# GeForce GTX 680 Up To 40% Faster Than Radeon HD 7970: NVIDIA



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2012)

GPU vendors tend to give out their own performance figures of the products they're launching, compared to competitors' products. In one such comparison, allegedly of the GeForce GTX 680, doing rounds on the internet, NVIDIA's new GPU was evaluated by its makers be be over 40% faster than the Radeon HD 7970 in some tests. Keeping Radeon HD 7970 as a baseline, NVIDIA presented its performance figures for the GeForce GTX 680's leads over it, and Radeon HD 7950's trails under it. Results of as many as 15 tests were presented, from 7 games/benchmarks. All benchmarks were run with and without AA. The one test that caught the eye is Battlefield 3 with "4xAA". Experts we spoke to think NVIDIA could be using FXAA algorithm. In any case, NVIDIA looks to be confident of taking back the fastest-GPU crown from AMD.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2012)

Many Thanks to NHKS for the tip.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 13, 2012)

lol gotta love marketing slides, always seem to overstate by alot. Although 5-10% faster isn't out of the question.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Mar 13, 2012)

Highly anticipating a review for this card when it's released. If it ends up destroying the 7950/7970 I may switch to NVIDIA, once prices are less than $550 of course. These things must fold like crazy in F@H with 1536 shaders (if Stanford has good support for them and the shaders are somewhat strong).


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 13, 2012)

NDA should be lifted soon right?


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 13, 2012)

This is pure fake. Based on that pcinlife "leak", don't know where I put it which said base clock 1050 and memory 1425. Anyway I'm expecting up to 10% better average Wizz's review.


----------



## Sihastru (Mar 13, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> NDA should be lifted soon right?



Some say on the 22nd this month.


----------



## yangwangbrock (Mar 13, 2012)

talking is cheap


----------



## Capitan Harlock (Mar 13, 2012)

that is fanboysm xd


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 13, 2012)

yangwangbrock said:


> talking is cheap



Yep, "we shall see"... as they say


----------



## xaira (Mar 13, 2012)

195 watt tdp...not bad... someone was really eager to get the base clock to 1.0ghz


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 13, 2012)

So in real world at best 20%. Still thats a NICE boost!


----------



## LDNL (Mar 13, 2012)

20%? More like 5-15% with some driver "improvements" with BF3


----------



## Fairlady-z (Mar 13, 2012)

What do you guys think is it worth the effort to return my 2 7970's and get two 680's? I play on 5760x1080 resolution most of the time. I am worried that the 2gb wouldn't be enough for that type of resolution.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 13, 2012)

LDNL said:


> 20%? More like 5-15% with some driver "improvement" with BF3



I'm gonna give them AT BEST 20%. We should start a pool.


----------



## erocker (Mar 13, 2012)

Fairlady-z said:


> What do you guys think is it worth the effort to return my 2 7970's and get two 680's? I play on 5760x1080 resolution most of the time. I am worried that the 2gb wouldn't be enough for that type of resolution.



I'd wait for some reviews first.


----------



## dj-electric (Mar 13, 2012)

*Grab your children! take the gas mask! store your food! they're coming!!!! everybody, panic!!!*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MowYR1wcA8o


----------



## Jurassic1024 (Mar 13, 2012)

Sihastru said:


> Some say on the 22nd this month.



23rd


----------



## Fairlady-z (Mar 13, 2012)

erocker said:


> I'd wait for some reviews first.





Fairlady-z said:


> What do you guys think is it worth the effort to return my 2 7970's and get two 680's? I play on 5760x1080 resolution most of the time. I am worried that the 2gb wouldn't be enough for that type of resolution.



Yeah, id love to but I am pressed for time as of how long I can wait. I got 3 days left to return these bad boys. I usually always buy Nvidia cards, but thought it be nice to switch up no complaints here. Now if I can have better performance for the same money why not right.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 13, 2012)

Fairlady-z said:


> What do you guys think is it worth the effort to return my 2 7970's and get two 680's? I play on 5760x1080 resolution most of the time. I am worried that the 2gb wouldn't be enough for that type of resolution.



Wait for reviews.  I'm personally not sure how it's possible to fit three times the cuda cores than are in a gtx 580 on a chip roughly half the size and the like.  Unless nvidia is running 3d transistors and has invented a miracle cooling solution or something.


----------



## Rahmat Sofyan (Mar 13, 2012)

Stupid Chart as Usual..


----------



## MoonPig (Mar 13, 2012)

These charts always make me giggle.

nVidia, oh you...

2 months late to the game? 5-10% increase?


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 13, 2012)

looks like: http://h9.abload.de/img/220329m6tnt4axtfl8tni3zbek.png

turned into graph


----------



## R_1 (Mar 13, 2012)

They should charge $800 for GTX 680.  $770 for performance and additional $30 for CUDA and Physics. In Europe price should be $1000. We like expensive stuff.


----------



## kajson (Mar 13, 2012)

I wonder if AMD will release a performance driver one day before the NDA lifts, they did that with 5xxx I think.


----------



## devguy (Mar 13, 2012)

Sorry, but what resolution was this at?


----------



## boise49ers (Mar 13, 2012)

Red vs Green :  ) Starting to remind me of American politics's !


----------



## swirl09 (Mar 13, 2012)

Looking forward to seeing some real benchs and not more marketing slides.

Tbh, that graph doesn't blow me away and this is what they want you to see ^^ taking out the 1 spikey 40% and u need to drop to half that gain before seeing anything over the bar, of which only 2 other titles make it. Most are in or around the 10% mark, which is fine by me if true! Problem is, these are titles and settings they picked and if other info is to be believed, this card was originally meant for the mainstream-performance segment. *IF* that's true, it means they bumped this up beyond its original intended spec which we will find out when full benches show this things temps/noise.

Time will tell. A confident 10% lead in most titles and decent temps/noise and I'll happily purchase one for next build. If its actually closer to AMD than they are letting on now, then some nice custom 7970s out there to pick from, slight price premium for similiar performance, and much cooler and quiet = easy choice.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 13, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> looks like: http://h9.abload.de/img/220329m6tnt4axtfl8tni3zbek.png
> 
> turned into graph



As I said.


----------



## Jurassic1024 (Mar 13, 2012)

*Relax*

You're too focused on the Battlefield result.  Take that away and up to 20% sounds more than doable.  Remeber, this is nVIDIA we're talking about.  And this isn't even using GK100 yet.  Only thing left now are the reviews.  I can't wait.


----------



## bmwmaster (Mar 13, 2012)

So 680 will be 10% faster than 7970 !!!! But all 7970 i know can be OCed so to gain at least this 10 % or more. 
Will the 680 also have room to be COed that good ? It has only 2x6 pin power !!!


----------



## arnoo1 (Mar 13, 2012)

should do that imo!!
300% more shader than a gtx580 and 580 is 20%?? slower than the 7970


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 13, 2012)

What is up with TPU posting these news about fake slides as facts?


----------



## Super XP (Mar 13, 2012)

This should be taken with a grain of salt. Many sources have already confirmed both HD 7970 and the GTX 680 are practically identical in performance with each one taking the win in almost an equal matter. 

Let's hope the NV is slightly faster to help drive prices down.


----------



## dj-electric (Mar 13, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> What is up with TPU posting these news about fake slides as facts?



Ever heard of rating?


----------



## halfwaythere (Mar 13, 2012)

Are they comparing a highly overclocked card with 2 stock ones? Thats low even for nvidia fanboys.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 13, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> looks like: http://h9.abload.de/img/220329m6tnt4axtfl8tni3zbek.png
> 
> turned into graph



If that's the case(which seems like), i did that math. It's on average 13.8% faster than HD7970.

Lame, for an over-hyped product.

And then again a LOT of people were talking about $300 MSRP........LOL


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Mar 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> So in real world at best 20%. Still thats a NICE boost!



When the 7970 came out all I remember was a bunch of flaming trolls yelling about 20% performance gain.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 13, 2012)

1Kurgan1 said:


> When the 7970 came out all I remember was a bunch of flaming trolls yelling about 20% performance gain.



20% over the 7970........ Calm it down.

If the 680 is 20% faster then the 7970 its what the 7970 should have been over the 6970.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> If that's the case(which seems like), i did that math. *It's on average 13.8% faster than HD7970.*
> 
> Lame, for an over-hyped product.



Without entering a discussion about the veracity of those results... you are surely aware that's practically the same average difference between HD7970 and GTX580 right? At least this time it's comparing 2 cards of the same generation and fab process...


