nVidia 670 benchmarks leaked

Status
Not open for further replies.
anubis44 said:
Not for multi-monitor resolutions. [H] showed the 2Gb of ram was crippling the GTX680 in 5760x1080 resolution when the aliasing was turned up.
Click to expand...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/9

The biggest question in regards to performance and gameplay experience about GeForce GTX 680 SLI was if the 2GB of VRAM per GPU and lesser memory bandwidth compared to Radeon HD 7970 would be a hindrance. Our testing has clearly answered that question. In fact, in every game we tested, GTX 680 SLI offered a better gameplay experience compared to Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX. We specifically tested at NV Surround and Eyefinity at the maximum resolution of our configuration at 5760x1200 to see if there would be any bottlenecks. We found that the new GeForce GTX 680 SLI has the performance where it counts.
Click to expand...
 
anubis44 said:
I haven't read anywhere that they broke an NDA. Where did you read that? I thought they were just being treated like sh!t by nvidia, which seems pretty much par for the course for them.
Click to expand...

I read that originally on HardForum if I remember correctly. Had to search a bit for it but here's a few articles showing they've been up to it since the 8800GT.

-- "Originally, TweakTown broke the NDA with MSI's GeForce 8800GT"
-- Same story with the 9800 GX2.
-- "Galaxy cut us off at one point and threatened to sue TweakTown because we broke an NDA which we hadn’t signed or been given"

Seems a bit too convenient to be able to use that story over, and over, and over again. It isn't any wonder that nVidia (and AMD for that matter) has little interest in working with that site -- clearly Shane and company want to play by their set of rules and release content in advance of any NDA dates that bind other reviewers.

The main reason I even question that review of TweakTown's is because they seem to enjoy pulling this (what I perceive as) dishonest reviewing strategies and as such I question the reviewer's integrity and results. That's all. Now if the HardOCP review (and others) confirm TweakTown's findings than great, we have solid GTX 670 information.

I've done reviews for Notebook Review in the past, and some of them under NDA where I was even given a prototype of a notebook one or two months in advance of the laptop's release date. You earn the privilege to review units in advance by being honest and keeping your mouth shut until NDA is lifted, not by believing you are important enough that you can publish a review early, break NDA, and expect nVidia to actually do business with you in the future.
 
The review is still up, but the charts arent loading for me. Wonder if they got blocked somehow?
 
The source HTML indicates the images are hosted on their servers...they probably had to take them down because they fubar'd and didn't completely hide the source that gave them the GTX 670?
 
if the charts do come back, take a look at the power consumption figures. they're all over the place.
 
That would be consistent with HardOCP's findings on the GTX 680. The reviewer ended up taking power readings during every game and it varied by almost 40W between any two games. I expect the 670 to have similar variance.
 
night_2004 said:
That would be consistent with HardOCP's findings on the GTX 680. The reviewer ended up taking power readings during every game and it varied by almost 40W between any two games. I expect the 670 to have similar variance.
Click to expand...

I see TT's power consumption being very wild. I question how they actually measured their cards.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
Neither of these statements jibes with the [H] reviews I have read of the 680. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Did you read the Tri-fire/Tri-SLI article?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/3

"With the GeForce GTX 680 3-Way SLI, we have to keep in mind the 2GB of VRAM per GPU supported on each video card. We found that we could easily set "Ultra" settings at 5760x1200. We then turned on FXAA in-game and found performance to be more than playable. We had so much performance left over that we tried to turn on 2X MSAA and then 4X MSAA. This is where we ran into issues with GTX 680 Tri-Fire. When we enabled 2X MSAA at 5760x1200 the game started exhibiting sluggish behavior as if the game were pausing or slowing down as we played. The game would slow down, speed up, slow down, and speed up. It was a feeling of utter unplayability. (italics mine) However, the framerate didn't quite show this slowdown or sluggishness. This is one of those times where the framerate doesn't show the whole picture. Suffice it to say, 2X MSAA at 5760x1200 was unplayable on GTX 680 3-Way SLI in this game. When we pushed the game further to 4X MSAA, it was completely bottlenecked and it finally showed in the framerate, which we will show below."

