• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

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

ancientmariner said:
@AXLAndy

You might want to try reading my post, I am suggesting you wait until each card has had a chance to breathe before "declaring a winner" as that is obviously a massive thing for you. I am not having a go but you seem to be on an ANTI 680 campaign for weeks and the point i am making is give the card a month for some decent driver updates before making up your mind.
Click to expand...

Read mine. That's what I have been saying all day mate.

Yet some just can't help getting carried away and declaring the 680 a faster card.
 
Assuming kepler was intended to be a mid range part, this really means is that if cards sell at current prices NVIDIA is going to make a KILLING. It also means that there is plenty of room further down the line for prices to fall.
 
Final8y said:
Anyway both bad value for money in regards to other people and i have no real interest in any of them.
Click to expand...

+1. Thats why I am complaining about the 670 Ti > 680 rebadge due to AMD's poor performance and ridiculous pricing on the 7970.

I would have been able to buy a pair of GTX 670 Tis right now for around £500 with absolutely stonking performance, but thanks to how underwhelming the 7970 was, and Nvidia being able to charge so much higher for the GK104, I cant do that from either AMD or Nvidia.

Or with the current performances:

7950 should be £225-£240
GTX 680 £240-£280
7970 £300-£330.

Anything more / the current prices are terrible value for a new generation of cards, especially more when lower nm processes are meant to reduce manufacturing costs.
 
Last edited:
Im sure AMD could release a driver that just forces overdrive on 79xx cards. Then all of a sudden do the 79xx cards seem better ?

Im an nvidia user but im with andy on this. Its a clever driver trick which has fooled a lot of people (including reviewers)

When both cards are at their max stable overclock on air, performance is very similar. If you are a noob and dont know how to overclock then yes the 680 is clearly a faster card. The points about lower power draw, adaptive vsync etc however are all still valid and sound like good advances to me.
 
The GPU boost is more than just a clever trick, it automatically allows the GPU to run to its maximum potential without having to OC it manually.

You cant blame Nvidia for AMDs decision to have clocked the 7970 so much lower than it is capable of in the first place. Overclocking results are never guaranteed, however Nvidias GPU boost apparently has the GTX 680 running up to 1200 mhz completely safe, stable and covered by the warranty.

100% of GTX 680s will be capable of the same out of the box automatic GPU boost. Not all 7970s may be fully capable of even reaching 1100 Mhz.

AMD could easily simply release a new version of the 7970 with a 100% guaranteed out of the box clock of 1200 Mhz if they wanted to counter this, theres nothing stopping them from doing this other than yields of potential chips that can clock that high. I dont believe that 100% of 7970s can even reach 1100 Mhz, there are bound to be many that cant. You wont have that problem with the GTX 680 however.
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
+1. Thats why I am complaining about the 670 Ti > 680 rebadge due to AMD's poor performance and ridiculous pricing on the 7970.

I would have been able to buy a pair of GTX 670 Tis right now for around £500 with absolutely stonking performance, but thanks to how underwhelming the 7970 was, and Nvidia being able to charge so much higher for the GK104, I cant do that from either AMD or Nvidia.

Or with the current performances:

7950 should be £225-£240
GTX 680 £240-£280
7970 £300-£330.

Anything more / the current prices are terrible value for a new generation of cards, especially more when lower nm processes are meant to reduce manufacturing costs.
Click to expand...
The 7970 is not underwelming in performance, but more about being WAY overpriced and should be at the price range you suggested.

Regardless of the 7870 being on a different architecture, performance wise it is pretty much "rebranding" of 6970 at the same price point as last year :mad: Because of AMD insisting of forcing last year performance at last year's price upon the customers, we are now seeing the mess up pricing of 7970 and GTX680 (originally GTX670) being pushed up in price from around the £300 that they should be at all the way up to £400.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
The 7970 is not underwelming in performance, but more about being WAY overpriced and should be at the price range you suggested.
Click to expand...

Well, if it is:

A) Overpriced for its performance

Then it is also:

B) Performing less than it should be for its price.