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 13, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> looks like: http://h9.abload.de/img/220329m6tnt4axtfl8tni3zbek.png
> 
> turned into graph



Yeah, the BF3 with 4xAA works out at 43% better which tallies perfectly with the graph.  So, if we have proof the PCinlife table is fake, we know the Nvidia graph is fake.

Question is, are we sure the PCinlife table is fake?

There's a deal on the 7970 LCS at an online retailer (ends tomorrow) and i'm pissed that the deal will be gone by time Kepler is out.  Then again, I probably should just jump because I'm liable to upgrade again when GK110 or HD8xxx pops up......


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 13, 2012)

deffinately had enough of gay slides that arnt absolute fact now< , these BS benches mean nowt compared to a decent review (wizzard, come on man sort it), and if it really performed as these say ,why no preview or review, surely that would halt a few 7950-70 sales, hype and BS thats what im saying, this cards going to have something to prove either way.
I do love that some NV fans have just ran off with the trophy already with no cards on shelves yet and NO actual genuine repeatable benches by Reputable unbiased folks.

STILL SEEIN NVIDIAS BD ERE<


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 13, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Without entering a discussion about the veracity of those results... you are surely aware that's practically the same average difference between HD7970 and GTX580 right? At least this time it's comparing 2 cards of the same generation and fab process...



Yes, i'm aware of it.
Which can be said about 6970 vs 580 - 5870 vs 480 - etc, etc, etc.

My point is everyone was talking about a 40% solid avg.(not "up to"), and that this card would be a game changer, it would be priced at $300 because it was originally a mid range part, etc, etc. At the end of the day, pure BS. And whats more i was beting on 15% avg. so.......meh

I'm still royaly screwed up for my upgrade......................maybe december i can find a 7870/nv equivalent at $200? don't think so......


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 13, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> Yes, i'm aware of it.
> Which can be said about 6970 vs 580 - 5870 vs 480 - etc, etc, etc.
> 
> My point is everyone was talking about a 40% solid avg.(not "up to"), and that this card would be a game changer, it would be priced at $300 because it was originally a mid range part, etc, etc. At the end of the day, pure BS. And whats more i was beting on 15% avg. so.......meh
> ...



Meh, I don't see what's wrong with getting a 7950 regardless of how craptacular the 680 is.
You gotta pay to play. Save up more or buy used stuff.

I'm at 1200 core and still have room to go. Even at 490 bucks it's one the best purchases I've made in a while. I gave my unlocked 6950s to my sister. Oh...did you want those?


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 13, 2012)

TheGuruStud said:


> Meh, I don't see what's wrong with getting a 7950 regardless of how craptacular the 680 is.
> You gotta pay to play. Save up more or buy used stuff.
> 
> I'm at 1200 core and still have room to go. Even at 490 bucks it's one the best purchases I've made in a while. I gave my unlocked 6950s to my sister. Oh...did you want those?



You told me you were going to sell those to me!!, not cool bro......not cool.

On topic, i really thought nv would sell these at $400 atm...


----------



## TheGuruStud (Mar 13, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> You told me you were going to sell those to me!!, not cool bro......not cool.





7870 xfire are going to be a helluva bargain. OCed I can see them putting down some big numbers and being an even greater value.


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 13, 2012)

R_1 said:


> $30 for CUDA and Physics. In Europe price should be $1000. We like expensive stuff.



$30 is expensive for a gimmick and scam.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> *My point is everyone was talking about a 40% solid avg.*(not "up to"), and that this card would be a game changer, it would be priced at $300 because it was originally a mid range part, etc, etc. At the end of the day, pure BS. And whats more i was beting on 15% avg. so.......meh(



No one said 40% faster average. Unless I missed that, which I doubt.

EDIT: Kyle from HordOCP did say 45% faster, but I don't know if it meant "up to" or not. And he said it would launch no earlier than June afaik. He suggested a June-August timeframe afaik, so it may very well be GK100. Now it's probably gone.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 13, 2012)

Going on all the rumours so far, here is my take and I'm an avid Columbo fan with some Quincy thrown in.

GK110 (call it Big GK) is still in production.  It's an insanely powerful gpu but is a bit difficult to make precisely.  
AMD release the 7970 and NV are genuinely surprised, expecting something more powerful.
NV realise they have a GK part (104) that was not destined to be directly competitive with HD7970 but now seems that with a little work, may well be (thus the delay).
Initial pricing was for GK104 at mainstream levels.  On seeing it's competitiveness with HD7970, NV decide to either capitalise on HD7970's price point and/or the poorer than expected yield from TSMC forces their hand to up prices (as per wafer cost is higher).
This all leads to the release of GK104 (originally a GK660 labelled part) being upped to the top spot (GK680) to take the crown.

Big GK is still coming and will be a monster.  But the recently resurrected rumour of a dual GK104 part makes Big GK (as initial rumours suggested) a Q1 2013 part (possibly the GK780).

Dual Tahiti (7990) will be brought in by AMD to counter either the GK680 part or the GK690 dual part.

That's my purely personal opinion but it's based on sound logic of all the rumours thus far.  And like I said, I watch Columbo - logic and reason shall conquer.

Oh... one more thing.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Going on all the rumours so far, here is my take and I'm an avid Columbo fan with some Quincy thrown in.
> 
> GK110 (call it Big GK) is still in production.  It's an insanely powerful gpu but is a bit difficult to make precisely.
> AMD release the 7970 and NV are genuinely surprised, expecting something more powerful.
> ...



Yeah that's what rumors suggest to me too, especially looking at them historically. For us the result is certainly unfortunate.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 13, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Going on all the rumours so far, here is my take and I'm an avid Columbo fan with some Quincy thrown in.
> 
> GK110 (call it Big GK) is still in production.  It's an insanely powerful gpu but is a bit difficult to make precisely.
> AMD release the 7970 and NV are genuinely surprised, expecting something more powerful.
> ...



Hi Columbo. My name is Sherlock and I got to the same conclusion some time ago. 

These slides are based on an old leak which we don't know how accurate were and anyway 95% of the people laughed when they saw. I mean, c'mon "performance" chip to be better than AMD's high-end? This must be a bad joke?

Well, in the meantime the joke is not so much... a joke. Add to this old chart some driver improvements and tweaks and  20% over the 7970 isn't too far fetched. But that was not my idea, it was Dr. Watson's so don't blame me if it's less than 20%...


----------



## Dent1 (Mar 13, 2012)

bmwmaster said:


> So 680 will be 10% faster than 7970 !!!! But all 7970 i know can be OCed so to gain at least this 10 % or more.
> Will the 680 also have room to be COed that good ? It has only 2x6 pin power !!!



There isnt any benchmarks, so nobody knows how fast it is. For all we know the 680 might be 10% slower than the 7970.


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 13, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> No one said 40% faster average. Unless I missed that, which I doubt.
> 
> EDIT: Kyle from HordOCP did say 45% faster, but I don't know if it meant "up to" or not. And he said it would launch no earlier than June afaik. He suggested a June-August timeframe afaik, so it may very well be GK100. Now it's probably gone.



Nobody said 40%, but everyone said it would be massively faster, including you until 2 days ago.
14% is not massive.....
Anyway, lets end this pointless talk...........it is obvious gtx680 has been over-hyped everywhere.


----------



## happita (Mar 13, 2012)

bmwmaster said:


> So 680 will be 10% faster than 7970 !!!! But all 7970 i know can be OCed so to gain at least this 10 % or more.
> Will the 680 also have room to be COed that good ? It has only 2x6 pin power !!!



This makes me chuckle a little bit. What makes you think...or anyone for that matter think that NVIDIA's cards won't be as OCable or even moreso than AMD's 7k cards? However, it is 2x 6pins, so what do I know?  I mean, I love AMD cards, but their pricing at launch really bites the dust especially when there is no competition for them. I for one can't wait soon enough for NVIDIA to come out guns blazing and give AMD a swift kick in the ass to lower not only their prices, but also GTX 5xx cards too.
But then NVIDIA will charge a premium for being the fastest....and so the cycle continues


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> Nobody said 40%, but everyone said it would be massively faster, including you until 2 days.
> 14% is not massive.....
> Anyway, lets end this pointless talk...........it is obvious gtx680 has been over-hyped everywhere.