Bear in mind, I'm not saying 2Gb isn't enough for most games in most situations. The problem I'm having is with the idea that I am going to plunk down $400 for a GTX670 or $500 for a GTX680, and there are already multi-monitor scenarios in real games I play where the cards will run out of texture memory. That's a lot of coin to pay for something that's already being demonstrated to be obsolete today, right now, with my setup. Now, if I was certain I'd never go beyond 1 monitor, I wouldn't give it a second thought, but I'm sitting behind three monitors as I write this right now, so it's not theoretical for me.
 
Last edited:
night_2004 said:
I read that originally on HardForum if I remember correctly. Had to search a bit for it but here's a few articles showing they've been up to it since the 8800GT.

-- "Originally, TweakTown broke the NDA with MSI's GeForce 8800GT"
-- Same story with the 9800 GX2.
-- "Galaxy cut us off at one point and threatened to sue TweakTown because we broke an NDA which we hadn’t signed or been given"

You earn the privilege to review units in advance by being honest and keeping your mouth shut until NDA is lifted, not by believing you are important enough that you can publish a review early, break NDA, and expect nVidia to actually do business with you in the future.
Click to expand...

I see the history now. Thanks for the info. I agree with your statement about earning trust. Couldn't agree more.
 
anubis44 said:
Did you read the Tri-fire/Tri-SLI article?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/25/geforce_gtx_680_3way_sli_radeon_7970_trifire_review/3

"With the GeForce GTX 680 3-Way SLI, we have to keep in mind the 2GB of VRAM per GPU supported on each video card. We found that we could easily set "Ultra" settings at 5760x1200. We then turned on FXAA in-game and found performance to be more than playable. We had so much performance left over that we tried to turn on 2X MSAA and then 4X MSAA. This is where we ran into issues with GTX 680 Tri-Fire. When we enabled 2X MSAA at 5760x1200 the game started exhibiting sluggish behavior as if the game were pausing or slowing down as we played. The game would slow down, speed up, slow down, and speed up. It was a feeling of utter unplayability. (italics mine) However, the framerate didn't quite show this slowdown or sluggishness. This is one of those times where the framerate doesn't show the whole picture. Suffice it to say, 2X MSAA at 5760x1200 was unplayable on GTX 680 3-Way SLI in this game. When we pushed the game further to 4X MSAA, it was completely bottlenecked and it finally showed in the framerate, which we will show below."
Click to expand...

While the 7970 can play at higher settings in that ONE case read the rest of the review.

Therefore, the highest possible setting we could use with GTX 680 3-Way SLI was simply FXAA and no level of MSAA at all. However, even though the Radeon HD 7970 Tri-Fire was playable at 4X AA, it was literally night and day in the difference between smoothness between SLI and CrossFireX. The GTX 680 3-Way SLI configuration felt smoother, and more fluid as we played the game. The same was also true for Multiplayer, which we will talk about on the next page.
Click to expand...

Nice job cherry picking the one example and making it sound like that is the entire review. You need to read all the reviews to really get the full story. It looks like it is possible in the extreme scenarios that the 680 might have a memory bandwidth issue (or capacity issue, not sure) but for the most part the 680 is a fair competitor to the 7970. Overall you might have to run it at 4xAA instead of 8xAA or 2xAA instead of 4x, but it appears nVidia does a better job controlling latency between frames resulting in a smoother experience. Definitely looking forward to the 4GB card reviews to know if performance improves in the extreme cases.
 
night_2004 said:
I read that originally on HardForum if I remember correctly. Had to search a bit for it but here's a few articles showing they've been up to it since the 8800GT.

