutter.


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 17, 2012)

Steevo said:


> We can only hope those graphs are good, and are not going to cause issues with microstutter.



depending on the drivers of course


----------



## specks (Mar 17, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The test-bed consisted of an extreme-cooled Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition processor (running at stock frequency)




Why was extreme cooling necessary when its on stock speed?


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

i am not going to comment on this..  :shadedshu
*LINK*


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 17, 2012)

specks said:


> Why was extreme cooling necessary when its on stock speed?







It's 5GHz


----------



## farquaid (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> what? the 670 isn't even out, how is the 680 rebranded 670? And how will they rebrand it a 690 when the 690 is coming in may apparently which is 2 GK104s on one PCB.



I think maybe what was meant was that since the x80 is for the high end and x70 is performance, the gk104 wouldve been named 670. But since there is no high end the 670(performance) is upgraded in the name to 680(high end).


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 17, 2012)

NHKS said:


> i am not going to comment on this..  :shadedshu
> *LINK*
> 
> 
> View attachment 46255



It's pre-order or something? If it's true, damn, that price tag is higher than 7970


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> It's pre-order or something? If it's true, damn, that price tag is higher than 7970



yep.. pre-order(2-5 weeks time for delivery)


----------



## buggalugs (Mar 17, 2012)

I dont think this card is as impressive as some people think. AMD left heaps of overclocking headroom, Nvidia have clocked their card higher and have turbo overclocking built in so how much overclocking is left on the card?

 An overclocked 7970 can do 11,000 3D mark 11, can the nvidia card do that? Or has the card already been milked? And what happened to 40% better BF3 performance?

 Anyway, for me, I can only hope the 680 is faster so I can buy a 7970 for cheaper.


----------



## Lionheart (Mar 17, 2012)

Lol the GTX 580 has 0.4gb more memory bandwidge....derp ^_^


----------



## ichime (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> Expected more from a mid-ranged card?



Kinda tired of people saying how this is nVidia's mid-range card when...it's not. If it was, they would have named it as such. Hell, they could have still named it a GTX 660 with that price and do even more damage to AMD in terms of halting sales since it would give enthusiast gamers the illusion that a "high end" GK100/110/whatever is on the way...

If this card is indeed the GTX 680, we should just accept it and look towards better driver support and features that actually improve the gaming experience (i.e. TXAA).

That, or wait for their next generation of chips...


----------



## radrok (Mar 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> It's pre-order or something? If it's true, damn, that price tag is higher than 7970



Seems fine to me, the 7970 ranges from 440 to 510 € here in Europe and if it performs better than the 7970 then we could see a drop in price from AMD/ATi


----------



## H82LUZ73 (Mar 17, 2012)

Kaynar said:


> 7700 3dmark11 points is kind of low for an HD7970 since mine get 8100 stock, 8400 oc and 9100 at max OC (with an i7 930)
> 
> That still puts the stock GTX680 above the HD7970 oc'ed. The defeat of AMD clearly depends on the overclocking ability of the GTX680 and the future drivers AMD can release to catch-up, if thats possible.



I agree ,At least they are neck and neck,But when a benchmark with cuda favor it pulls ahead.Lets wait and see if AMD comes out with an update in the q2.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

farquaid said:


> I think maybe what was meant was that since the x80 is for the high end and x70 is performance, the gk104 wouldve been named 670. But since there is no high end the 670(performance) is upgraded in the name to 680(high end).



well it would have been called the 660 with the logic that the gk104 is suppose to replace the 560ti(gf114)


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

buggalugs said:


> I dont think this card is as impressive as some people think. AMD left heaps of overclocking headroom, Nvidia have clocked their card higher and have turbo overclocking built in so how much overclocking is left on the card?
> 
> An overclocked 7970 can do 11,000 3D mark 11, can the nvidia card do that? Or has the card already been milked? And what happened to 40% better BF3 performance?
> 
> Anyway, for me, I can only hope the 680 is faster so I can buy a 7970 for cheaper.



I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card.



I think some people are forgetting that it turned out not to be seeing as it's being released as the GTX 680.  If GK100 were out there we'd probably be seeing that instead.  I wouldn't think Nvidia would hold back it's strongest cards just to make AMD not look as bad.  They would have taken it as a chance to pull ahead this year, having GK 104 as their mid-range.

But GK104 is the top end for this generation, unless they release a 685 or 680ti or whatnot.  Which means either Nvidia figured they would make more profits this way (which doesn't make sense as they'd be able to get larger shipments running this card lower and owning the market for performance/ price, meaning anyone but the damnest AMD fanboys would buy their cards. = larger profit and more marketshare.) or B. there was an issue with getting GK100 out, whatever it may be.

In any case, I'll wait to see some more official benchmarks before reaching a conclusion on this one.


----------



## bencrutz (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card.



well dang, nvidia forgot to priced it as a mid range card


----------



## buggalugs (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card.



 Then why are Nvidia charging high-end prices for a mid-range card? Sounds like Nvidia are doing what they do best, taking gamers for idiots and charging too much for their cards.

 People have been complaining about AMD prices for the 7970 but at least its a genuine highend card with 3GB of memory and plenty of overclocking.

 Nvidia have just clocked their half-baked card higher, taken the overclocking headroom away and charge you high-end prices.

 7970 for me.


----------



## amdftw (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I think some people are forgetting this is meant to be a mid range card.



Some people think it is a mid range card, but not...
Have not been officially confirmed that nv has a gk100 chip.
It might be planed but tsmc with this 28nm man. process can not make huge chips.
Over 400mm2 28nm process is very risky, too much faulty chip comes out from one yiled.
So the NV might dicided to delete the GK100, because not worth the processing price...
And the situation will be worse and worse as the nanometres will be lesser.
This is not 40nm+ period where huge chips can be made...


----------



## radarblade (Mar 17, 2012)

Saw this posted on WCCFtech earlier:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Wccftechcom/~3/SjsivqyKSG8/

We all know the 680 will be even more powerful once Nvidia releases its driver updates after launch.