Yes but you have to take into account that "now" it is 20% smaller too. And we don't know performance anyway. These results are fake? And if they are... actual performance is necessarily worse? It could be faster actually, we don't know, so you are jumping to conclusions. As for rumors there's also rumors about a last minute BIOS update that upgraded performance by 40-50%, so according to this rumor the results that indicated GTX680's performance as similar to HD7970 were just an smoke bomb. I'm not giving these rumors any more credit than the rest, but you just can't go by the "it's only 5% faster" rumors either.


----------



## borden5 (Mar 13, 2012)

the key word is *Up To*


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 13, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah that's what rumors suggest to me too, especially looking at them historically. For us the result is certainly unfortunate.


See I've been reading the situation a different way.  The quarter ends the 31st of this month, and Nvidia has the NDA not end until about a week before the quarter.  
While I can see it your way, I see it more plausible that Nvidia is trying to hold back AMD's first quarter profits back as much as they can, saying "kepler is unbeatable" and the like.  If it were truly unbeatable, why doesn't Nvidia just show us the part and benchmarks and show that it is, getting people whom right now are being told to wait instead told to go get a kepler GPU.  Surely they have working silicon.  

Look at AMD for example with their APUs, they've proven to be effective to SB/IB in laptops, and are marketing them by their benchmark scores, despite not being released.  Intel has released benchmarks of Ivy bridge despite only 10-20% increase over SB.  

Yet Nvidia, while touting that they're unbeatable with kepler, have it under lock and key until the end of the quarter.


----------



## happita (Mar 13, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> Yet Nvidia, while touting that they're unbeatable with kepler, have it under lock and key until the end of the quarter.



Yea but, but, but...look at those pretty red and green colors on that graph!!! The higher numbers mean its faster, surely that counts for something? 
Oh wait, darn!!!! It's not faster in Civilization 5  !!


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 13, 2012)

we need your chart W1Z


----------



## semantics (Mar 13, 2012)

oh marketing slides lol i like how they start at .8 times


----------



## 20mmrain (Mar 13, 2012)

Bs!!!!


----------



## eddman (Mar 13, 2012)

40% in just one specific benchmark. It seems to be around 10% on average, if that slide is even real that is. If true I might say it's a very good result considering that it was supposed to be a performance kepler, not high-end.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 13, 2012)

happita said:


> Yea but, but, but...look at those pretty red and green colors on that graph!!! The higher numbers mean its faster, surely that counts for something?
> Oh wait, darn!!!! It's not faster in Civilization 5  !!



Yes, well let's also point out that this graph has been specifically made to exaggerate differences, and that we have no solid benches from reputable sources.  The NDA isn't up yet, and we don't know this is gk104.  it might be gk100 test silicon or simply completely made up by a propaganda source or simply a Nvidia fanboy messing around.  

I would say the latter is quite possible. 

But we'll find out when the NDA is over I suppose.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 13, 2012)

I repeat what others have said. This is not even an Nvidia slide, it's made up from a chart posted at pcinlife by somebody one and a half months ago so it has zero relevance. We should stop talking nonsense and make predictions based on this.


----------



## dj-electric (Mar 13, 2012)

NVIDIA employee 1: So we got that sweet KG104 core
NVIDIA employee 2: Oh kinda like GTX560TI
NVIDIA employee 1: Yeah, its awesome and will have a nice solid 40-45%-ish gain in performance over it
NVIDIA employee 2: So... when are we gonna launch it?
NVIDIA employee 1: Oh wait... it surpasses the 449$ HD7950 in games. Screw every thing, we're not suckers to sell it for 299$, lets name it GTX680 and put a 500-ish price tag
NVIDIA employee 2: Good call... good call...


----------



## 20mmrain (Mar 13, 2012)

The performance difference is on average 10% going both ways. There are some areas where this card does beat the HD7970 but there are a other areas the GTX 680 looses too. What they failed to mention that it also looses sometimes by 20% or more too.


----------



## Nihilus (Mar 13, 2012)

Fairlady-z said:


> What do you guys think is it worth the effort to return my 2 7970's and get two 680's? I play on 5760x1080 resolution most of the time. I am worried that the 2gb wouldn't be enough for that type of resolution.



I think it would be a really stupid wast of time and money.  On average, this hand picked Nvidia list is giving the GTX 680 a 15% edge.  We know for a fact that the HD 7970's are wonderful overclockers.  Not so sure about the GTX 680s yet.  You may already have the fast card factoring that in.

Just wait for the reviews...


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> See I've been reading the situation a different way.  The quarter ends the 31st of this month, and Nvidia has the NDA not end until about a week before the quarter.
> While I can see it your way, I see it more plausible that Nvidia is trying to hold back AMD's first quarter profits back as much as they can, saying "kepler is unbeatable" and the like.  If it were truly unbeatable, why doesn't Nvidia just show us the part and benchmarks and show that it is, getting people whom right now are being told to wait instead told to go get a kepler GPU.  Surely they have working silicon.
> 
> Look at AMD for example with their APUs, they've proven to be effective to SB/IB in laptops, and are marketing them by their benchmark scores, despite not being released.  Intel has released benchmarks of Ivy bridge despite only 10-20% increase over SB.
> ...



My take on that is that Nvidia is not worried about how much AMD profits this quarter. Set aside the fact that volume is so low that it's not going to be much anyway, lower AMD sales on that segment are not going to make them, Nvidia, sell more Kepler cards. It won't make them sell more GTX500 cards either, wuite the opposite. If GTX680 is better it will sell as many cards as they can make. AMD can sell all the cards in the world for all they care, they're just as supply constrained as they are, more probably because practically the only thing Nvidia has said about Kepler is that they have been stockpiling for a hard launch. Whether it's completely true or not remains to be seen, it's the ony official claim either way.

The thing is that for some reason a lot of people think this is an AMD vs Nvidia thing, and that that is the case for them. It's not. Nvidia cares about their sales and profits and nothing more and will do what is better for their profits. Releasing info about Kepler before launch is not going to make them sell more cards, never really did, never will. People buying this kind of hardware waits for reviews. And on the downside, it can tell AMD what to do next. So why do they need to release anything, when silence is just as good or better marketing campaign? So they remain tight lipped and AMD is in the dark.


----------



## specks (Mar 13, 2012)

Of course they would say 40%. Few would like to buy a newer card if it does not perform very well


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 13, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> So they remain tight lipped and AMD is in the dark.



yeh but AMD's no more in the dark then you or I, and have still managed to release many a new GPU for near a year or more with little new in reply from nvidia just rehash after more core, so to me they need to get their asses movein as many a sale HAS gone Amd's way because some people couldnt wait a year


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> yeh but AMD's no more in the dark then you or I, and have still managed to release many a new GPU for near a year or more with little new in reply from nvidia just rehash after more core, so to me they need to get their asses movein as many a sale *HAS* gone Amd's way because some people couldnt wait a year



It does? Nvidia's discreet GPU market share, which is what GTX680 is all abut, grew 4% (to ~64%) last quarter. Reality and your claim just does not compute. During the Fermi time Nvidia has GAINED market share. I could say that people bought GTX500 because they couldn't wait over a year to buy something as fast from AMD.


----------



## Nihilus (Mar 13, 2012)

Yikes, 1920x1080 resolution?  This graph may be a BEST case scenario for the GTX 680.  The Hd7970 3 GB of ram is not to be F###ed with.  I have a feeling the gap will be in favor for AMD once resolutions are higher.  In dual card setup the advantages will be even bigger. 

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...ssfire-graphics-card-review-introduction.html


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 13, 2012)

20mmrain said:


> but there are a other areas the GTX 680 looses too. What they failed to mention that it also looses sometimes by 20% or more too.



Where did you get that info?


----------



## beck24 (Mar 13, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> It does? Nvidia's discreet GPU market share, which is what GTX680 is all abut, grew 4% (to ~64%) last quarter. Reality and your claim just does not compute. During the Fermi time Nvidia has GAINED market share. I could say that people bought GTX500 because they couldn't wait over a year to buy something as fast from AMD.



680 is only the third ranked card nvidia will release this year. nvidia also has proven to have superior driver teams, as many independent sites have attested, and will undoubtedly get more performance out of this series, sometimes very significant increases. It will be a great year for nvidia!