-- "Originally, TweakTown broke the NDA with MSI's GeForce 8800GT"
-- Same story with the 9800 GX2.
-- "Galaxy cut us off at one point and threatened to sue TweakTown because we broke an NDA which we hadn’t signed or been given"

Seems a bit too convenient to be able to use that story over, and over, and over again. It isn't any wonder that nVidia (and AMD for that matter) has little interest in working with that site -- clearly Shane and company want to play by their set of rules and release content in advance of any NDA dates that bind other reviewers.

The main reason I even question that review of TweakTown's is because they seem to enjoy pulling this (what I perceive as) dishonest reviewing strategies and as such I question the reviewer's integrity and results. That's all. Now if the HardOCP review (and others) confirm TweakTown's findings than great, we have solid GTX 670 information.

I've done reviews for Notebook Review in the past, and some of them under NDA where I was even given a prototype of a notebook one or two months in advance of the laptop's release date. You earn the privilege to review units in advance by being honest and keeping your mouth shut until NDA is lifted, not by believing you are important enough that you can publish a review early, break NDA, and expect nVidia to actually do business with you in the future.
Click to expand...
tt is based in Taiwan and if you know anything about Chinese they don't give a fuck about ip or ndas. Just different culture and i wont hold it against them just happy for 411 - i was about to purchase a 7950
 
Whoever chose those games for the benchmarks is a total fucking moron.

Lost planet 2? Mafia 2?.... why didn't they test bf3? Skyrim? Deus ex? some 2011 titles at least.

Retards don't deserve the hits they're getting.
 
I've seen that same Gigabyte GTX 670 pictured in an earlier post at a retail shop here. When I asked one of the sales guys, they said that it was already reserved for another buyer who just bought it... Judging from the price difference between that Gigabyte GTX 670 and a GTX 680, MSRP for the 670 is certainly US$400.

Ah well, not a small loss to me, when a Palit GTX680 would only cost me US$35 more.*

*Note: Gigabyte and Asus graphics cards cost 10%++ more than Leadtek or other lesser-known brands here.
 
Laffles said:
Whoever chose those games for the benchmarks is a total fucking moron.

Lost planet 2? Mafia 2?.... why didn't they test bf3? Skyrim? Deus ex? some 2011 titles at least.

Retards don't deserve the hits they're getting.
Click to expand...

Those games are hard to warez maybe? Still gives u a general idea.
 
Hmm, at launch, I wonder if they will be:

A. In stock
B. At MSRP.

I'm assuming both aren't going to be met. (It'd be nice not to have to be next to a computer all day to snag one).
 
Whoever chose those games for the benchmarks is a total fucking moron.

Lost planet 2? Mafia 2?.... why didn't they test bf3? Skyrim? Deus ex? some 2011 titles at least.

Retards don't deserve the hits they're getting.
Click to expand...

Shane won't benchmark a game unless it has a built in benchmark, he says he avoids any game without a built in benchmark as there are just too many variables that affect the results....

....Then in another breath he'll tell you how he gets paid per review and it's obviously easier to run a built in benchmark rather than use FRAPS and a pre determined path through the game...

...If you read his reviews, everything except the results and the actual cards name seem to be simply a case of cut and paste, right down to the comment present in every review where he says he was yelling into the SPL meter....:rolleyes:

Not the best reviewer around....
 
ZoNe said:
lolz faster than 7970? And right there with 680? WTF would anyone buy GTX 680?
Click to expand...

It's all about EPEEN IMO. Either that or you have the money and can easily afford to pay more for the slightly better GTX680.

I have been saving my money and doing a little recycling and despite the high costs of the GTX 670 right now I am thinking about buying the MSI Power Edition when it comes out.

I think I will greatly enjoy it.
 
Not sure why anyone would have buyer's remorse over buying a 7950, its still one badass card and the 670 has an expected higher MSRP. Its one thing to have buyers remorse after a release but to have one prior to a release :confused:
 
Trimlock said:
Not sure why anyone would have buyer's remorse over buying a 7950, its still one badass card and the 670 has an expected higher MSRP. Its one thing to have buyers remorse after a release but to have one prior to a release :confused:
Click to expand...

