Did NVIDIA Originally Intend to Call GTX 680 as GTX 670 Ti?

Dan2kx · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:09

Locky said:
Why is it?, it's how the cards where intended to perform.

Ok, so NVidia designed their cards to auto overclock beacuse it fools people into thinking that they are awesome?

Whereas AMD let the user overclock (if they want to)

at the same clocks, they are the same, essentially

reviews/reviewers dont reflect this

TheRealDeal · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:11

Locky said:
Why is it?, it's how the cards where intended to perform.

For people like us on overclockers its not good enough. We dont want to see a nvidia core which overclocks itself v a amd gpu which doesnt. I could go pick myself up a gtx680 and use the overclock tool to find that the results have not changed.

beejjacobs · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:12

Dan2kx said:
Ok, so NVidia designed their cards to auto overclock beacuse it fools people into thinking that they are awesome?

Whereas AMD let the user overclock (if they want to)

at the same clocks, they are the same, essentially

reviews/reviewers dont reflect this

Yes just like the i5 2500K. They shouldn't use Turbo Boost, or whatever it's called. Really?

Yes take OCing into account, but this is a different matter and counts as stock IMO - why? because it's how it works out of the box.

Locky · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:14

TheRealDeal said:
For people like us on overclockers its not good enough. We dont want to see a nvidia core which overclocks itself v a amd gpu which doesnt. I could go pick myself up a gtx680 and use the overclock tool to find that the results have not changed.

It's no different from the Intel Turbo mode, You can't really take it out on Nvidia, it's AMD's fault with the 7970 clocks, if should off been more.

It's AMD's fault nvidia re-badged the 670ti

BarBrawllin · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:16

if the specs changed so close to the end maybe this things gonna be unlockable?

Dan2kx · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:16

beejjacobs said:
Yes take OCing into account, but this is a different matter and counts as stock IMO - why? because it's how it works out of the box.

I disagree, i know i would like to see reviews with the overclocks included.

Out of the box the AMD cards can be overclocked easily with a little slider in the provided software, so its not difficult, its obvious why NVidia have done the auto overclocks... to influence peoples decision based on biased comparisons.

mmj_uk · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:17

Dan2kx said:
I agree totally, the reviewers are biased, lets be honest, anyone buying a £400+ card is going to know how to overclock it, and they will do what they can "for free", Yet they still compare nvidia "Stock", to AMD actual stock, which is just pointless IMO

Yet when comparing CPU's most sites compare a stock Bulldozer to a stock 2500K, which is doing the 2500K a huge injustice.

Reviewers can't know what clockspeeds all retail cards will run at stable, if all 7970's could run 1200mhz then it begs the question why didn't AMD release it at that? and why don't AMD release a BIOS tomorrow enabling 1200mhz operation?

beejjacobs · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:19

Dan2kx said:
I disagree, i know i would like to see reviews with the overclocks included.
Out of the box the AMD cards can be overclocked easily with a little slider in the provided software, so its not difficult, its obvious why NVidia have done the auto overclocks... to influence peoples decision.

I would like to see reviews with both cards OCd too.

Whether the card 'auto overclocks' or the card was just set at this frequency out of the box doesn't matter. That is the point. The fact that it changes people seem to have a problem with. It goes as fast as it can within a TDP bracket.

Locky · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:19

Dan2kx said:
I disagree, i know i would like to see reviews with the overclocks included.

Out of the box the AMD cards can be overclocked easily with a little slider in the provided software, so its not difficult, its obvious why NVidia have done the auto overclocks... to influence peoples decision based on biased comparisons.

Look's at sig, takes your opinion with a pinch of salt

Martini1991 · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:20

BarBrawllin said:
if the specs changed so close to the end maybe this things gonna be unlockable?

Why would it be?
They've used a different core.

Dan2kx · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:21

Locky said:
Look's at sig, takes your opinion with a pinch of salt

?

555BUK · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:30

NVidia had massive yield problems with the original GF100 Fermi. Hige die size and a brand new process caused them no end of delay, cost and supply shratages. What they should have done was release a smaller GPU / higher yield part first to test the water. That is exatly what they have done this time, but to be honnest, even NVidia must be surprised how everything come together. Massive GPU clock speeds, massive memory contoller performance, massive overall performance. If their GK104 part can beat AMD's top part, why not name it as a top part and cream in the porofit? It is what any business would do (I'm not saying I am happy about it).