----------



## beck24 (Mar 13, 2012)

*great card*

This is a great card for what will be the third fastest in the nvidia line up this year. It is supposed to overclock like crazy so I'm excited to see what it can do as drivers mature and vendors customize.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 13, 2012)

20mmrain said:


> The performance difference is on average 10% going both ways. There are some areas where this card does beat the HD7970 but there are a other areas the GTX 680 looses too. What they failed to mention that it also looses sometimes by 20% or more too.





beck24 said:


> This is a great card for what will be the third fastest in the nvidia line up this year. It is supposed to overclock like crazy so I'm excited to see what it can do as drivers mature and vendors customize.



This isn't me having a go at either of you but it's tantamount to douchebaggery to state things from what may well be seen as an insider viewpoint without proof.  

20mm, you've said you have retail sources about the 680, so prove it in a very discrete way that will validate what you say without bringing your source into the picture.  Irrespective of ANYBODY's insider knowledge, stating it on a thread full of supposition and guesswork is meaningless.
Even if the knowledge is truth, it's pointless without some back up.

Like I say - not having a go but you can appreciate that your consistent claims of 10% either way would be better served to the TPU crowd with a morsel of evidence (be it a pic of a part of a retail card or anything).

Throw us a frickin bone dude!!


----------



## dj-electric (Mar 13, 2012)

beck24 said:


> This is a great card for what will be the third fastest in the nvidia line up this year. It is supposed to overclock like crazy so I'm excited to see what it can do as drivers mature and vendors customize.



Who in the god of flying f**ks said so? got evidence? now? prove it. Now.

Every year, same freaking sh*t. Suddenly everybody turns into a freaking fortune teller (ohhh yes this weill be exactly 25.32556% faster yesss...)
The hell with any speculation and "leaked" information until i will disassemble the poor plastic thing with my bare hands.

[/rage]


----------



## N3M3515 (Mar 13, 2012)

beck24 said:


> This is a great card for what will be the third fastest in the nvidia line up this year. It is supposed to overclock like crazy so I'm excited to see what it can do as drivers mature and vendors customize.



I think it is already overclocked, in order to be competitive with HD7970.


----------



## GoldenTiger (Mar 13, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> I think it is already overclocked, in order to be competitive with HD7970.



Stock clock = what the manufacturer sets it at. It's not overclocked.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 13, 2012)

GoldenTiger said:


> Stock clock = what the manufacturer sets it at. It's not overclocked.



I think he means they took what they were originally going to release and pushed the clocks as high as they could to compete.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 13, 2012)

mates!! We're screwed... :shadedshu


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 13, 2012)

Well yeah from 950 Mhz to 1000 Mhz, not much of an increase. I think they did it because of AMD's "Ghz edition" campaign, they can match it and they just did. Assuming anything of this info is legit of course.


----------



## Covert_Death (Mar 13, 2012)

Dj-ElectriC said:


> Who in the god of flying f**ks said so? got evidence? now? prove it. Now.
> 
> Every year, same freaking sh*t. Suddenly everybody turns into a freaking fortune teller (ohhh yes this weill be exactly 25.32556% faster yesss...)
> The hell with any speculation and "leaked" information until i will disassemble the poor plastic thing with my bare hands.
> ...


[rolleyes]
lol maybe a speculation thread in the forums isn't the best place for you to be hanging out then 

[/rolleyes]


----------



## buggalugs (Mar 14, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> I think it is already overclocked, in order to be competitive with HD7970.



 Thats the thing, the Nvidia card may not have the overclocking headroom of the 7970 so the average 15% faster 680 might only have another 15% overclocking whereas the 7970 has a good 25%-30% overclocking headroom......making both cards almost the same in performance.

 Nvidia might have clocked their cards higher to beat the 7970 in stock performance but overclocking could even things out again.

 We will have to wait and see I guess.

 Soon there will be the enthusiast overclocked 7970's like the Sapphire Atomic, MSI Lightning etc that will close the 15% gap anyway.

 This is really good news for AMD and people wanting a 7970, it means the price will drop from $549 to $449 and as usual it comes down to price/performance. Nvidia 680 will be $100 more for ~15% performance gain. Just like the 580/6970 and 480/5870.

 People will see better value with a $449 7970 or $379 7950 than a $549 680, heaps of people on the forums have been complaining about the $549 price of the 7970 as it is.

 Same thing happens every generation.


----------



## MarcusTaz (Mar 14, 2012)

Super XP said:


> This should be taken with a grain of salt. Many sources have already confirmed both HD 7970 and the GTX 680 are practically identical in performance with each one taking the win in almost an equal matter.
> 
> Let's hope the NV is slightly faster to help drive prices down.



Right on man just what we need, make that free market work in our favor!


----------



## jamsbong (Mar 14, 2012)

with famous games like _TES4:Skyrim_ and _Unigine: Heaven_ missing, it looks like a cherry picked leaked benchmarks to me.

Nevertheless, the 3Dmark11 shows that Kepler is 8% faster than 7970, which is really impressive. Remember, the chip is smaller than Tahiti and runs only on 256bit bandwidth. 

Are we seeing a RV770 (HD4870) comeback with Nvidia as the comeback kid?


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

N3M3515 said:


> I think it is already overclocked, in order to be competitive with HD7970.


Actually I've seen reports that it will go to 1400 on air.


----------



## sclera (Mar 14, 2012)

Gotta love Nvidia's bullshit graphs with their meaningless Y axes. Lets wait for an actual benchmark, yeah?


----------



## Nihilus (Mar 14, 2012)

Yippie Beck!!  What a great year for nvidia!  We are all so happy for you!!  Yeah Nvidia!!!


----------



## alexsubri (Mar 14, 2012)

Release it already! For around $550, it better beat the 7970. It would be a major fail for nVidia.

I too have a feeling that ATI will be releasing more driver previews around release date


----------



## Super XP (Mar 14, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> Right on man just what we need, make that free market work in our favor!


You can take that to the bank. 
Also doesn't Battlefield favor Nvidia  Nice Benchies NV


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 14, 2012)

sclera said:


> Gotta love Nvidia's bullshit graphs with their meaningless Y axes. Lets wait for an actual benchmark, yeah?








Common practice. I wonder what AMD were thinking, saying it would be 41% faster when it was so clear that we would find out that it only barely beats it when reviews came in.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 14, 2012)

Super XP said:


> You can take that to the bank.
> Also doesn't Battlefield favor Nvidia  Nice Benchies NV



I have proved that to be almost entirely false using W1z's review numbers--comparing the BF3 results at 2560x to the Relative Performance numbers at 2560x--in like 3 other threads.  BF3 does not favour Nvidia.


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 14, 2012)

xenocide said:


> I have proved that to be almost entirely false using W1z's review numbers--comparing the BF3 results at 2560x to the Relative Performance numbers at 2560x--in like 3 other threads.  BF3 does not favour Nvidia.



Look at AMD's slide I posted, even if BF3 favoured Nvidia a little bit, would it really matter? Could anyone really say something about nit-picking benchmarks anymore, with a straight face, really? We're way past that "level of honesty" IMO.


----------



## mrsemi (Mar 14, 2012)

I do enjoy the speculation and banter but what does it really matter.  If it's faster than the 7970 then the green team fans have an upgrade option, one the red team already got.

I just picked up two 7950's for eyefinity and one of them's handling most games quite handily on 3 1920 x 1080 monitors with just the factory overclock.

We're getting to the point that unless high res monitors become the norm there's not going to be much need for more.

That said, devils advocate, maybe I'll be in line for some new ones in a couple years but only if there's a need for that much power.


----------



## Covert_Death (Mar 14, 2012)

mrsemi said:


> That said, devils advocate, maybe I'll be in line for some new ones in a couple years but only if there's a need for that much power.



I agree that monitor resolutions need an upgrade.... 1080p is for TV's haha i don't get why computer monitors are stopping here, its beyond stupid, the pixel density is nowhere near what the human eye can see so why are monitor manufacturers getting cozy at this rez??? lets keep moving forward and progress digital beauty!


----------



## xenocide (Mar 14, 2012)

Covert_Death said:


> I agree that monitor resolutions need an upgrade.... 1080p is for TV's haha i don't get why computer monitors are stopping here, its beyond stupid, the pixel density is nowhere near what the human eye can see so why are monitor manufacturers getting cozy at this rez??? lets keep moving forward and progress digital beauty!



Not to mention the fact that a Monitor that supports 1920x1200 will cost almost as much as a whole tablet that sports a screen with the same resolution.  Monitors should have an average of 2560x or greater at this point...