----------



## L7R (Mar 17, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The test-bed consisted of an extreme-cooled Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition processor (running at stock frequency), ASUS


They have a CPUZ screen showing 5000MHz core clock:


----------



## Fairlady-z (Mar 17, 2012)

I was looking forward to the 680 crushing the 7970, but it seems its going to be a smaller gain after all. I think this is to be expected, and for any one to be surprised is just silly. Lets say April 1st(no pun) they start shipping thats 4 months delay compared to AMD. Well in those 4 months I had a blast with my 7970. Here is a link of my card single with stock 2600k no overclocking on CPU. I did use AMD's boost lol.... I went to The Catalyst and turned the slider all the way to the right.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2975241 

That link should post my system restults for ya. 

Come Monday the second card I have here is going in, and the EK waterblocks and back plates are in woohoo. I love tweaking my system, and am not very much interested in a card that has not head room when it comes to OC. Now we all have no clue if the 680 can or can not OC, but I am going with my big fat gut which tells me no . 


Cheers.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 17, 2012)

Fairlady-z said:


> I was looking forward to the 680 crushing the 7970, but it seems its going to be a smaller gain after all. I think this is to be expected, and for any one to be surprised is just silly. Lets say April 1st(no pun) they start shipping thats 4 months delay compared to AMD. Well in those 4 months I had a blast with my 7970. Here is a link of my card single with stock 2600k no overclocking on CPU. I did use AMD's boost lol.... I went to The Catalyst and turned the slider all the way to the right.
> 
> http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2975241
> 
> ...



It's unrealistic to expect a smaller chip with a lower TDP to crush TahitiXP. To beat it by let's say up to 10%, yes and this is what's going to happen. 

It's not 4 months, availability for the 7970 was on the 9th of January, GTX680 will have a hard launch probably on the 22nd of March so in my book that's 2 months and a half.

I am pretty sure that a smaller chip with a lower TDP will overclock at least as well as Tahiti. The question is how well the performance will scale.


----------



## Evolved (Mar 17, 2012)

Sorry, this might sound a bit off topic but... I had to ask.

I heard (just murmurs amidst my surroundings) that AMD will re-release a newer and more refined and better revision of Tahiti to combat against the GTX 680 and and other cards that Nvidia releases.

Is this true? I know it could be just rumours or someone making crap up.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

Evolved said:


> Sorry, this might sound a bit off topic but... I had to ask.
> 
> I heard (just murmurs amidst my surroundings) that AMD will re-release a newer and more refined and better revision of Tahiti to combat against the GTX 680 and and other cards that Nvidia releases.
> 
> Is this true? I know it could be just rumours or someone making crap up.



Well, yes,, there have been speculations recently.. and the chip is called 'tenerife' with 2304 stream processors.. at the moment no one knows if it will come soon.. AMD apparently is waiting to see final preformance of GTX680 before they make a move... and before the 'tenerife' comes(some say it will be part of 8xxx series) , AMD is preparing for their dual GPU 7990 which could very well come in Q2(april?).. so go the speculations


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 17, 2012)

Evolved said:


> Sorry, this might sound a bit off topic but... I had to ask.
> 
> I heard (just murmurs amidst my surroundings) that AMD will re-release a newer and more refined and better revision of Tahiti to combat against the GTX 680 and and other cards that Nvidia releases.
> 
> Is this true? I know it could be just rumours or someone making crap up.



I really don't think it will happen soon, things just don't go so quick and easy.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 17, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> I really don't think it will happen soon, things just don't go so quick and easy.



sure they do... Do you remember how fast ATi killed off the X1800 series in favour of the X1900XTX? the X1800 was only out for a for a few months.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> It's unrealistic to expect a smaller chip with a lower TDP to crush TahitiXP. ...



Isnt it called Tahiti XT?? just confirming


----------



## NHKS (Mar 17, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> sure they do... Do you remember how fast ATi killed off the X1800 series in favour of the X1900XTX? the X1800 was only out for a for a few months.




anything's possible.. depends mainly on how fast TSMC's 28nm process ramps up yields.

just posting this image(probably official slide) i found.. *I am NOT claiming it*


----------



## tilldeath (Mar 17, 2012)

Price + Nvidia = Fail/Win   
/thread


----------



## Fairlady-z (Mar 17, 2012)

nVida VS me (AMD7970 owner)!!!


----------



## AvonX (Mar 17, 2012)

Guys quit arguing about this.
It is normal that nvidia would tweak to match or even get better performance from amd.
Amd released first their cards and they knew there was no competition at that time.
This nvidia cards are heavily clocked according to this post here.
All AMD needs to do is a refresh and then again will kick nvidias butt again.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 17, 2012)

Actually I have seen reports that the 680 core turboclocks automatically to *1400* in intensive scenes. This card will be a winner. Nvidia driver teams the last couple of years have been outstanding getting higher performance out of new cards. Lower temps and power, multi gpu support finally, the new adaptive v sync, cool image tech. It will be fun to play with!


----------



## Initialised (Mar 17, 2012)

DarkOCean said:


> They are also showing gpu scores which are not influenced to much by the oc on the cpu.


Right... it's not going to be an overpriced power hungry monster of a card that'll burn itself out in 6 month in the under ventilated budget chassis that was all you could afford after spending the rest of your budget to get the latest nvidia card in your system like the GTX480 or the legendary FX?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

buggalugs said:


> Then why are Nvidia charging high-end prices for a mid-range card? Sounds like Nvidia are doing what they do best, taking gamers for idiots and charging too much for their cards.
> 
> People have been complaining about AMD prices for the 7970 but at least its a genuine highend card with 3GB of memory and plenty of overclocking.
> 
> ...



well look at the size and TDP of the GK104. Does that sound like a high end card to you? To me no not at all. Seeing how its got lower TDP, smaller die size, lower heat, and obviously lower power its in the range of a mid range card. Now, since nvidia has only been working on GK104 because GK100 was probably having issues on the 28nm process they decided to just make a mid range card try to compete with a AMD flagship which is what it is doing right now. If GK104 is deemed to be a mid range card(which im confident it is), then AMD has some problems. Why wouldn't you price a card that was meant to be "mid range" but is beating out your competitors high end flag ship cards, as high as a high end? I mean yeah they coudl probably price it at $300-$350, but since the performance seems to be there why not price it a bit more?

Also we don't have any information regarding overclocking headroom. Its all speculation that nvidia took out the overclock headroom. Also maybe thats a AMD weakness by being conservative on clocks when its obvious the cards can be clocked to 1GHZ+? Nvidia took advantage that there cards could do that so they did that. Is that a fair reason to bash their card?