Primarily because I expect this to trigger another price drop, maybe even down under $350. I highly doubt I'll be able to get my hands on one any time soon, and I wanted a new card now, not in three months. I'm sure I'll be very happy with the performance for the 7950, it's a HUGE upgrade over my 5870, and I think I'll have some fun OCing it.

However, if I could have waited two weeks and saved a hundred bucks, I will feel a little foolish.
 
Why are we still benchmarking 4 year old games?

I can understand Metro but Hawx and FC2? Bleh
 
GroktheCube said:
Primarily because I expect this to trigger another price drop, maybe even down under $350. I highly doubt I'll be able to get my hands on one any time soon, and I wanted a new card now, not in three months. I'm sure I'll be very happy with the performance for the 7950, it's a HUGE upgrade over my 5870, and I think I'll have some fun OCing it.

However, if I could have waited two weeks and saved a hundred bucks, I will feel a little foolish.
Click to expand...

I don't think this will push the 7950 any lower, its pretty low as it is. What we need is something to push the 7870/7850 lower and thats not coming anytime soon.

I have to commend AMD for moving so fast on lowering prices on their high end though. I wonder when we will see hte 7990?
 
Anyone know when the NDA is up on the 670? I want to see [H]'s review. I've been feeling the itch for a 680, but it's out of my budget. Honestly, if it comes out at $400, the 670 will be out of my budget, but closer to it. $300-$350 is the sweet spot for me, but for the right performance, I could save some extra.
 
one swell foop said:
Anyone know when the NDA is up on the 670? I want to see [H]'s review. I've been feeling the itch for a 680, but it's out of my budget. Honestly, if it comes out at $400, the 670 will be out of my budget, but closer to it. $300-$350 is the sweet spot for me, but for the right performance, I could save some extra.
Click to expand...
I believe the 10th at 9 AM Eastern time is when the NDA lifts.
 
If they squeeze out the performance hinted at by TweakTown in that tiny PCB, I'll eat my shoe.

Regardless, I want to see the GTX 670 with a closed loop liquid cooler and a tiny water block. Pair it with a 120mm radiator so I can effortlessly SLI them. That would be friggin sweet. H100 for my soon to arrive i7 980X and SLI GTX 670's drawing in cold air from my Corsair 500r's side panel.

Although that would probably cost $1,000. I'll have to wait and see how SLI GTX 670's compare to the difficult-to-obatin GTX 690.
 
one swell foop said:
Anyone know when the NDA is up on the 670? I want to see [H]'s review. I've been feeling the itch for a 680, but it's out of my budget. Honestly, if it comes out at $400, the 670 will be out of my budget, but closer to it. $300-$350 is the sweet spot for me, but for the right performance, I could save some extra.
Click to expand...

Man, I used to put my upper limit on graphics cards at $300/card. I am still tempted to try to do this, but I'm afraid I'll probably be blowing over that, even with the inevitable price cuts that come with the release of the GTX670. If the GTX670 is indeed priced at $400, then I suspect we'll see the 7950 down to about $350-$375 or so. The 7870s will probably have to fall to about ~$300, and the 7850s will be pushed closer to the $200 mark, at least until the GTX660s are benchmarked and released.

However, unlike in previous generations (5000 and 6000 series), AMD has some maneuvering room to counter the GTX680 and GTX670 with higher clock speed editions of their cards. It's no secret the 7970s will often clock to 1200+MHz and I've already seen some indication that AMD may have clock speed bumps in mind for the 7900-series, rather than big price drops. Check this out:

http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Pre...Edition-Graphics-Card-to-Compete-with-Kepler/

I hope that AMD decides to bump the default clock speed to 1100+ GHz for the revised 7970s, rather than merely 1GHz. If they can do this, then I believe they'll be able to price the revised edition 7970s at about $450, rather than >$400 like the current 7970s will have to be dropped to, based on comparative performance with the GTX670. This will make their 'older' 7970s and 7950s real baragins, as they'll be priced lower, but likely still overclock as well as the 'newer' revisions. Just watch out for excessive fan noise on the reference cards in particular.