----------



## hhumas (Mar 14, 2012)

it think its would be around 700$


----------



## DarkOCean (Mar 14, 2012)

hhumas said:


> it think its would be around 700$



Maybe gk 110 not this .


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Mar 14, 2012)

Wiz must be laughing off right now to us mere mortals


----------



## vega22 (Mar 14, 2012)

aint these from the old 680 before they decided to rape us and charge high end for mid ranged parts?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 14, 2012)

Fairlady-z said:


> Yeah, id love to but I am pressed for time as of how long I can wait. I got 3 days left to return these bad boys. I usually always buy Nvidia cards, but thought it be nice to switch up no complaints here. Now if I can have better performance for the same money why not right.



honestly i wouldnt trade up as its a side grade perse, just wait till a gen or 2 down the line less they refresh both product lines before then.


----------



## jihadjoe (Mar 14, 2012)

I feel like we're in an Antbox. Scrabbling over tidbits of information while the great Wiz watches amusedly from above.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 14, 2012)

W1zzard said:


> looks like: http://h9.abload.de/img/220329m6tnt4axtfl8tni3zbek.png
> 
> turned into graph



BF3 51FPS with 4X AA 

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/8.html


Wizz got 63 driving a few more pixels.

Dirt 3 86 FPS with 4X AA

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/14.html


W1zz got 145.8, again driving a few more pixels. 



That graph is screwed, or perhaps they meant the 7870.


----------



## xenocide (Mar 14, 2012)

I wouldn't really call 230,400 (a solid 10%) a few.  But yes, those numbers are likely fake.


----------



## Goodman (Mar 14, 2012)

Until its comes from Nvidia directly or official benchmarks... all i got to say is -->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjKVGB6JEfs


----------



## thematrix606 (Mar 14, 2012)

I just had to remake that graph starting at 0:







 take that marketing


----------



## eidairaman1 (Mar 14, 2012)

Im not holding my breath on this, Id rather see numbers from Wizzard instead of some marketing slides


----------



## THE_EGG (Mar 14, 2012)

So basically if all you play is Civilisation V, then you must buy AMD card.


----------



## thematrix606 (Mar 14, 2012)

THE_EGG said:


> So basically if all you play is Civilisation V, then you must buy AMD card.



I think the FPS for CiV 5 is already high enough to smoothly enjoy on a 570 / 6970. So it would not matter  You'll be above 60 most of the time.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Mar 14, 2012)

I really hope Nvidia fails with the 6xx Series... if they fail their cards a few times more, we maybe see equal market shares between Nvidia and AMD soon, man that would be great!


----------



## Horrux (Mar 14, 2012)

Either nVidia really messed up with the GK100 and had to use the GK104 to fill the gap, or they actually did make GK104 so damn powerful that the ridiculously overpowered GK100 isn't needed this generation, and they're choosing to release it next turn around.

If the first case is true, then the GTX 680 will likely come slightly above the HD 7950, as previously thought. If the second case is true, then I'll eat my socks.


----------



## thematrix606 (Mar 14, 2012)

Velvet Wafer said:


> I really hope Nvidia fails with the 6xx Series... if they fail their cards a few times more, we maybe see equal market shares between Nvidia and AMD soon, man that would be great!



How about no? That's horrible for the consumer! 

 The discreet GPU market is pretty evenly split, almost at 50/50 so I don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Horrux (Mar 14, 2012)

thematrix606 said:


> How about no? That's horrible for the consumer!
> 
> The discreet GPU market is pretty evenly split, almost at 50/50 so I don't know what you're talking about.



More like 65/35 actually.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

Velvet Wafer said:


> I really hope Nvidia fails with the 6xx Series... if they fail their cards a few times more, we maybe see equal market shares between Nvidia and AMD soon, man that would be great!



Nvidia has been losing market share for a while now man. Hell they just lost ALL the console market for the next gen. Granted they are still a VERY big player. Just not what they used to be.


----------



## THE_EGG (Mar 14, 2012)

thematrix606 said:


> I think the FPS for CiV 5 is already high enough to smoothly enjoy on a 570 / 6970. So it would not matter  You'll be above 60 most of the time.



haha i know, i know. Just trolling the graph lol.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 14, 2012)

Horrux said:


> If the second case is true, then I'll eat my socks.



Get yourself some hot sauce to go with the socks. You'll need it man... soon.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 14, 2012)

Horrux said:


> If the second case is true, then I'll eat my socks.



Will you also eat your hat if it beats HD 7970 in average performance @ 1080p?


----------



## Delta6326 (Mar 14, 2012)

Haha I love these graphs the thing they don't tell you is that with a 7970 or 680, 90% of all your games will be playable at 60FPS+. I never understand why people make such a big deal about it.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 14, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> Haha I love these graphs the thing they don't tell you is that with a 7970 or 680, 90% of all your games will be playable at 60FPS+. I never understand why people make such a big deal about it.



Actually, as owner of 120Hz monitor I would really prefer games to run at constant 120fps which is impossible with current gen single cards. Even 60fps is tough to get in some games.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Nvidia has been losing market share for a while now man. Hell they just lost ALL the console market for the next gen. Granted they are still a VERY big player. Just not what they used to be.


Actually you are completely wrong. Nvidia has 65%, AMD 35% of the latest discrete card market numbers, which is the only arena they both compete in. Nvidia gained market share over the last year in this market. In the lucrative professional market, Nvidia has above 80%. Integrated graphics , where Nvidia does not compete, Intel holds the biggest share by far.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> Actually you are completely wrong. Nvidia has 65%, AMD 35% of the latest discrete card market numbers, which is the only arena they both compete in. Nvidia gained market share over the last year in this market. In the lucrative professional market, Nvidia has above 80%. Integrated graphics , where Nvidia does not compete, Intel holds the biggest share by far.



Um.......






Thats what we call in the real world a LOSS of market share.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Mar 14, 2012)

But you and I just switched MM...they'll be fine!


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Um.......
> 
> http://images.bit-tech.net/news_ima...-gain-market-share-from-n/capture-614x250.jpg
> 
> Thats what we call in the real world a LOSS of market share.


*sorry pal*
from JPR February 28, 2012:
As usual, it was a two horse race between AMD and Nvidia. The latter saw graphics cards shipments increase by 3.7% from Q3 2011 to 63.4% while AMD-based boards decreased 3.6% to 36.3% for the same period. On a year-to-year basis *AMD lost market share by 2.7% while Nvidia gained 2.9%.*


Vendor 	Q4 2011 	Q3 2011 	Q4 2010
AMD 	        36.3% 	39.9% 	39.0%
Nvidia 	63.4% 	59.7% 	60.5%
Others 	0.3% 	0.4% 	0.5%

http://www.techspot.com/news/47593-jpr-discrete-gpu-shipments-down-65-nvidia-gains-market-share.html


----------



## MarcusTaz (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> *sorry pal*
> from JPR February 28, 2012:
> As usual, it was a two horse race between AMD and Nvidia. The latter saw graphics cards shipments increase by 3.7% from Q3 2011 to 63.4% while AMD-based boards decreased 3.6% to 36.3% for the same period. On a year-to-year basis *AMD lost market share by 2.7% while Nvidia gained 2.9%.*
> 
> ...



Honestly who cares, let's just see how much faster this 680 is and how high priced it will be... Knowing Nvidia they will try and rip off the consumer some more...


----------



## jaredpace (Mar 14, 2012)

*GTX 680 Benchmarks*



thematrix606 said:


> I just had to remake that graph starting at 0:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heres some more from Pcinlife and chiphell reviews.  Not as favorable as nv inhouse, but realistic.  Loses to the 7970 in a couple, but overall 15-20%.  40% in BF3 + AA, since AMD sucks at bf3


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

MarcusTaz said:


> Honestly who cares, let's just see how much faster this 680 is and how high priced it will be... Knowing Nvidia they will try and rip off the consumer some more...


There is ALWAYS a premium for those who want the latest  and greatest. That's business. If you can wait a few months prices come down, there's more variations from vendors. At 1920 most games look great with last years top cards. It costs billions to develop this tech and GPUs have been advancing WAY faster than CPUs.  I want virtual reality games!!! maybe 10 years off?? One day games won't be on on some pitiful screen but we'll be in it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> *sorry pal*
> from JPR February 28, 2012:
> As usual, it was a two horse race between AMD and Nvidia. The latter saw graphics cards shipments increase by 3.7% from Q3 2011 to 63.4% while AMD-based boards decreased 3.6% to 36.3% for the same period. On a year-to-year basis *AMD lost market share by 2.7% while Nvidia gained 2.9%.*
> 
> ...