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 17, 2012)

I like competition when its close, great for the consumer.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 17, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> I like competition when its close, great for the consumer.



That's why i find so hard to understand so many people here that have so high hopes of one company crushing the other, are they stupid? i just don't get it.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I mean yeah they coudl probably price it at $300-$350, but since the performance seems to be there why not price it a bit more?



Oh yeah lets price it a "bit" more (200 - 250 bucks more), hilarious.

The only upside of gk104 being a small chip is that nvidia can price it far lower than 7970 if needed.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 17, 2012)

I think the real question here is:

1. Nvidia realised GK104 was competitive with 7970 ?
2. Nvidia realised GK104 was a little slower than 7970 ?

so,
1. If it was already competitive to begin with, why not release it simultaneously with 7970?, why take 2.5 months?

2. I think it is logical that being slower, they took this 2.5 months and tweak it(oc), so that it beats 7970 by a small margin.

then,
which scenario do you prefer, because if 1 is correct then GK104 oc potential is untouched, nvidia will price same as 7970 or higher(because it's faster). If 2 is correct GK104 won't have much oc headroom, leading to an equality btween the two, then i think the prices would be more just.

Until reviwes pop up it's all wishfull thinking.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> I think the real question here is:
> 
> 1. Nvidia realised GK104 was competitive with 7970 ?
> 2. Nvidia realised GK104 was a little slower than 7970 ?
> ...



im thinking competitive. Nvidia did release something say they were a bit surprised with hd7xxx series. They thought AMD would have released something better.


----------



## swirl09 (Mar 17, 2012)

For the love of <your god here>, why do people keep bringing up nV saying they thought AMD would have released something better? If you are mentally challenged, I apologise. Otherwise, the next time you feel like stating this, pause for just a moment and think how likely would it be for nV to make a statement which congratulated AMD on a great GPU.

....... If the penny still hasn't dropped, kindly don't reproduce.


----------



## magibeg (Mar 17, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> im thinking competitive. Nvidia did release something say they were a bit surprised with hd7xxx series. They thought AMD would have released something better.



How does that make sense. Nvidia would have spent a huge amount of resources and money developing their high end chip, then when they see what ATI has they just go "Oh.... well lets just not continue the work flow and waste millions of dollars instead of stomping out the competition".

If you're going to talk about being competitive, at least get a business background.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 17, 2012)

swirl09 said:


> For the love of <your god here>, why do people keep bringing up nV saying they thought AMD would have released something better? If you are mentally challenged, I apologise. Otherwise, the next time you feel like stating this, pause for just a moment and think how likely would it be for nV to make a statement which congratulated AMD on a great GPU.
> 
> ....... If the penny still hasn't dropped, kindly don't reproduce.



people are saying it because thats what nvidia said. They also could have said nothing and continued on with their productions. But instead they did say something so why can';t we talk about it?


----------



## Fatal (Mar 17, 2012)

Long as with this news the price comes down on the 7970 I can care less that the 680 didn't blow away the 7970. Will be getting one or two 7970's any way.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 17, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> 1. If it was already competitive to begin with, why not release it simultaneously with 7970?, why take 2.5 months?



Because it didn't take 2.5 months to release it. It took them years, just like it took AMD years to create and release Tahiti. Chips are ready when they are, not even one minute earlier. If you want to speculate, Nvidia was probably going to (trying to) release GK100 when 28nm was ready, which is when Tahiti launched and had GK104 ready for 2-3 months later, just like Pitcairn came later and just like it has happened with mid-range cards for ages. GK100 was not ready, so it was most probably cancelled or they delayed it to make another respin, but instead of delaying every other chip like they did with Fermi, they decided to push GK100 release and make it the last one in the series and GK104 just continued on its schedule which happens to make it launch now.

PS: It doesn't take 2.5 months to increase clocks. And 2.5 months is not nearly enough to make any change besides that. GK104 is just what it ought to be.

EDIT: And the "we exected more from AMD" comment is probably closely related to the scenario above. GK100 was not ready, they had to make a decision and decided to make it last instead of delaying the entire lineup again, like I said. This means they decided and were ready to loose the high-end momentarily and release their performance part to try and take the market "hole" between Pitcairn and Tahiti, which they probably thought would be bigger (they know at least die sizes for sure), because that's the most profitable market segment anyway.


----------



## TRWOV (Mar 17, 2012)

There is no Turks replacement this time around so, taking that into consideration, how can we know that Cape Verde wasn't really meant to replace Turks but then, when TSMC starts to show problems with 28nm, AMD decides to adjust tiers (Cape Verde -> 7600 to 7700, Pitcairn -> 7700 to 7800, etc). Kinda how they had to scale back FX speeds to improve yields (remember that the FX had a targeted speed of >4Ghz). For all we know AMD was having the same problems nVidia has with GK100 and so launched a mid range part as high end. 

Anyway, the only truths so far is that nVidia will launch the GK104 as GTX680 and  price it accordingly. This generation won't see a price/performance improvement from either company


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 17, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> Anyway, the only truths so far is that nVidia will launch the GK104 as GTX680 and price it accordingly. This generation won't see a price/performance improvement from either company



Depends. Those who paid 500$ at the end of 2010 for the best card (GTX580) will have to pay 50$ more for 20% more perf in the case of the 7970 and probably 30% more perf for the GTX680. We know the 7970 overclocks well and the performence scales very well and we should expect the same from the GTX680 so that performance increase can reach 50%. 

While we don't know what NV will bring in lower segments as price/perf goes we do know that AMD offers the same perf for the money as the 6000 series with the 7770/7870/7850


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 17, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> There is no Turks replacement this time around so, taking that into consideration, how can we know that Cape Verde wasn't really meant to replace Turks but then, when TSMC starts to show problems with 28nm, AMD decides to adjust tiers (Cape Verde -> 7600 to 7700, Pitcairn -> 7700 to 7800, etc). Kinda how they had to scale back FX speeds to improve yields (remember that the FX had a targeted speed of >4Ghz). For all we know AMD was having the same problems nVidia has with GK100 and so launched a mid range part as high end.