Fixing all their crossfire issues will also be de riguer for AMD to maintain their pricing parity with nvidia. This is my one major gripe with AMD, despite the fact that I am a supporter of their products.
 
Last edited:
ZOOOMG I CAN GET 200+ FPS IN FAR CRY 2 WITH THIS CARD!!!

Anyways,

When are these cards supposed to release? I bought a 680 but I am definitley interested in when the other reviews will come out because TT doesn't seem like a reliable source of a review just judging by the games they used to benchmark this.
 
overlord20 said:
ZOOOMG I CAN GET 200+ FPS IN FAR CRY 2 WITH THIS CARD!!!

Anyways,

When are these cards supposed to release? I bought a 680 but I am definitley interested in when the other reviews will come out because TT doesn't seem like a reliable source of a review just judging by the games they used to benchmark this.
Click to expand...
I just said
cannondale06 said:
I believe the 10th at 9 AM Eastern time is when the NDA lifts.
Click to expand...
 
SnowBeast said:
Thats goofy, you picked one single benchmark. REALLY?? And on a game that isn't as optimized as lets say BF3 which uses every aspect of CPU and Card that it can.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-geforce-gtx-680-twinfrozr-iii-oc-review/21

Modern games, yes your little overpriced 7970 get thoroughly beaten. And if you read any reviews at [H] Kyle said gameplay felt smoother even if the 7970 was faster. (possible stuttering on 7970?)

We will see soon enough...
Click to expand...


"Modern games, yes your little overpriced 7970 get thoroughly beaten. "

What you are saying is utter rubbish. The HD 7970 is more than competitive in the most demanding games. Games which easily hit 60+ fps at 2560 x 1600 maxed out are less important than games which struggle to hit that mark. Other than multiplayer gaming where 60+ fps is necessary for quick combat response the games which really stress the GPU are the best indicators of GPU performance..

Lets take the most demanding titles released in the last 12 months.
BF3, Alan Wake, Crysis 2 (DX11 ultra with high res textures) ,Anno 2070, Witcher 2, Shogun 2 Total War. I don't consider Batman Arkham city a good example of a DX11 game.Don't get me wrong. its a wonderful game which I have played in DX9. But it is a good example of how not to deliver a DX11 PC game. The DX11 features implementation was an afterthought and a crude patch.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/12/13/batman_arkham_city_directx_11_performance_iq_review/5

Read the tesselation and Bottom line sections. In fact Deus Ex's use of tesselation was appreciated and Batman's use of tesselation was criticized.

BF3 is the best example of a game designed from the ground up with DX11 features to deliver the best experience. Alan Wake is a very good example of a console game's PC port done right.

BF3 DX 11
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/10/sapphire_hd_7970_oc_edition_video_card_review/7

BF3 2560 X 1600 ULTRA 4X MSAA
HD 7970 (950 Mhz) avg 40.0 fps min 27 fps
GTX 680 (1100 Mhz Turbo) avg 42.9 fps min 25 fps
A HD 7970 at 1050 - 1100 Mhz on stock voltage will get you GTX 680 perf.

HD 7970 OC ( (1280 Mhz) avg 50.7 fps min 34 fps.
the HD 7970 scales at 94% (40 x 1280 / 950 x 0.94 = 50.66). GTX 680 OC will just reach HD 7970 OC perf at 1.35 Ghz with 95% scaling (42.9 x 1.35 / 1.1 x 0.95= 50.7) . Speeds above 1.35 Ghz are rare even on specially binned 680 OC models.

Alan Wake DX 9
http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhjtNGcZfn4ldRNpISAJKIuG2lZ6YA

Alan Wake at 1080p max settings is 30% faster on HD 7970 (925 Mhz).