Hell I can play that game too



> According to the latest market share data from Jon Peddie Research, folks in AMD’s graphics division have a good reason to pop open the champers over the weekend. AMD ended Q4 2011 with a 24.8 percent market share, growing 7.8 percent sequentially over Q3. On the other hand, Nvidia’s share dipped by 3.1 percent, from 16.1 percent to 15.7 sequentially. Intel’s growth also came to a halt. Chipzilla dropped from 60.4 to 59.1 percent.
> 
> Looking at the year-on-year figures, the result is even better for AMD. In Q4 of 2010 AMD commanded a 24.2 percent share, while Nvidia was in a close second with 22.5 percent. Now AMD is in a comfortable lead, shipping 58 percent more GPUs than Nvidia. Nvidia also lost share to Intel, as Intel had an overall share of 52.5 percent in Q4 10, and now it is at 59.1 percent.



http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26067-amd-seizes-more-gpu-market-share


----------



## erocker (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Hell I can play that game too
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26067-amd-seizes-more-gpu-market-share



Yep, and AMD's graphics market share is just going to increase. While I have no doubts that the GTX 680 is going to be an awesome card (it really is), I've heard nothing about the rest of the lineup. Market share isn't dictated by a single $500+ card. Nvidia needs an entire new lineup. It's OEM's and the "non-enthusiast" consumer that makes up a bulk of the market share.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Yep, and AMD's graphics market share is just going to increase. While I have no doubts that the GTX 680 is going to be an awesome card (it really is), I've heard nothing about the rest of the lineup. Market share isn't dictated by a single $500+ card. Nvidia needs an entire new lineup. It's OEM's and the "non-enthusiast" consumer that makes up a bulk of the market share.



The fact they lost the console market is a BAD sign IMO.


----------



## erocker (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The fact they lost the console market is a BAD sign IMO.



I don't think consoles are in the same category of discreet GPU's.


----------



## Horrux (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The fact they lost the console market is a BAD sign IMO.



I think it's a GOOD sign. Don't we, as consumers, need AMD and nVidia to be as closely tied for marketshare as possible? Isn't that a better market situation than what we are seeing in the CPU market with Intel wiping the floor with AMD?




erocker said:


> I don't think consoles are in the same category of discreet GPU's.


They're not, but they're GPUs all the same, and likely the console makers have gone for the one whose price/performance was the most attractive at the level of performance they are looking for. The fact that AMD won seems to indicate that AMD is doing things right. Which is good, given that AMD is a bit the underdog in the GPU market.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 14, 2012)

Horrux said:


> Isn't that a better market situation than what we are seeing in the CPU market with Intel wiping the floor with AMD?



That market condiditon is exactly what the consumer wants..real competition. Unfortunately, if this "104" kepler lives up to the hype, and is much faster than AMD's cards(the proverbial up to 40%), and is priced higher than AMD cards, that's not exactly competition....where as with Intel AMD, Intels give more for the same dollar when buying a CPU(boards are another matter).



Horrux said:


> The fact that AMD won seems to indicate that AMD is doing things right. Which is good, given that AMD is a bit the underdog in the GPU market.



"Right" could mean jsut doing what the console makers want, rather than what the GPU provider wants to provide. Giving a design to a console maker may actually be cheaper in the end, if it's customized to the consoler maker's needs, even if the individual GPU price is higher.

It doesn't even really indicate anything about AMD or nVidia consumer GPU designs, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> That market condiditon is exactly what the consumer wants..real competition. Unfortunately, if this "104" kepler lives up to the hype, and is much faster than AMD's cards(the proverbial up to 40%), and is priced higher than AMD cards, that's not exactly competition....where as with Intel AMD, Intels give more for the same dollar when buying a CPU(boards are another matter).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Games sell GPU's. If consoles are going AMD then Nvidias TWIMTBP will not matter in the least anymore as the core game will be naturalized for the AMD architecture. Is AMD better? No, I'm willing to bet just cheaper. However this means a natural shift in development to AMDs favor. 

Yeah the console market isn't the discreet GPU market. However the way gaming is today its port based.....ported from now a dominant AMD market. NVIDIA is at a natural disadvantage now because of this. Like I said, games sell GPU's. Games now will come from an AMD market. Bad news for NVIDIA. Its the BIG picture you guys gotta look at. Not cherry picked stats.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't think that porting console titles that run on AMD-designed ahrdware would be any sort of issue for nV. They are a programming powerhouse, and even AMD has admitted that their current design more closely resembles nVidia's design.


I don't doubt that it may make things more difficult for nVidia, but I don't doubt they are more than capable of turning that into a positive for them, too.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I don't think that porting console titles that run on AMD-designed ahrdware would be any sort of issue for nV. They are a programming powerhouse, and even AMD has admitted that their current design more closely resembles nVidia's design.
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that it may make things more difficult for nVidia, but I don't doubt they are more than capable of turning that into a positive for them, too.



Thats a lot of "hoping". Lets "hope" investors see it the way you do.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Yep, and AMD's graphics market share is just going to increase. While I have no doubts that the GTX 680 is going to be an awesome card (it really is), I've heard nothing about the rest of the lineup. Market share isn't dictated by a single $500+ card. Nvidia needs an entire new lineup. It's OEM's and the "non-enthusiast" consumer that makes up a bulk of the market share.


Do you think its really a leap of faith, if the leaked benchmarks are to be believed, that the GTX680, which is as fast as a 7970 (give or take depending on res and games), that the rest of the lineup wouldnt match up to similar performance /watt numbers? 

I mean, 190-200W TDP for a card matching the 7970 is a win, especially for Nvidia. Sure Nvidia would wipe the floor with AMD if, again, the card trades punches with 7970, if they low balled the price to $499. But like cad said below (editing FTW!), they are a FOR profit business. We WILL pay for that card.

Im honestly more interested as a fly on the wall to see the AMD price /performance to /watt crowd is going to say now? It really will come down to pricing and the games you play and how the card performs...that is... outside of those that refuse to let their wallet do the thinking.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats a lot of "hoping". Lets "hope" investors see it the way you do.



Considering investors give money to companies based on hopes of future pay out, i see that as a very small concern.


Of course, nvidia has been downgraded recently in the past several months, so they've already dealt with the fallout from that. You can rest assurred that anything nV can do right now to increase investor confidence is exactly where they are headed...and if this really is a mid-range GPU, sold for top-range dollar, investors are going to give them a standing ovation.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 14, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Considering investors give money to companies based on hopes of future pay out, i see that as a very small concern.
> 
> 
> _Of course, nvidia has been downgraded recently in the past several months, so they've already dealt with the fallout from that. You can rest assurred that anything nV can do right now to increase investor confidence is exactly where they are headed...and if this really is a mid-range GPU, sold for top-range dollar, investors are going to give them a standing ovation._


Thanks just isnt enough for this statement. SPOT ON SIR.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Considering investors give money to companies based on hopes of future pay out, i see that as a very small concern.
> 
> 
> Of course, nvidia has been downgraded recently in the past several months, so they've already dealt with the fallout from that. You can rest assurred that anything nV can do right now to increase investor confidence is exactly where they are headed...and if this really is a mid-range GPU, sold for top-range dollar, investors are going to give them a standing ovation.



The downgrade was from a few things. The market share loss and the loss of the console market I suspect. Kepler seems more like a hail mary at this point then a standing ovation.


----------



## cadaveca (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Kepler seems more like a hail mary at this point then a standing ovation.



It very well could be, but since we know that NV has the "100" or "110" GPU as backup, I am pretty confident this new card is going to be decent at least(with the GTX680 naming)...and again, selling for top dollar. I guess reviews will tell all.


And now that I fell like a fanboy, I'm outta here!


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Hell I can play that game too
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/26067-amd-seizes-more-gpu-market-share



Fudzilla? Really? LOL! The facts are in discrete , because earlier you were claiming AND posting a graph to show nvidia lost discrete share. UNTRUE! Nvidia doesn't make integrated graphics at the moment, a market which Intel owns. Nvidia has billions in cash, no debt, and twice the market cap of ALL of AMD and makes 10x the profit of AMD's discrete division. Nvidia owns the highly profitable professional market at over 80%.
AMD still has a ton of debt, has lost many key employees, and struggles to make a profit.
Of course if you include integrated as the Fudzilla article does Intel is number one by a wide margin, AMD two, Nvidia three. That is not what your earlier post referred to. Dismal sophistry.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 14, 2012)

Judging by who is making profit, NVIDIA has nothing to worry about. Where as AMD is leaking out money from CPU division faster than GPU division can make profit. One bad generation of cards doesn't make a manufacturer sink. NVIDIA made great GPUs before GTX 4xx and 5xx was close to normal again... AMD seriously improved things after HD 2xxx. 