So it is underwhelming at around £450, but it wouldnt be if priced £100 less.

If prices are meant to go up due to comparative performance to the previous 1+ year old generation, then the next generation of cards should cost £600. The ones after that £800, the ones after that £1000, then the next ones £1200.

Prices would only ever increase, and never decrease with the mentality of 'Our new product is significantly better than a 1 year old product, therefore we will price it higher and people will still buy it'.
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
Well, if it is:

A) Overpriced for its performance

Then it is also:

B) Performing less than it should be for its price.

So it is underwhelming at around £450, but it wouldnt be if priced £100 less.

If prices are meant to go up due to comparative performance to the previous 1+ year old generation, then the next generation of cards should cost £600. The ones after that £800, the ones after that £1000, then the next ones £1200.

Prices would only ever increase, and never decrease with the mentality of 'Our new product is significantly better than a 1 year old product, therefore we will price it higher and people will still buy it'.
Click to expand...
You are basically making the same point I'm making...did you not read the 2nd part of my post?

Anyway, the GTX680 (GTX670) and the 7970 should really be at the same launch price as the GTX570 and 6970, not at over £100 more higher in price.
 
I see some people moaning about the fact the card "auto-overclocks" itself.....like its cheating.....if you look at it another way,the overclock speed it hits is actualy the real stock clock,when the clocks are lower its just in power saving mode.

Saying its "overclocking" itself is just falling for a marketing gimmick because its clearly stable at the so called "overclock" it acheives just like any i5/i7 is stable at its turbo-boost clocks.......its all just a marketing gimmick it's really just a way of reducing power consumption,they could have released those i5/i7 CPU's clocked @ the turbo-boost clocks by default and just got rid of the lower standard clockrate and they would run just fine and still have plenty of overclocking room and im willing to bet its probobly the same with the 680 GTX.

Seems some people fell for the marketing gimmick and then used that and their stupidity as an arguement about fairness in comparisons. Am i missing something out here?
 
BarBrawllin said:
I see some people moaning about the fact the card "auto-overclocks" itself.....like its cheating.....if you look at it another way,the overclock speed it hits is actualy the real stock clock,when the clocks are lower its just in power saving mode.

Saying its "overclocking" itself is just falling for a marketing gimmick because its clearly stable at the so called "overclock" it acheives just like any i5/i7 is stable at its turbo-boost clocks.......its all just a marketing gimmick it's really just a way of reducing power consumption,they could have released those i5/i7 CPU's clocked @ the turbo-boost clocks by default and just got rid of the lower standard clockrate and they would run just fine and still have plenty of overclocking room and im willing to bet its probobly the same with the 680 GTX.

Seems some people fell for the marketing gimmick and then used that and their stupidity as an arguement about fairness in comparisons. Am i missing something out here?
Click to expand...

+1
 
BarBrawllin said:
I see some people moaning about the fact the card "auto-overclocks" itself.....like its cheating.....if you look at it another way,the overclock speed it hits is actualy the real stock clock,when the clocks are lower its just in power saving mode.

Saying its "overclocking" itself is just falling for a marketing gimmick because its clearly stable at the so called "overclock" it acheives just like any i5/i7 is stable at its turbo-boost clocks.......its all just a marketing gimmick it's really just a way of reducing power consumption,they could have released those i5/i7 CPU's clocked @ the turbo-boost clocks by default and just got rid of the lower standard clockrate and they would run just fine and still have plenty of overclocking room and im willing to bet its probobly the same with the 680 GTX.

Seems some people fell for the marketing gimmick and then used that and their stupidity as an arguement about fairness in comparisons. Am i missing something out here?
Click to expand...

So just over 100mhz true overclocking headroom is OK with you then? because the card barely passes 1200mhz before crapping out.

So your bet is off, and like many it seems you didn't actually read the reviews very well, just skimming over them before coming to your conclusions.

BTW. Please stop bringing I7 turbo into this.

The fact is it impedes your overclock, so you have to disable it. And if you couldn't disable it it would be a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom