Tuesday, March 13th 2012

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

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.
Source: NGF Community
Add your own comment

192 Comments on GeForce GTX 680 Up To 40% Faster Than Radeon HD 7970: NVIDIA

#76
dj-electric
beck24This 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]
Posted on Reply
#77
N3M3515
beck24This 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.
Posted on Reply
#78
GoldenTiger
N3M3515I think it is already overclocked, in order to be competitive with HD7970.
Stock clock = what the manufacturer sets it at. It's not overclocked.
Posted on Reply
#79
Vulpesveritas
GoldenTigerStock 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.
Posted on Reply
#81
Benetanegia
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.
Posted on Reply
#82
Covert_Death
Dj-ElectriCWho 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]
[rolleyes]
lol maybe a speculation thread in the forums isn't the best place for you to be hanging out then

[/rolleyes]
Posted on Reply
#83
buggalugs
N3M3515I 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.
Posted on Reply
#84
MarcusTaz
Super XPThis 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. :D
Right on man just what we need, make that free market work in our favor!
Posted on Reply
#85
jamsbong
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?:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#86
beck24
N3M3515I 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.
Posted on Reply
#87
sclera
Gotta love Nvidia's bullshit graphs with their meaningless Y axes. Lets wait for an actual benchmark, yeah?
Posted on Reply
#88
Nihilus
Yippie Beck!! What a great year for nvidia! We are all so happy for you!! Yeah Nvidia!!! :roll:
Posted on Reply
#89
alexsubri


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 :)
Posted on Reply
#90
Super XP
MarcusTazRight on man just what we need, make that free market work in our favor!
You can take that to the bank. :D
Also doesn't Battlefield favor Nvidia :eek: Nice Benchies NV ;)
Posted on Reply
#91
Benetanegia
scleraGotta 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.
Posted on Reply
#92
xenocide
Super XPYou can take that to the bank. :D
Also doesn't Battlefield favor Nvidia :eek: 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.
Posted on Reply
#93
Benetanegia
xenocideI 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.
Posted on Reply
#94
mrsemi
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.
Posted on Reply
#95
Covert_Death
mrsemiThat 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!
Posted on Reply
#96
xenocide
Covert_DeathI 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...
Posted on Reply
#97
hhumas
it think its would be around 700$
Posted on Reply
#98
DarkOCean
hhumasit think its would be around 700$
Maybe gk 110 not this .
Posted on Reply
#100
vega22
aint these from the old 680 before they decided to rape us and charge high end for mid ranged parts?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 05:53 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts