TR Forums

The previous post has been merged into this thread.

I am underwhelmed @ Kepler, I was thinking they would beat the HD 7970 by a greater margin. This is the GTX 680, which isn't the top end, but I don't expect the 690 to be that much faster (expecting more of 570 vs 580 performance). I think the 7970 will OC better too, for those interested. I guess we will see in a couple weeks.

Considering the 7970 *is* the high-end AMD chip, it's not that bad that a sub-200 watt Kepler with only a 256 bit memory bus will at least match or likely beat it. Nvidia's problem doesn't seem to be that the chips won't run, it's that they can't make enough of them in a timely manner to bring useful pressure on AMD. As for overclocking, the 7970 should overclock better simply because it has more power available. Just do the math: The 680 has 75 watts from the slot + 2 x 75 watts from two 6-pin connectors = 225 watts total that it can receive. The 7970 has 75 watts from the slot + 75 watts from one six-pin connector + 150 watts from one eight-pin connector = 300 watts available. With a 50% larger available power pool, the overclocking should favor the 7970... but not necessarily the thermals.

chuckula wrote:

I am underwhelmed @ Kepler, I was thinking they would beat the HD 7970 by a greater margin. This is the GTX 680, which isn't the top end, but I don't expect the 690 to be that much faster (expecting more of 570 vs 580 performance). I think the 7970 will OC better too, for those interested. I guess we will see in a couple weeks.

Considering the 7970 *is* the high-end AMD chip, it's not that bad that a sub-200 watt Kepler with only a 256 bit memory bus will at least match or likely beat it. Nvidia's problem doesn't seem to be that the chips won't run, it's that they can't make enough of them in a timely manner to bring useful pressure on AMD. As for overclocking, the 7970 should overclock better simply because it has more power available. Just do the math: The 680 has 75 watts from the slot + 2 x 75 watts from two 6-pin connectors = 225 watts total that it can receive. The 7970 has 75 watts from the slot + 75 watts from one six-pin connector + 150 watts from one eight-pin connector = 300 watts available. With a 50% larger available power pool, the overclocking should favor the 7970... but not necessarily the thermals.

Hmm, didn't realize the 680 had a lower TDP, hopefully the real world TDP isn't very much higher than what Nvidia says... they tend to be over-optimistic with power draw numbers.

Game_boy wrote:

I don't think I can hang on to my GT240 when D3 comes.

It's never coming out, don't worry.

You were saying?

Game_boy wrote:

Also if SC2 runs on my Intel-integrated-G965-from-2007 why would D3 need something >GT240?

Sure it runs, but at the expense of eyecandies. I have not seriously played a game since WC3 and I am looking forward to playing again.

If these prices are true it looks like I won't be upgrading this generation, again. I got a "superclocked" GTX460 18 months ago for $190 and there's still nothing dramatically faster in that price range.

Moore's law has really come to sudden halt in the GPU world. Instead of a 100% increase in transistors/performance in 18 months, we've seen a 43% increase of transistors in 22 months (480 in Mar10 to 7970 in Jan12)

Flying Fox wrote:

Game_boy wrote:

I don't think I can hang on to my GT240 when D3 comes.

It's never coming out, don't worry.

You were saying?

Oh, the released version removes all of the interesting RMAH features. That was the sole holdup, sad they resolved it by removing stuff (until it was approved by South Korea).

travbrad wrote:

Moore's law has really come to sudden halt in the GPU world. Instead of a 100% increase in transistors/performance in 18 months, we've seen a 43% increase of transistors in 22 months (480 in Mar10 to 7970 in Jan12)

The "law" doesn't relate to how many transistors are on a device, rather it relates to how many transistors will fit in a unit area. 28 nm feature size would allow the same amount of features in 49/100 the area. But that has taken 2.5+ years for TSMC to accomplish; meanwhile, Intel soldiers on.

More fuel for the flamewar http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia ... 15012.html

The last two URL's are pretty interesting. Hopefully this spices up the market!

Assuming there's been no photoshopping it looks like some industrious people managed to snag the Tom's Hardware review early: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... ost5071447

Verdict: The 680GTX is clearly across-the-board faster than the 7970 and even beats the previous generation dual-chip cards in some benchmarks (something the 7970 didn't do very often). Additionally, the power consumption while beating the 7970 is between a 7950 and the 7970. If Nvidia can actually get these chips to market in quantity they have a clear winner.