We know that Tahiti is AMD's high-end because of the same signs we know GK104 is mid-range. First of all the codename, which was leaked along the rest of the lineup several months ago, earlier than TSMC problems arised. And secondly the die size which is similar to Cayman and Cypress, while Pitcairn is similar to Barts and slightly bigger than Juniper. And finally memory controler width is that of a high-end card. A new gen mid-range card would never have a wider memory bus than previous gen high-end.

Turks replacement is really Cape Verde despite the names of cards. Again because die size is the same, and same memory width, etc. Remember that HD6700 was just a rebranded Juniper, while it was really Turks that should/could have been called HD6700 and now HD7600 is a rebranded Turks.



Crap Daddy said:


> While we don't know what NV will bring in lower segments as price/perf goes we do know that AMD offers the same perf for the money as the 6000 series with the 7770/7870/7850



And that's why it sucks. New generations have always brought significantly better perf/$ (usually close to 2x) than previous gens when they launched and now they are only matching it. Of course part of the problem is also that GTX500 and HD6000 are priced virtually the same as when they launched 15 months ago. It's a clear sign of price fixing to me, even if e-mails have not been exchanged. Legally punishable? I don't think so and I know we are not entitled to better perf/$ when we want it, but IMO they better treat customers better because people will not support that behavior too long, just to play console ports, be them XB360/PS3 ports or XB720/PS4 ports.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 17, 2012)

This man:







is taking AMD in new directions.  He's making a top tier product (7970) and pricing it accordingly.  Many people see the inflated price of something and assign it a higher value.  If someone tried to sell you a ferrari for $5000 you;d want to know what was wrong with it.  The converse is true (unfortunately).  Items with high cost are often perceived (sometimes erroneously) as 'prestige' products.  Face it, many sad people brag about their 'expensive' this or that.

Back to that goofy guy Rory.  He's making a statement with 7970 prices by drawing a line in the sand and saying, "we're that good and you'll pay for the privilege".

Meanwhile, this man:






is using the price of the 7970 to position his product against.  It's not price fixing.  It's making sure he sells his item at the competitors price point while delivering (possibly) a better product (at stock values).  By pricing the same and selling as "the best single gpu ever!" (which guaranteed NV PR will) they will get sales by making the 7970 look like a worse option.

Who makes more money?  Nvidia of course because the card they were meant release:






is late to the:






I'm done.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 17, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> By pricing the same and selling as "the best single gpu ever!" (which guaranteed NV PR will) they will get sales by making the 7970 look like a worse option.



Don't know if you noticed but this has changed to:

"The fastest, most efficient GPU ever built"


----------



## Irocing (Mar 17, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Don't know if you noticed but this has changed to:
> 
> "The fastest, most efficient GPU ever built"



LOL

Sounds like thier playing with words.

Does that mean fastest as to efficiency or the fastest-fastest

Later


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Mar 17, 2012)

sanadanosa said:


> Nah, you asking about benchmarking 680 and 7970 at same mhz core and memory, and you called 1006mhz 680 is overclocked. According to previews news, 1006mhz is the GTX 680 base clock, and turbo clock is 1058mhz. So, if you still asking about benchmark with same core clock & memory, It's like comparing 880mhz HD6970 with *880mhz* GTX 570, is that fair enough for you?



you have to make example with a 6970 vs gtx 580 not a a gtx 570,but why they dont make the benchmark with same clock on the 7970? this is what i wanna know ,nvidia make the "stock" clore at 1000mhz after amd comes out with preoc card with 1000mhz = its same like make a benchmark with an oc card vs stock clock card, if you are NVIDIAFANBOY its not my fault, i wanna see real benchmark with the card out not make from nvidia with stupid result manipolated,is like the benchmark making from amd with the fx series vs the first 6 core intel , please use the mind not the eyes for think is true only thing you see


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 17, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> you have to make example with a 6970 vs gtx 580 not a a gtx 570,but why they dont make the benchmark with same clock on the 7970? this is what i wanna know ,nvidia make the "stock" clore at 1000mhz after amd comes out with preoc card with 1000mhz = its same like make a benchmark with an oc card vs stock clock card, if you are NVIDIAFANBOY its not my fault, i wanna see real benchmark with the card out not make from nvidia with stupid result manipolated,is like the benchmark making from amd with the fx series vs the first 6 core intel , please use the mind not the eyes for think is true only thing you see



I'll try to make it very simple for you. Wait for the real benchmarks, they are not so far, next week on the 22nd. It's not your fault you can't understand that the stock clock for the GTX680 is that from those benchmarks and from other countless leaks. It is Nvidia's fault.


----------



## Irocing (Mar 17, 2012)

All I want to know is how much OC headroom is left on it from the base clock?

Am Sure benching in the next few weeks are going to bring that out.
If clocked out of the box, Not going to be any different than some of these 
Non Ref spin off cards that come out after first releases that can't go any higher
on average as the Ref cards.

A few cards Like Mars and Asus differ in better components ect to do it.

Getting ready to pull the trigger from my CF 5770's, But going to make sure as
to the results between them.
Already have two strikes against them as to Mem and Bits.

We'll see

Later


----------



## zargana (Mar 18, 2012)

I would to say:

AMD and Nvidia changed the price policy.

Did you see any price cut at nvidia side after release AMD 7 series? If your answer is simply no, then you cant expect the same from AMD for 7 series. (I hope Nvidia proves me wrong.)

My guess is the price for mid-range gpu will be arround 550 and for the high-end 650$ and more. 

The new pricing policy for both of the firms is: 
Produce for low price and sell it higher. With the new policy they dont drop the pricing but they put the own high-end card models for sale at the same price or higher price from the opponents cards. (i mean the MSRP)

example: When nvidia has faster gpu: Lets say it costs 50$. If AMD have a higher performance gpu in they hands they will price it 75$. And Nvidia makes a new gpu and is faster then first duo and priced around 100$. Then both of the firms will continue to selling they products without changing the price policy. 

So this is a win-win policy for both of the firms.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 18, 2012)

When it comes to price, it may be worth noting that at release the HD6970 was on par for the GTX480, and they still priced it $80 lower.  AMD generally had a policy of pricing their similar performing cards just below Nvidia's.  When you look at the 7xxx series they kind of just made a pricing scheme that went 250-350-450-550, regardless of how it performed with comparable products available.