Somehow I get the feeling of G92 with this new GK104.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Mar 14, 2012)

erocker said:


> Yep, and AMD's graphics market share is just going to increase. While I have no doubts that the GTX 680 is going to be an awesome card (it really is), I've heard nothing about the rest of the lineup. Market share isn't dictated by a single $500+ card. Nvidia needs an entire new lineup. It's OEM's and the "non-enthusiast" consumer that makes up a bulk of the market share.



This is indeed the next question. GK106 is nowhere to be seen, hell we don't even know if it exists! So they must launch pretty fast three variants of the GK104, the 680 which seems to be solved, and the 670 in maybe two flavors for the HD7950 and the HD7870.

I personally never go for the top-end card, they are never the best value for your money (that is if you have it...) but the second top. If NV can deliver for the 680 an increase of 35-40% over the 580 (that's roughly what's needed to beat without a doubt the 7970) for 550$ (50$ increase above launch price of the 580) then I hope they will maintain that increase for the 670 over the 570 and launch at a similar price that the 570 was launched (350$). 

That is if they really want to be competitive against AMD and not play along with price fixin' games.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

Crap Daddy said:


> This is indeed the next question. GK106 is nowhere to be seen, hell we don't even know if it exists! So they must launch pretty fast three variants of the GK104, the 680 which seems to be solved, and the 670 in maybe two flavors for the HD7950 and the HD7870.
> 
> I personally never go for the top-end card, they are never the best value for your money (that is if you have it...) but the second top. If NV can deliver for the 680 an increase of 35-40% over the 580 (that's roughly what's needed to beat without a doubt the 7970) for 550$ (50$ increase above launch price of the 580) then I hope they will maintain that increase for the 670 over the 570 and launch at a similar price that the 570 was launched (350$).
> 
> That is if they really want to be competitive against AMD and not play along with price fixin' games.



45% on top of the 580? Man that would be sick!.....But I doubt it. Maybe Ill eat some crow who knows. Also I'm with you. Never do I buy a top tier card. 7970/580 have always been over priced. 7950/570 is where its at IMO.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 45% on top of the 580? Man that would be sick!.....But I doubt it. Maybe Ill eat some crow who knows. Also I'm with you. Never do I buy a top tier card. 7970/580 have always been over priced. 7950/570 is where its at IMO.



I usually get the +500€ card, but I also understand those who go for the best bang for buck. For example this 460 1gb soc I have will find home from friend's PC when I get new card this year. More than fine for average gamer.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> Judging by who is making profit, NVIDIA has nothing to worry about. Where as AMD is leaking out money from CPU division faster than GPU division can make profit. One bad generation of cards doesn't make a manufacturer sink. NVIDIA made great GPUs before GTX 4xx and 5xx was close to normal again... AMD seriously improved things after HD 2xxx.
> 
> Somehow I get the feeling of G92 with this new GK104.


I think Kepler will be a great leap forward. It looks good from the outset as opposed to 480 furnace, and get the feeling they are going to bring some real monsters to market as 28nm seems to have helped them big time in the heat and power area.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> Fudzilla? Really? LOL! The facts are in discrete , because earlier you were claiming AND posting a graph to show nvidia lost discrete share. UNTRUE! Nvidia doesn't make integrated graphics at the moment, a market which Intel owns. Nvidia has billions in cash, no debt, and twice the market cap of ALL of AMD and makes 10x the profit of AMD's discrete division. Nvidia owns the highly profitable professional market at over 80%.
> AMD still has a ton of debt, has lost many key employees, and struggles to make a profit.
> Of course if you include integrated as the Fudzilla article does Intel is number one by a wide margin, AMD two, Nvidia three. That is not what your earlier post referred to. Dismal sophistry.



How about from the horses mouth.....enjoy the humble pie.

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How about from the horses mouth.....enjoy the humble pie.
> 
> http://jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch/


You just can't admit you posted erroneous crap, can you? Discrete is all I'm discussing, duh.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> You just can't admit you posted erroneous crap, can you? Discrete is all I'm discussing, duh.



Yeah and over all they lost market share. Duh.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah and over all they lost market share. Duh.


And made ten times the profit of AMD doing it , duh.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> And made ten times the profit of AMD doing it , duh.



10 times? Link? Because all I see is a loss.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 10 times? Link?


Nvidia financials from last quarter
  (in millions except per       FY12        FY11        FY12        FY11
         share data)             GAAP        GAAP      NON-GAAP    NON-GAAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue                         $3,997.9    $3,543.3    $3,997.9    $3,543.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross margin                       51.4%       39.8%       51.9%       45.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses              $1,408.2    $1,153.3    $1,245.7    $1,096.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income                        $581.1      $253.1      $734.4      $476.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings per share                 $0.94       $0.43       $1.19       $0.81
------------------------------------------

AMD Graphics (2) for all 2011
Net revenue

1,565 million

Net Operating income
51 million
http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=quarterlyearnings
  Nvidia vacated IG for several reasons, but one is there was very little profit for them.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 10 times? Link? Because all I see is a loss.
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2012-02/nvidia_revenue_split_q4_2011.png


look at full year results, quarter to quarter is too small a view.


----------



## PsiAmp (Mar 14, 2012)

According to Steam stats the desktop discreet DX11 video card share with price above $100 is:
AMD ~55%
Nvidia ~45%

A year ago numbers were:
AMD ~65%
Nvidia ~35%

So the situation is better now for Nvidia, but it doesn't have a leadership in gaming segment. 600 series can change the situation, but atm all we know is that the cards won't hit the market for at least a month. And such a rough start doesn't help Nvidia and is not beneficial for all customers.

Nvidia is very successful in workstation video card and HPC segment.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 10 times? Link? Because all I see is a loss.
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2012-02/nvidia_revenue_split_q4_2011.png


BTW that is not a loss. They earned less in a quarter but still made a profit. A loss is registered like this (200).


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Mar 14, 2012)

WTF is this FinancePowerUp?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

Fact Nvidia has lost market share.
Fact Nvidia has lost profit from this.
Fact Nvidia does not make 10x as much profit then AMD.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=amd
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=NVDA


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 10 times? Link? Because all I see is a loss.
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2012-02/nvidia_revenue_split_q4_2011.png



Bottom line Nvidia earned 581 million last full year reporting on 2.75x the revenue.. AMD graphics earned 51 million,
so let's be kind and call it 10X the profit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> Bottom line Nvidia earned 581 million last full year reporting on 2.75x the revenue.. AMD graphics earned 51 million,
> so let's be kind and call it 10X the profit.



But its not 10x the profit.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Fact Nvidia has lost market share.
> Fact Nvidia has lost profit from this.
> Fact Nvidia does not make 10x as much profit then AMD.
> 
> ...


You're right. Nvidia makes MORE than 10x the profit of AMD graphics.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Fact Nvidia has lost market share.
> Fact Nvidia has lost profit from this.
> Fact Nvidia does not make 10x as much profit then AMD.
> 
> ...


10x 51 million is 510 million. That's LESS than 581 million.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> You're right. Nvidia makes MORE than 10x the profit of AMD graphics.



How in the hell is 14.54% vs 7.48% profit margin "10x" the profit?


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 14, 2012)

Profit margin /= total profit.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> How in the hell is 14.54% vs 7.48% profit margin "10x" the profit?


You need a doctor. AMD graphics division made 51 million in profit. Read their OWN financials, please.
Nvidia graphics made 581 million. It's not complicated. Profits are counted in dollars.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> You need a doctor. AMD graphics division made 51 million in profit. Read their OWN financials, please.
> Nvidia graphics made 581 million. It's not complicated. Profits are counted in dollars.



You apparently do not know how finances work. 14.54% vs 7.48% is not 10 times. I'm done schooling you.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You apparently do not know how finances work.


Go get an MBA and so you can understand what net income is, LOL. Apparently the concept mystifies you.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You apparently do not know how finances work. 14.54% vs 7.48% is not 10 times. I'm done schooling you.