$550 is simply too expensive for me. Can't afford it.

Begabolia wrote:

$550 is simply too expensive for me. Can't afford it.

The MSRP might be only $500... although street prices might be inflated at first. Of course... $500 ain't exactly cheap either.

chuckula wrote:

Assuming there's been no photoshopping it looks like some industrious people managed to snag the Tom's Hardware review early: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... ost5071447

Verdict: The 680GTX is clearly across-the-board faster than the 7970 and even beats the previous generation dual-chip cards in some benchmarks (something the 7970 didn't do very often). Additionally, the power consumption while beating the 7970 is between a 7950 and the 7970. If Nvidia can actually get these chips to market in quantity they have a clear winner.

Wow, major effup by Tom's

Someone at Xtreme Systems posted the Tom's review framerates in thread. Pretty decisive win for nV this time I'm afraid.
Source: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/sho ... dbeda1f9a7

1080P AA | GTX680 | HD7970

Metro2033 AAA
64.33|72.33

Skyrim Ultra/FXAA
92.76|83

BF3 4XMSAA
77.51|68.46

Crysis2 Ultra/DX11
69.70|55.60

DirtIII
98.65|80.58

Total GTX680 : 402.95
Total HD7970 : 359.97

Ratio GTX680/HD7970 : 111.94%

-------------

1600P AA | GTX680 | HD7970

Metro2033 AAA
40.00|43.00

Skyrim Ultra/FXAA
63.32|59.96

BF3 4XMSAA
44.58|42.43

Crysis2 Ultra/DX11
38.40|32.70

DirtIII
64.73|54.73

Total GTX680 : 251.23
Total HD7970 : 232.82

Ratio GTX680/HD7970 : 107.9%

Looks like with AMD now trailing BOTH Intel and nVidia in performance/watt, their bankruptcy and dissolution is imminent. Goodbye AMD. Hello $3,000 CPUs and GPUs.

.

The "source material" is a red-flag.

THG has a infamous track record of spinning reviews of vendors who are "big contributors" into a possible light. Just food for thought.

I'll wait until the silicon gets into public hands.

DPete27 wrote:

Let the price wars begin!!!

Off topic: This "Sean" Troll on that website is quite hilarious...

Personally I'm looking forward to a midrange Version of the 6xx family @200-300. I won't spend 500+ on a graphics card.

Dumb question but what's the OFFICIAL date we see numbers?

AbRASiON wrote:

Dumb question but what's the OFFICIAL date we see numbers?

Friday, Friday, gonna go down on Friday!

Krogoth wrote:

The "source material" is a red-flag.

THG has a infamous track record of spinning reviews of vendors who are "big contributors" into a possible light. Just food for thought.

I'll wait until the silicon gets into public hands.

You know Krogoth, we already know that when TR puts up its review you'll post:
1. That you expected the GTX 680 to have this performance all along. &
2. That you are still "meh" and "unimpressed"

If you do so I *will* be calling you out because we all know you're an anti-Nvidia troll *AND* you went out of your way to call the 7770 "impressive". You're going to have to explain how a card from AMD that really wasn't better on price or performance than earlier generation 6850's is "impressive" when Nvidia is able to beat AMD's highest-end card with a "mainstream" chip.

chuckula wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

The "source material" is a red-flag.

THG has a infamous track record of spinning reviews of vendors who are "big contributors" into a possible light. Just food for thought.

I'll wait until the silicon gets into public hands.

You know Krogoth, we already know that when TR puts up its review you'll post:
1. That you expected the GTX 680 to have this performance all along. &
2. That you are still "meh" and "unimpressed"

If you do so I *will* be calling you out because we all know you're an anti-Nvidia troll *AND* you went out of your way to call the 7770 "impressive". You're going to have to explain how a card from AMD that really wasn't better on price or performance than earlier generation 6850's is "impressive" when Nvidia is able to beat AMD's highest-end card with a "mainstream" chip.

ROFL, you should just wait until the silicon gets into public hands. I actually "want" Kepler series to give Tahiti family some serious competition. It will help launch a price war. It is clear that current 7xxx parts have plenty of room for price cuts and clockspeed bumps if AMD is force to turn up the heat.