I don't really plan on getting a GTX680, I might go for a 660 or 670(Ti?), but $550 is steep for a GPU in my mind.


----------



## Irocing (Mar 18, 2012)

xenocide said:


> When it comes to price, it may be worth noting that at release the HD6970 was on par for the GTX480, and they still priced it $80 lower.  AMD generally had a policy of pricing their similar performing cards just below Nvidia's.  When you look at the 7xxx series they kind of just made a pricing scheme that went 250-350-450-550, regardless of how it performed with comparable products available.
> 
> I don't really plan on getting a GTX680, I might go for a 660 or 670(Ti?), but $550 is steep for a GPU in my mind.



 Agree, $550.00 is very Steep for a Vid card.

In my case, I'm about 3 gens back even though CF helps a bunch. I think its time and
sure couldn't do this on a yearly basis.

Way I do it, Is get the strongest single card for the best price at the time.
Then Double up when and if it starts to fall behind as to what you want it to do.
And also getting the 2nd card usually alot cheaper.
Can usually stretch it to a 2 or 2 1/2 year cycle.

Later


----------



## buggalugs (Mar 18, 2012)

The end result is, for the vast majority of gamers with 1 screen, the 7970 or 680 will be more than enough to run new games on max settings for the next 18 months at least.

 You cant go wrong with either card.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2012)

buggalugs said:


> The end result is, for the vast majority of gamers with 1 screen, the 7970 or 680 will be more than enough to run new games on max settings for the next 18 months at least.
> 
> You cant go wrong with either card.



your about the only Aussie here that makes sense actually. Its user preference honestly.


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 18, 2012)

All I can make out of this is that it appears NV saw that there "mid range" chip could compete with AMD's top chip with a "little" overclocking. What I see is they overclocked the snot out of it to get it past the 7970 and bingo they have their "high end" card without needing to worry about the fate of the GK100 for awhile. 
I have a sneaking suspicion there won't be alot of headroom left with these chips.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> All I can make out of this is that it appears NV saw that there "mid range" chip could compete with AMD's top chip with a "little" overclocking. What I see is they overclocked the snot out of it to get it past the 7970 and bingo they have their "high end" card without needing to worry about the fate of the GK100 for awhile.
> I have a sneaking suspicion there won't be alot of headroom left with these chips.



Your Sayin NVs chips right?


----------



## Fairlady-z (Mar 18, 2012)

So I overclocked my system with out voltage tweaks and I could have pushed harder, but all I did was go into my Asus bios chose EZ mode and turn the sliders in the Catalyst to the right. This is the result I get with 12.3rc drivers, and I got to say the jump in performance since launch is pretty big here. I mean in those slieds above the fella is getting low 7k score. With a much better CPU at 5ghz, so not sure how much we can trust that slide. Now there is no doubt the 680 stock for stock will be faster than the 7970 that be just silly. 


http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2983294

Enjoy


----------



## INSTG8R (Mar 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Your Sayin NVs chips right?



Yeah I don't think there is gonna be alot more left in the 680. I think it's pushed pretty hard already.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 18, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Yeah I don't think there is gonna be alot more left in the 680. I think it's pushed pretty hard already.


There are multiple reports that the 680 core can go much higher. We will see.


----------



## farquaid (Mar 18, 2012)

beck24 said:


> There are multiple reports that the 680 core can go much higher. We will see.



If they are so many why havent we heard about them?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

GK104 overclocked to 1100:






HD7950 overclocked to 1260:

http://hwbot.org/image/739971.jpg


----------



## HTC (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> GK104 overclocked to 1100:
> 
> http://i39.tinypic.com/344a07b.jpg
> 
> ...



It overclocks allot but doesn't scale as much, compared to the 7950.

EDIT

Not factoring in the dynamic clock thingy, @ 1110 core, the 680 is 57% overclocked (core) while the 7950 is 43% overclocked (core).

Would be helpful if the extreme stock 680 was also shown, not just overclocked.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

HTC said:


> It overclocks allot but doesn't scale as much, compared to the 7950.
> 
> EDIT
> 
> ...



Again, the stock clock for the 680 is 1006 MHz. So it's 10% overclock. Please see the voltage, that's the default one.


----------



## HTC (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Again, the stock clock for the 680 is 1006 MHz. So it's 10% overclock. Please see the voltage, that's the default one.



Both GPU-Z and NVIDIA Inspector (the pic you posted) say default clock -> 706 and GPU clock -> 1110.

It is however possible that both progs don't fully support 680 yet and, in that case, you could be right.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

The way clocks work on Kepler will be explained I'm sure by Wizz but in the meantime here's a shot of EVGA precision beta for the 680. You'll see how the clocks are marked.


----------



## HTC (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> The way clocks work on Kepler will be explained I'm sure by Wizz but in the meantime here's a shot of EVGA precision beta for the 680. You'll see how the clocks are marked.
> 
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=124661



I stand corrected.

Question: how about the shaders? They too have a 57% boost or is it from the dynamic thingy again?


----------



## Fairlady-z (Mar 18, 2012)

This is test result for 7970 @1125mhz core extreme 3D mark 11 test.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2985009

Nvidia VS Me(7970 owner)


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 18, 2012)

HTC said:


> Both GPU-Z and NVIDIA Inspector (the pic you posted) say default clock -> 706 and GPU clock -> 1110.
> 
> It is however possible that both progs don't fully support 680 yet and, in that case, you could be right.



the current public build has no support for gtx 680. editors can email me to request a new version with full support


----------



## cowie (Mar 18, 2012)

Public support will be soon after launch like normal wizz?


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 18, 2012)

cowie said:


> Public support will be soon after launch like normal wizz?



i have a new gpuz release lined up for soon(tm), which will include support for upcoming hardware


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 18, 2012)

http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-sli-performance-preview/15273.html

680SLI at 1150 core, good or not?


----------



## Jonap_1st (Mar 18, 2012)

i don't get it if some people still mumbling about the correlation between GPU naming, performance with the upcoming price tags, hoping it will get under $400 mark? did they think nvidia will just throw away 580 with the rest and hope it would be forgotten?

if it's truly faster than 7970 and priced (just say) only 50% more expensive than allegedly previous generation (a.k.a GF1x4) just like what you wanted ; it will blown everything out of the water and push AMD to dig their own graves. but i think nvidia will not push their own GTX580 to the same graves too..