Profit MARGIN is not TOTAL profit. He is going off TOTAL profit numbers while you are stuck on margins.

Profit margin = Nvidia over ATI by almost 2x
Total profit = Nvidia over ATI by alomst 10x.

Done doing what?  

EDIT: This is High School level stuff beck (sorry MM)!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> Go get an MBA and so you can understand what net income is, LOL. Apparently the concept mystifies you.


So first we defy they lost market share which is what the argument was about. When I proved you wrong we went to profit. When I showed you the profit margin wasnt "10 times" we went to total profit. You changed the argument base until you "won". Enjoy.



EarthDog said:


> Profit MARGIN is not TOTAL profit. He is going off TOTAL profit numbers while you are stuck on margins.
> 
> Profit margin = Nvidia over ATI by almost 2x
> Total profit = Nvidia over ATI by alomst 10x.
> ...


This isnt what the argument was about.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Profit MARGIN is not TOTAL profit. He is going off TOTAL profit numbers while you are stuck on margins.
> 
> Profit margin = Nvidia over ATI by almost 2x
> Total profit = Nvidia over ATI by alomst 10x.
> ...



 Thanks. Couldn't be simpler. cheers mate


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Profit MARGIN is not TOTAL profit. He is going off TOTAL profit numbers while you are stuck on margins.
> 
> Profit margin = Nvidia over ATI by almost 2x
> Total profit = Nvidia over ATI by alomst 10x.
> ...



Are you going by the consolidated net income to get that 581m in profit?


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 14, 2012)

Mailman you are talking about gross margin, not profits. Profits = revenue - expenses. And Nvidia did have 10x the profits last year.

EDIT: I see it's been said already, I didn't want to go through all the posts. Sorry.


----------



## cowie (Mar 14, 2012)

Declining discrete sales over all dont forget.
Nv is the world leader in discrete cards its not even a race really
Also Its not like just cus a few guys got 7970's or 4 amd is gaining it back
$375+USD cards are less then 1% of the market so even if amd or nv sell twice that card market then noarmal it will not bring market share at all.

But i dont know what that has to do with the new nv card at all, same as people going into say a cod thread and say it sucks or bf3 is better?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> Mailman you are talking about gross margin, not profits. Profits = revenue - expenses. And Nvidia did have 10x the profits last year.
> 
> EDIT: I see it's been said already, I didn't want to go through all the posts. Sorry.



Yeah and Im looking at all the market reports and Im not seeing the 10 times as much. This is why Im asking how they are getting these numbers.


----------



## cowie (Mar 14, 2012)

Amd does not separate between vga/cpu division so its really hard to say whats whats,i feel it has no bearing at all anyway.
Does it make a differance?
The Yankees sold the most tickets last year it does not make them the best baseball team right?
oh wait it does lol j/k


----------



## Benetanegia (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah and Im looking at all the market reports and Im not seeing the 10 times as much. This is why Im asking how they are getting these numbers.



How so? They have told you several times. $581 million vs $51 million, is more than 10x.

http://pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-Reports-Q4-and-FY2012-Earnings-Tegra-3-28nm-Kepler



> FY2012 was a strong year overall for NVIDIA though.  They say gross revenue rose to $4 billion with *a net income of $581.1 million,* which is over double that of FY2011.  Gross margins went from 39.8% in FY2011 to 51.4% in FY2012.  The company appears steady in how they handle business and keep costs down.  It was a good year with solid growth across all divisions.



And market share:

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/22543


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah and Im looking at all the market reports and Im not seeing the 10 times as much. This is why Im asking how they are getting these numbers.



Financial records are public. Not hard to get the numbers, eh? 

http://pressroom.nvidia.com/easyir/...releasejsp=release_157&xhtml=true&prid=852383

See?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> How so? They have told you several times. $581 million vs $51 million, is more than 10x.
> 
> http://pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-Reports-Q4-and-FY2012-Earnings-Tegra-3-28nm-Kepler
> 
> ...



AMD graphics division made 382 million if this is what you are going by. Not ten times.



http://www.anandtech.com/show/5465/...ort-169b-revenue-for-q4-657b-revenue-for-2011


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> AMD graphics division made 382 million if this is what you are going by. Not ten times.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5465/...ort-169b-revenue-for-q4-657b-revenue-for-2011



read the whole article: Graphics division 51 million. Thats all Ive been comparing


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

FULL 2011 year from the article you posted

Operating Income	 	 $51M


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> read the whole article: Graphics division 51 million. Thats all Ive been comparing



Um.


> For Q4 2011 AMD’s graphics division had 382M in revenue and $27M in operating income, versus $424M revenue and $68M operating income the year before. On a yearly basis AMD booked $1.56B in revenue and $51M in operating income, compared to $1.66B and $149M respectively for 2010.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Mar 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> AMD graphics division made 382 million if this is what you are going by. Not ten times.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5465/...ort-169b-revenue-for-q4-657b-revenue-for-2011



No no, you are comparing wrong numbers again.

Operating Income 	$27M

Please, don't humiliate yourself more with this.


----------



## beck24 (Mar 14, 2012)

GC_PaNzerFIN said:


> No no, you are comparing wrong numbers again.
> 
> Operating Income 	$27M
> 
> Please, don't humiliate yourself more with this.



He is mistaking revenue for profit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

beck24 said:


> He is mistaking revenue for profit.



Yeah I am. I concede. 

Still doesnt change the fact they lost market share.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Mar 14, 2012)

Or the fact its so off topic yout all in fanboi teritory .
dam pone

all soundin a bit. Gay


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 14, 2012)

Where is NVIDIAs operating income. Not its net income.

Edit nevermind. Im thinking of EBIT


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 14, 2012)

Yeah, can a moderator force this back on topic please?  I've just wasted two pages worth of my life reading pedantic shite about financials thaht ARE NOT what the thread is about.

Stop bickering like little bitches and talk about how much the 680 is gonna (almost nearly) pwn the 7970 but only in select circumstances and wont really be worth the premium.  So shoulda bought that LCS 7970 when it was on offer.... doh!


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Mar 14, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Yeah, can a moderator force this back on topic please?  I've just wasted two pages worth of my life reading pedantic shite about financials thaht ARE NOT what the thread is about.
> 
> Stop bickering like little bitches and talk about how much the 680 is gonna (almost nearly) pwn the 7970 but only in select circumstances and wont really be worth the premium.  So shoulda bought that LCS 7970 when it was on offer.... doh!



+10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Anyhow.  Anyone else notice that the NDA doesn't end until a week before the end of the quarter?  Or am I the only one who notices things like that?


----------



## erocker (Mar 14, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Yeah, can a moderator force this back on topic please?









*Stay on target TOPIC!*

*In case any of you missed the point. The topic is Nvidia GTX 680 performance over the 7 series.

Thanks.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Mar 15, 2012)

This is pointless. Doesn't matter how fast the card is, if they don't provide *forced FXAA* from the NVIDIA Control Panel just like AMD's MLAA then good bye nvidia. I still play a lot of relatively older games that don't have AA option from the menu, and also forcing AA from drivers doesn't work, EXCEPT MLAA. So as long as I have MLAA from the control panel, nvidia is NOT an option right now...


----------



## xenocide (Mar 15, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> This is pointless. Doesn't matter how fast the card is, if they don't provide *forced FXAA* from the NVIDIA Control Panel just like AMD's MLAA then good bye nvidia. I still play a lot of relatively older games that don't have AA option from the menu, and also forcing AA from drivers doesn't work, EXCEPT MLAA. So as long as I have MLAA from the control panel, nvidia is NOT an option right now...



If I recall wasn't there a lightweight application for Nvidia cards you could download to force FXAA on?  Someone more versed on the topic can probably shed some light, but I'm pretty sure it does exist.


----------



## azzonie (Mar 16, 2012)

Press releases faked to look like valid performance charts are nothing new.  Seldom does the hype correlate with reality.  Both AMD and Nvidia are guilty of this.


----------



## Nortrop (Mar 16, 2012)

azzonie said:


> Press releases faked to look like valid performance charts are nothing new.  Seldom does the hype correlate with reality.  Both AMD and Nvidia are guilty of this.



Yup. AMD pulled the same BS before the release of the 7970. If the charts were to be believed the card should have been +2 times more powerful than the GTX580. Anyways... still waiting for the price drops on the 7 series.


----------