So, GK104 was designed as a ~£250 part, but AMD's huge price hikes for the 7900's and their relatively poor performance has enabled NVidia to have it's cake and eat it.

Locky · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:33

555BUK said:
So, GK104 was designed as a ~£250 part, but AMD's huge price hikes for the 7900's and their relatively poor performance has enabled NVidia to have it's cake and eat it.

This tbh.

Rroff · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:34

Dan2kx said:
Ok, so NVidia designed their cards to auto overclock beacuse it fools people into thinking that they are awesome?

Whereas AMD let the user overclock (if they want to)

at the same clocks, they are the same, essentially

reviews/reviewers dont reflect this

Its far more intelligent than just ramping up the clocks tho, it attempts to balance performance, power/heat efficency as well using adaptive overclocking rather than just setting one clock speed for load and one for idle.

TheRealDeal · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:35

555BUK said:
NVidia had massive yield problems with the original GF100 Fermi. Hige die size and a brand new process caused them no end of delay, cost and supply shratages. What they should have done was release a smaller GPU / higher yield part first to test the water. That is exatly what they have done this time, but to be honnest, even NVidia must be surprised how everything come together. Massive GPU clock speeds, massive memory contoller performance, massive overall performance. If their GK104 part can beat AMD's top part, why not name it as a top part and cream in the porofit? It is what any business would do (I'm not saying I am happy about it).

So, GK104 was designed as a ~£250 part, but AMD's huge price hikes for the 7900's and their relatively poor performance has enabled NVidia to have it's cake and eat it.

I think you have to remember that the 7970 is not a huge gpu either. It has the performance to match the gtx680 and is a compute part. The gtx680 is pretty much just a gaming part.

BarBrawllin · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:50

Martini1991 said:
Why would it be?
They've used a different core.

im confused,So what will the REAL 680GTX be called? They gonna make that the new 780GTX? Then call the REAL 780GTX the 785GTX/780TI or something? Im just confused about whats happened to the real big daddy of them all now.

xsistor · 22 Mar 2012 at 21:56

Why is everyone making a big deal out of this as if it's new info? We've known for a lonh time now that the gk104 is between 560ti and 570 and that this 680 is a late revamp after seeing 7970 perform relatively poorly.

Gregster · 22 Mar 2012 at 22:03

xsistor said:
Why is everyone making a big deal out of this as if it's new info? We've known for a lonh time now that the gk104 is between 560ti and 570 and that this 680 is a late revamp after seeing 7970 perform relatively poorly.

I knew it was a card that was supposed to be mid range however they made a card that beats the 7970. It just shows you how poor the 7970 is, so this allowed them to charge 'top end' prices.

Blame AMD for under achieving and putting a high price on that.

windheaven · 22 Mar 2012 at 22:08

Gibbo said:
But then NV would have to drop price, so we all win.

Fact is a 2GB GTX 680 starts at £400. A 4GB card will be £100 more. An overclocked 4GB card even more.

So lets hope AMD react as a price war between NV and AMD is good for business as it makes the consumer buy.

Though I suspect the UK alone probably sold nearly 1000 cards today which is damn impressive.

that really breaks my heart.....

£500 for 4gb model...ouch

ALXAndy · 22 Mar 2012 at 22:17

gregster said:
I knew it was a card that was supposed to be mid range however they made a card that beats the 7970. It just shows you how poor the 7970 is, so this allowed them to charge 'top end' prices.

Blame AMD for under achieving and putting a high price on that.

What are you on?

Have you had your eyes closed all day?

The 680 does not beat the 7970. At all. Please please please stop spreading those lies. The 680 is not faster than the 7970. They are both right around dead level, and I am getting tired of brainwashed people coming out with such statements. And it doesn't show how poor the 7970 is, because it isn't faster.

First let's cover heat.

Then, let's look at some FAIR and unhampered benchmarks. Ones where the 680 is overclocked to over 1200mhz by the user, and where the 7970 is overclocked also.

7970 wins.

Oh look, 7970 wins again.

The last thing I want to accuse you off Greg is being stupid. I think you're a decent guy. But, I also think you have looked at one too many skewed review based on a card that overclocks the crap out of itself in order to "win". When put in context and a fair fight they are both identical. There is a few FPS in it depending on which game you run, but to say the 680 is faster is completely ridiculous.