----------



## DarkOCean (Mar 18, 2012)

I sure hope it will go higher than 1150 on stock voltage, good to see they improved the imc by alot though.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

crow1001 said:


> http://vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-sli-performance-preview/15273.html
> 
> 680SLI at 1150 core, good or not?
> 
> ...



These scores are more or less the same as HD7970 in crossfire overclocked to the same speeds. Here's a benchmark:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4...eo_cards_in_crossfire_overclocked/index3.html


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> These scores are more or less the same as HD7970 in crossfire overclocked to the same speeds. Here's a benchmark:
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4...eo_cards_in_crossfire_overclocked/index3.html



The 680 doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly faster. Way too much hype for a chip that doesn't dominate the 7970. :|


----------



## jaredpace (Mar 18, 2012)

I wonder what's up with the clocks on the sli bench.  Is the overclocking making them reset back to 700mhz periodically?  If so, it would lower the scores.


----------



## techtard (Mar 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> The 680 doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly faster. Way too much hype for a chip that doesn't dominate the 7970. :|



As usual, the hype was generated by rabid fanboys. Just wait for reviews, then make your decision.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> The 680 doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly faster. Way too much hype for a chip that doesn't dominate the 7970. :|



GK104 wasn't made to dominate the 7970 and as far as I remember there's wasn't any hype around this. Until very recently people thought this chip will compete at best with the HD7950.


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> These scores are more or less the same as HD7970 in crossfire overclocked to the same speeds. Here's a benchmark:
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4...eo_cards_in_crossfire_overclocked/index3.html



Yep Nvidia aint dominating shit this round but they sure as hell gonna make you pay through the ass for it.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> GK104 wasn't made to dominate the 7970 and as far as I remember there's wasn't any hype around this. Until very recently people thought this chip will compete at best with the HD7950.



The problem is the where they're placing the product. The 680's name places it where it competes directly with the 7970, it's saying that it is meant to target the top. So unless there is something that comes before the 690, assuming that the 690 will be the dual-gpu solution, it's placed pretty high to not be targeting the 7970.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> The problem is the where they're placing the product. The 680's name places it where it competes directly with the 7970, it's saying that it is meant to target the top. So unless there is something that comes before the 690, assuming that the 690 will be the dual-gpu solution, it's placed pretty high to not be targeting the 7970.



Between targeting and dominating there's a difference. I can bet it's gonna be faster to UP TO 10% in an average across the board with all usual games but it will not in any way dominate the 7970. That's why it will be probably priced the same as the 7970.

And this chip was not meant to be called GTX680. It just happens that it can compete with the 7970 and with higher stock clocks it can beat it so why not call it 680 and pocket the money? Nvidia has no other better chip ready and again, as it happens, they don't need it this round.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Between targeting and dominating there's a difference. I can bet it's gonna be faster to UP TO 10% in an average across the board with all usual games but it will not in any way dominate the 7970. That's why it will be probably priced the same as the 7970.
> 
> And this chip was not meant to be called GTX680. It just happens that it can compete with the 7970 and with higher stock clocks it can beat it so why not call it 680 and pocket the money? Nvidia has no other better chip ready and again, as it happens, they don't need it this round.



...and all I'm saying is for the placement of the product and all the hyper nVidia generated, it's not as good as they've been saying. What I'm saying is that for the claims, hype, and actual performance for a product placed as the GTX 680, it makes it look like nVidia is struggling with how much higher performance the top end model had over AMD/ATi in the past. Also remember, the 7970 has been out for months, AMD has made their money off of it already and they're working on the next best thing.


----------



## Evolved (Mar 18, 2012)

This just in... (if nobody has heard the retail price in-stores yet).

I work as tech and sales at Canada Computers and I just scoured my system for a GTX680.

It's selling for $549.99, for an EVGA GTX680 and about $579.99 for a Gigabyte.

10% faster than the HD7970, and more than $50 cheaper.

Damn...


----------



## Steevo (Mar 18, 2012)

10% faster till you consider the overclocks a 7970 can reach easily.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 18, 2012)

Steevo said:


> 10% faster till you consider the overclocks a 7970 can reach easily.



The GTX 680's over-clocking ability has yet to be tested, I guess it could be a big decision point for buyers.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

Evolved said:


> This just in... (if nobody has heard the retail price in-stores yet).
> 
> I work as tech and sales at Canada Computers and I just scoured my system for a GTX680.
> 
> ...



These are Canadian dollars? The 7970 had a MSRP of $600 over there?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> These are Canadian dollars? The 7970 had a MSRP of $600 over there?



Yes, it does, with most cards selling for $569-$649, or more. the lower-priced cards, in my own city, are never in stock. If these cards matched US prices locally, i'd have bought a couple, but the clear price gouging on the side of the retailers helped convinced me to wait for Kepler, in hopes that those prices would drop accordingly.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 18, 2012)

Looks good with pre release drivers. single GPU and especially SLI improvements over time can be dramatic with Nvidia. can't wait for actual release and real benches!


----------



## amdftw (Mar 18, 2012)

*Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!
AMD purposely held back the performance on these cards, if the NV will release their new series cards. Now the time has come!
So if GTX680 will lead 5-10% compared with HD7970, with the new driver the AMD will be again the king!


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> *Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
> AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!
> AMD purposely held back the performance on these cards, if the NV will release their new series cards. Now the time has come!
> So if GTX680 will lead 5-10% compared with HD7970, with the new driver the AMD will be again the king!



MMM, i doubt it.
Source?


----------



## TRWOV (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> *Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
> AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!
> AMD purposely held back the performance on these cards, if the NV will release their new series cards. Now the time has come!
> So if GTX680 will lead 5-10% compared with HD7970, with the new driver the AMD will be again the king!



I was thinking something along these lines when the 7870 got results comparable with the 7950/70 BUT if this turns out to be true, AMD is being lame.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> *Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
> AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!
> AMD purposely held back the performance on these cards, if the NV will release their new series cards. Now the time has come!
> So if GTX680 will lead 5-10% compared with HD7970, with the new driver the AMD will be again the king!