Crysis 2 DX 11
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect1
HD 7970 (925 Mhz) is 9% faster than GTX 680. HD 7970 (1150 Mhz) is 20% faster than GTX 680 (1186 / 1277 boost)

Anno 2070 DX 11
http://translate.googleusercontent....0.html&usg=ALkJrhhlkIcMPq5Kj-lxwZS99YZd_N7KTA

At 1080p max settings HD 7970 (925 Mhz) is 6% faster and at 2560 x 1600 very high settings its a tie.

Witcher 2 DX 9
http://www./forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/52616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-21.html

HD 7970 (925 Mhz is faster than GTX 680 (1100 Turbo) by 5% at 2560 x 1600, Ultra , AA Enabled.

Total War Shogun 2 DX11
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect0
GTX 680 is 14% faster over HD 7970 (925 Mhz) . GTX 680 (1186 / 1277 boost) is 5% faster over HD 7970 (1150 Mhz)

Of the above 6 games the HD 7970 OC will tie the GTX 680 OC in BF3 and clearly win (by > 10% ) Alan Wake, Crysis 2, Anno 2070, Witcher 2. The GTX 680 OC wins Shogun 2

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/18

As far as Metro 2033 (DOF with AAA) is concerned it is a clear indication of GTX 680 performance when bandwidth is constrained. The GTX 680's performance scaling is <20% wrt GTX 580. To top it all this is a game which the GTX 580 was clearly leading over the HD 6970 by 17%.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-overclock-guide/15

The fact becomes even more clear when the HD 7970 at 1125 Mhz is 66% faster than HD 6970 and 25% faster than GTX 680. In fact the performance jump from Fermi to Kepler is much lesser than Cayman to Tahiti.

The HD 7970 is a beast of a card. At 1250+ Mhz it can play the most demanding games like BF3, Crysis 2, Alan Wake, Witcher 2 at 2560 X 1600 maxed out. The HD 7970's power draw disadvantage is negated by the fact that the HD 7970 will provide maximum performance without being bandwidth constrained like GTX 680 in games like Metro 2033.

AMD's problems arise with multi GPU performance especially Tri fire. Nvidia's use of frame metering seems to provide good solution to micro stuttering. This is an area where Nvidia leads AMD. AMD need to improve the robustness of Crossfire.

But as a single GPU its formidable. So please stop posting lies :D
 
Last edited:
These were probably supposed to be GTX 660. Oh well. I'll take 1 anyways cuz of the size and perf.
 
I have to agree, the benchmark suite and settings used by reviewers can significantly skew review in whatever direction a reviewer wants. I am so tired of seeing HAWX 2 in every single review. I don't think there has ever been a game that less people have played or care about, yet manages to make it into this many reviews.

Anyways, the 670 looks good (if that was not a Gigabyte SOC version), but I will reserve judgment until we see reviews from more reputable sites.

raghu78 said:
"Modern games, yes your little overpriced 7970 get thoroughly beaten. "

What you are saying is utter rubbish. The HD 7970 is more than competitive in the most demanding games. Games which easily hit 60+ fps at 2560 x 1600 maxed out are less important than games which struggle to hit that mark. Other than multiplayer gaming where 60+ fps is necessary for quick combat response the games which really stress the GPU are the best indicators of GPU performance..

Lets take the most demanding titles released in the last 12 months.
BF3, Alan Wake, Crysis 2 (DX11 ultra with high res textures) ,Anno 2070, Witcher 2, Shogun 2 Total War. I don't consider Batman Arkham city a good example of a DX11 game.Don't get me wrong. its a wonderful game which I have played in DX9. But it is a good example of how not to deliver a DX11 PC game. The DX11 features implementation was an afterthought and a crude patch.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/12/13/batman_arkham_city_directx_11_performance_iq_review/5

Read the tesselation and Bottom line sections. In fact Deus Ex's use of tesselation was appreciated and Batman's use of tesselation was criticized.