Besides, I'm just saying that THG has a track record of spinning reviews into a positive light for certain parties. Take the "leaked results" with a grain of salt.

Ifalna wrote:

DPete27 wrote:

Let the price wars begin!!!

Off topic: This "Sean" Troll on that website is quite hilarious...

Personally I'm looking forward to a midrange Version of the 6xx family @200-300. I won't spend 500+ on a graphics card.

Yeah it seems like a good number of people that post comments over at Fudzilla should be put in a juvenile detention facility or military school or should at least get banned from commenting. I've seen some very, very awful things said in posts over there.

chuckula wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

The "source material" is a red-flag. THG has a infamous track record of spinning reviews of vendors who are "big contributors" into a possible light. Just food for thought. I'll wait until the silicon gets into public hands.

You know Krogoth, we already know that when TR puts up its review you'll post that you expected the GTX 680 to have this performance all along.

Indeed, Quoted For Truth.
Oh, and Kroggy, Tom's is just fine these days, so if you're going to string that silliness along then you may as well beat on the "ATI drivers suck" drum too. And the silicon is apparently in (Tom's) public hands.

And indeed, you want to "wait until the silicon gets into public hands" so you can tell us then that it is exactly what you expected all along. It's really unbecoming.

Krogoth wrote:

Besides, I'm just saying that THG has a track record of spinning reviews into a positive light for certain parties.

Radeon drivers have a track record of sucking. Tinfoil has a track record of being worn as a hat. Krogoth has a track record of

ultima_trev wrote:

Looks like with AMD now trailing BOTH Intel and nVidia in performance/watt, their bankruptcy and dissolution is imminent. Goodbye AMD. Hello $3,000 CPUs and GPUs.

It's really sad that people don't get tired of repeating the 15 year old nonsense that AMD is going bankrupt every time the sun comes up. It's tantamount to brain failure.

flip-mode wrote:

ultima_trev wrote:

Looks like with AMD now trailing BOTH Intel and nVidia in performance/watt, their bankruptcy and dissolution is imminent. Goodbye AMD. Hello $3,000 CPUs and GPUs.

It's really sad that people don't get tired of repeating the 15 year old nonsense that AMD is going bankrupt every time the sun comes up. It's tantamount to brain failure.

My thoughts also (except for maybe the brain failure part ). AMD isn't going to go bankrupt because nvidia's (allegedly) $500-$550 high end card beats their $550 high end card. Especially when this has been par for the course for the last couple generations (580 vs 6970, 480 vs 5870, etc.).

I'm not partial to either camp, but AMD currently has a pretty complete line up of cards. In the next couple of days (?) the NDA will drop for the 680. Then, if it's not a paper launch, nVidia will have one new card for their next generation of GPUs compared to AMD's whole lineup.

I guess people are too new or young to remember THG's more egregious reviews.

Flip-mode, ATI drivers were crappy back in the pre-Radeon era. It is mostly uphill from there with a few sore spots here and there. There currently are on pair with Nvidia (both of them are teething issues that usually affect bleeding edge hardware/software).

Krogoth wrote:

I guess people are too new or young to remember THG's more egregious reviews. Flip-mode, ATI drivers were crappy back in the pre-Radeon era. It is mostly uphill from there with a few sore spots here and there. There currently are on pair with Nvidia (both of them are teething issues that usually affect bleeding edge hardware/software).

Wow, since you can't seem to figure it out, let me just take the double standard provided by your own words, but flip it around. Maybe when you see it in your own words you'll get it:

Krogoth wrote:

I guess people are too new or young to remember ATI's more egregious drivers. Flip-mode, THG's reviews were crappy back in the pre-Radeon era. It is mostly uphill from there with a few sore spots here and there. There currently are on pair with Nvidia (both of them are teething issues that usually affect bleeding edge hardware/software).

See? On the one had you forgive ATI for distant past issues, but you refuse to forget THG's distant past issues, and you do it all in the same post with a straight face. It's pretty amazing. Do you see it now; do you get it yet? Get over your THG issues - they're long under different ownership than they were during the time they were having issues with dubious articles.

THG hasn't change that much over the years.

The writers there are still the same old spin doctors, although they are more subtle about it.

Besides, doesn't it make more sense to wait for other people and reviewers to take a look at the silicon before making any conclusions?

There's no need to get all work up over silly GPUs.