Are these the same as the drivers for Bulldozer?


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> *Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
> AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!
> AMD purposely held back the performance on these cards, if the NV will release their new series cards. Now the time has come!
> So if GTX680 will lead 5-10% compared with HD7970, with the new driver the AMD will be again the king!



I have never in the last 4 years seen a AMD driver that boosts the performance up to 10-15%. I had a HD5870 about 2 years ago and there was only one driver that actually gave me good performance. Any of the ones after that causes me microstutter, horrible FPS, etc.


----------



## HTC (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> *Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
> AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!
> *AMD purposely held back the performance on these cards*, if the NV will release their new series cards. Now the time has come!
> So if GTX680 will lead 5-10% compared with HD7970, with the new driver the AMD will be again the king!



This would explain why the 7870 is so close to the 7950 but i very much doubt it.

I'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> *Good news for HD7970 and 7950 owners!*
> AMD will release a new performance driver in april which boost 10-15% performance on these cards!



is the performance boost free?


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 18, 2012)

NHKS said:


> is the performance boost free?



You know...


I've always wondered why these GPUs, nearly all of which hit 1000 MHz with ease...weren't billed as the world's first 1 GHz DX11 GPU, or some schtuff like that.


But, if there is a planned driver revision that plans to increase performance by 20%, it explains why these cards can for the most part clock higher than 20% over stock, as the increased power draw from delivering that extra perforamnce needs to be planned for too...


With the low-low power consumption and cool operating temps of the 7970, and the huge overhead in stock cooler cooling capacity...AMD might just have pulled the wool over nVidia's eyes. It would NOT be the first time, although such has not happened in ages...






OR....





It's all BS.


Occam's Razor says it's BS. I'll go with that.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 18, 2012)

I would call it 'planned ambush'


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> You know...
> 
> 
> I've always wondered why these GPUs, nearly all of which hit 1000 MHz with ease...weren't billed as the world's first 1 GHz DX11 GPU, or some schtuff like that.
> ...



if the hd7970 has low power consumption then the GTX680 will hve even lower if the TDP is anything like what the consumption will be like. since the HD7970 as a 210w TDP


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 18, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> if the hd7970 has low power consumption then the GTX680 will hve even lower if the TDP is anything like what the consumption will be like. since the HD7970 as a 210w TDP



What makes you say that? nVidia has always been a bit high on the side of power consumption and heat.


----------



## amdftw (Mar 18, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> MMM, i doubt it.
> Source?



Inside beta drivers, tested with 7970 which will be the base of a 12.4 driver.
This driver has not available yet for users.
It might be AMD will release beta performance driver in next 1 or 2 weeks, the final will arrive in april.

Watch this bench: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/13.html
7870 beat the 7970? YES!
That was because the 7870/50 was tested with the very early performance driver which was the very early base of the final perf. driver.
The 7970/50 results only made with the 2 months old driver.

Just look everybody when the 7970/50 get the final perf. driver!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> What makes you say that? nVidia has always been a bit high on the side of power consumption and heat.



yeah but thats also when there TDP was off the charts high.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> Inside beta drivers, tested with 7970 which will be the base of a 12.4 driver.
> This driver has not available yet for users.
> It might be AMD will release beta performance driver in next 1 or 2 weeks, the final will arrive in april.



I think he asked for a source like a link of reputable information.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> What makes you say that? nVidia has always been a bit high on the side of power consumption and heat.



in case u have nt seen this power consumption chart.... as tested by hkepc.com


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2012)

read the charts on here for the 7900,7800,7700 series power charts. I dont trust anything till its officially launched


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

From what we see clock for clock 7970 and the 680 are about the same in synthetic benchmarks *but games are different*. Now, the 680 seem to have an advantage in being more efficient to reach those clocks so I don't think that AMD will stand a chance in an arms race based on who can get higher clocks. I think there is a very good reason why the 7970 was clocked at 925 and I suspect that the GK104 was clocked higher because it has to pull ahead since it's decided it's the GTX680 and not some 670 or 660. And of course... because it can.


----------



## techtard (Mar 18, 2012)

I don't think AMD is going to release a magic driver to boost performance. They are notorious for having shoddy drivers.
Unless their new president personally fires their whole software team and hires better software engineers, they will continue to have excellent hardware that is saddled with inferior drivers.


----------



## NHKS (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> From what we see clock for clock 7970 and the 680 are about the same in synthetic benchmarks *but games are different*. Now, the 680 seem to have an advantage in being more efficient to reach those clocks so I don't think that AMD will stand a chance in an arms race based on who can get higher clocks. I think there is a very good reason why the 7970 was clocked at 925 and I suspect that the GK104 was clocked higher because it has to pull ahead since it's decided it's the GTX680 and not some 670 or 660. And of course... because it can.



Add to that effect of FXAA or even new TXAA..


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2012)

NHKS said:


> Add to that effect of FXAA or even new TXAA..



the new TXAA looks nuts! Im excited to try it out.


----------



## skullforge (Mar 18, 2012)

offtopic:
7870 @1500mhz on stock cooling

http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1500.jpg

http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/11_8.jpg


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 18, 2012)

if it's off topic, why post?:shadedshu


----------



## skullforge (Mar 18, 2012)

cause it's awesome 
hoping the 680 will overclock the same!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 18, 2012)

skullforge said:


> cause it's awesome
> hoping the 680 will overclock the same!



at this point i think we can all assume that 28nm cards will be able to overclock damn well.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

skullforge said:


> offtopic:
> 7870 @1500mhz on stock cooling
> 
> http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1500.jpg
> ...



Before you spread innacurate information and off-topic you should check better your source.
The reviewer used a Thermalright Spitfire so it's not stock cooling. Oh, and the ambient was a few degrees above 0 Celsius


----------



## skullforge (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> Before you spread innacurate information and off-topic you should check better your source.
> The reviewer used a Thermalright Spitfire so it's not stock cooling. Oh, and the ambient was a few degrees above 0 Celsius



Haha yes... guess I missed the details.Sorry


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 18, 2012)

techtard said:


> I don't think AMD is going to release a magic driver to boost performance. They are notorious for having shoddy drivers.
> Unless their new president personally fires their whole software team and hires better software engineers, they will continue to have excellent hardware that is saddled with inferior drivers.



driver issues go back and forth dude for both companies

and honestly driver issues i havent had nor my customers since before cat 4.3 were launched


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 18, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> and honestly driver issues i havent had nor my customers since before cat 4.3 were launched



Good for you, i've been delaing with flickering secondary monitors since the 5-series launch. it took AMD 6 months to get rid of cursor issues on multi-monitor 5-series, even. Drivers issues DO persist on either side, and you're very fortunate to not run into any no matter what brand of GPU you use.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 18, 2012)

I'm still scratching my head on why 7870 beats 7970 on crysis 2.