BF3 is the best example of a game designed from the ground up with DX11 features to deliver the best experience. Alan Wake is a very good example of a console game's PC port done right.

BF3 DX 11
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/10/sapphire_hd_7970_oc_edition_video_card_review/7

BF3 2560 X 1600 ULTRA 4X MSAA
HD 7970 (950 Mhz) avg 40.0 fps min 27 fps
GTX 680 (1100 Mhz Turbo) avg 42.9 fps min 25 fps
A HD 7970 at 1050 - 1100 Mhz on stock voltage will get you GTX 680 perf.

HD 7970 OC ( (1280 Mhz) avg 50.7 fps min 34 fps.
the HD 7970 scales at 94% (40 x 1280 / 950 x 0.94 = 50.66). GTX 680 OC will just reach HD 7970 OC perf at 1.35 Ghz with 95% scaling (42.9 x 1.35 / 1.1 x 0.95= 50.7) . Speeds above 1.35 Ghz are rare even on specially binned 680 OC models.

Alan Wake DX 9
http://translate.googleusercontent....e.html&usg=ALkJrhjtNGcZfn4ldRNpISAJKIuG2lZ6YA

Alan Wake at 1080p max settings is 30% faster on HD 7970 (925 Mhz).

Crysis 2 DX 11
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect1
HD 7970 (925 Mhz) is 9% faster than GTX 680. HD 7970 (1150 Mhz) is 20% faster than GTX 680 (1186 / 1277 boost)

Anno 2070 DX 11
http://translate.googleusercontent....0.html&usg=ALkJrhhlkIcMPq5Kj-lxwZS99YZd_N7KTA

At 1080p max settings HD 7970 (925 Mhz) is 6% faster and at 2560 x 1600 very high settings its a tie.

Witcher 2 DX 9
http://www./forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/52616-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review-21.html

HD 7970 (925 Mhz is faster than GTX 680 (1100 Turbo) by 5% at 2560 x 1600, Ultra , AA Enabled.

Total War Shogun 2 DX11
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680_13.html#sect0
GTX 680 is 14% faster over HD 7970 (925 Mhz) . GTX 680 (1186 / 1277 boost) is 5% faster over HD 7970 (1150 Mhz)

Of the above 6 games the HD 7970 OC will tie the GTX 680 OC in BF3 and clearly win (by > 10% ) Alan Wake, Crysis 2, Anno 2070, Witcher 2. The GTX 680 OC wins Shogun 2

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-680-review/18

As far as Metro 2033 (DOF with AAA) is concerned it is a clear indication of GTX 680 performance when bandwidth is constrained. The GTX 680's performance scaling is <20% wrt GTX 580. To top it all this is a game which the GTX 580 was clearly leading over the HD 6970 by 17%.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-7970-overclock-guide/15

The fact becomes even more clear when the HD 7970 at 1125 Mhz is 66% faster than HD 6970 and 25% faster than GTX 680.

The HD 7970 is a beast of a card. At 1250+ Mhz it can play the most demanding games like BF3, Crysis 2, Alan Wake, Witcher 2 at 2560 X 1600 maxed out. The HD 7970's power draw disadvantage is negated by the fact that the HD 7970 will provide maximum performance without being bandwidth constrained like GTX 680 in games like Metro 2033.

AMD's problems arise with multi GPU performance especially Tri fire. Nvidia's use of frame metering seems to provide good solution to micro stuttering. This is an area where Nvidia leads AMD. AMD need to improve the robustness of Crossfire.

But as a single GPU its formidable. So please stop posting lies :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
raghu78 said:
In fact the latest drivers have butchered GTX 680 performance and it lies pathetically behind HD 7970

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/radeon-hd-7970-crossfirex_8.html#sect0
nVidia Forceware 301.24

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/geforce-gtx-690_8.html#sect0
nVidia Forceware 301.33

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/...eview-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/8
nVidia Forceware 301.33

So much for flawless Nvidia drivers :p
Click to expand...

interesting..and stressfull games above post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top