The only way those drivers are for real is that amd had done it on purpose so nvidia saw fake results.....still i call it BS.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 18, 2012)

amdftw said:


> Inside beta drivers, tested with 7970 which will be the base of a 12.4 driver.
> This driver has not available yet for users.
> It might be AMD will release beta performance driver in next 1 or 2 weeks, the final will arrive in april.
> 
> ...



So, you're saying that AMD has no respect for the faithful followers who bought with hard earned cash their high-end cards and deliberately did not release a driver for the 7970/50 cards just to launch it in time to spoil Nvidia's expected success with Fermi?

Do you know that as we speak the cards are probably benched against the GTX680? Do you think that the reviewers already have this magical driver and what makes you think that NV will not release an equally magical driver in the close future?


----------



## xenocide (Mar 18, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> GK104 overclocked to 1100:
> 
> http://i39.tinypic.com/344a07b.jpg
> 
> ...



That's very interesting...


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 19, 2012)

xenocide said:


> That's very interesting...



I agree, that is very interesting.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 19, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I agree, that is very interesting.



2 Things I found most interesting;

1.  That Temperature Graph, barely breaks 40-45c.
2.  On the GPU-Z reading it doesn't list PhysX as supported.


----------



## Xaser04 (Mar 19, 2012)

A "performance" driver from AMD isn't that far fetched once you factor in the immaturity of thr GCN architecture but whether it will happen or not is complete guess work. 

I have personally seen reasonable boosts in Eyefinity from the Launch driver to the RC11 driver so it is possible under the right conditions. 

Of course the same could be said for Kepler. 

We will simply have to wait for proper reviews before drawing any conclusions. 

I for one am only interested in Eyefinity / Surround resolution results on a single card.


----------



## leonard_222003 (Mar 19, 2012)

Don't you love new members that made an account just to flame here about Nvidia and AMD ? browsed the topic and found a few 2012 march members  .


----------



## Shurakai (Mar 19, 2012)

Xaser04 said:


> A "performance" driver from AMD isn't that far fetched once you factor in the immaturity of thr GCN architecture but whether it will happen or not is complete guess work.
> 
> I have personally seen reasonable boosts in Eyefinity from the Launch driver to the RC11 driver so it is possible under the right conditions.
> 
> ...



Very true, RC11-12.2 are fantastic boosts compared to launch, but the same can be said for Nvidia's drivers, its not like they won't tweak performance with future driver releases as well.


----------



## sanadanosa (Mar 19, 2012)

Capitan Harlock said:


> you have to make example with a 6970 vs gtx 580 not a a gtx 570,but why they dont make the benchmark with same clock on the 7970? this is what i wanna know ,nvidia make the "stock" clore at 1000mhz after amd comes out with preoc card with 1000mhz = its same like make a benchmark with an oc card vs stock clock card, if you are NVIDIAFANBOY its not my fault, i wanna see real benchmark with the card out not make from nvidia with stupid result manipolated,is like the benchmark making from amd with the fx series vs the first 6 core intel , please use the mind not the eyes for think is true only thing you see



yes I'm an NVfanboy, but I try to be neutral here. HD6970 is against GTX 570 both price and performance (although 6970 is slightly faster). You better see this chart.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html


----------



## Jon A. Silvers (Mar 19, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> okay and then nvidia could do the same?


hope they do drop prices of gtx 570 to that point. I am not amd guy,like them more than nvidia by miserable small margin,cause they always had better price performance ratio,nothing more.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 19, 2012)

Jon A. Silvers said:


> hope they do drop prices of gtx 570 to that point. I am not amd guy,like them more than nvidia by miserable small margin,cause they always had better price performance ratio,nothing more.



I take nvidia almost always. Mainly because of the features they have for the games I play. Mainly good AF and Ambient Occlusion for games like Skyrim


----------



## Jon A. Silvers (Mar 19, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> I take nvidia almost always. Mainly because of the features they have for the games I play. Mainly good AF and Ambient Occlusion for games like Skyrim


its a little off topic but...
I will go with some of these 7870,7850,gtx570,6970,6950,gtx560ti,depending on the price/performance in my country at the time of my purchase (250e max). 

about gtx680 vs 7970 it a very tough competition ,cant wait to see real review and a nice price drops.


----------



## r9 (Mar 19, 2012)

Once upon a time the game developers were pushing the boundaries of graphic quality and performance capability of graphic cards and then  Xbox360 and PS3 came up and than the progress stopped. 
I don`t care if they invented eternity without software hardware is nothing. There is not a game that can`t be maxed out with three generation older graphic card.


----------



## Shurakai (Mar 19, 2012)

BF3 would make that statement crash and burn. So some developers are still pushing the limits of PC hardware.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 19, 2012)

Shurakai said:


> BF3 would make that statement crash and burn. So some developers are still pushing the limits of PC hardware.



no. Battlefield could be pushed even harder with better optimizations.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 19, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> no. Battlefield could be pushed even harder with better optimizations.



BF3 is already optimized to high hell.  It runs better than most DX11 games and looks gorgeous.  BF3 on low still looks better than most other DX11 games on high, while giving a comperable or better frame rate.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 20, 2012)

There is something interesting in this gallery 

http://imgur.com/a/ZFVDq

Thanks to the person who grabbed these off the gallery before they went offline (not me). 

e: something to get your attention


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Mar 20, 2012)

and how does the 7950 perform faster then the 7970 unless the 7950 was OC'd???

ahhh i see.... its performance per watt not performance vs other cards.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 20, 2012)

And disclaimer: those are off TH site directly. Personally I think their reviews are a bit off always. Perf/w difference between tahiti and gk104 is probably smaller with large game selection and higher resolution.


----------

