• 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.

GTX680 Rumour

Associate
Joined
19 Nov 2010
Posts
2,028
I just read a rumour claiming 30% increase in performance for the GTX680 over the outgoing 580. Mmmz, I know its only a rumour, but if it holds true then I find it a bit disappointing tbh. I was somehow expecting more...

Assuming that you're already the proud owner of a 570/580, will you pay top-dollar for an upgrade of 30%?
 
I probably would, seeing as I can still get very good money for my 580. That'd pay for a lot of it. 30% is actually quite a lot imo.

Edit, actually on second thought I'd probably just pick up a cheaper 580 at that point and SLI the place up.

Would be the smarter thing to do I guess.
 
Last edited:
Knowing nv they will probably be looking to double there transister count on the 28nm process for the top end single gpu card. Imo theres no way that equates to 30% performance increase. We should be seeing something along the lines of 70%. There could be a name or strategy change but nv always want the fastest card available on the market and i dont see this changing.
 
Last edited:
If it was a refresh of the same graphics core i.e. GTX480->GTX580 then yes about 30% would be normal but moving to a new generation core complete with a die shrink would be very unusual to see only 30% increase in performance - traditionally we'd see about 70% increase as mentioned above.
 
~70% Increase? NICE.

Fingers crossed. I NEED a single GPU setup to NAIL 120Hz minimums in BF3 Ultra.:cool:
 
I Imagine the difference will be at least greater than this:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/317?vs=305

70% isn't unreasonable, considering it is over twice the transistor density, hopefulyl a better architecture gleaned from experience and new techniques/designs and optimizations, and better clocks thanks to the better process and power efficiency/thermal behaviour. When you go down in process size you don't just pack more transistors in less area. You also reduce the number of electrons needed and the distance they need to travel.
 
Last edited:
50% seems a decent conservative amount to expect.Thats not what i would worry about i just dont want to see anything less than 2GB VRAM on these minimum.

hurrah for EVGA classified GTX 680 4GB :D
 
The drop from 40nm to 28nm is, proportionally, one of the biggest drops we've ever seen. Transistor density will increase by ~2.05x, and I'm expecting roughly double the transistor count in the top end GPUs from both sides. Since GPUs are inherently parallel devices, performance scales close to linearly with increased transistor count.

Barring major design failures, thermal problems, or issues with the 28nm manufacturing process at TSMC, I'm expecting a significant increase in performance this generation. Both AMD and Nvidia should see a near-doubling of raw rendering power in their top-end GPUs. I expect this will translate to somewhere in the region of 70-80% improvement in GPU limited games.

We won't know anything for a few months by the looks of things, but there is every reason to expect a big jump in performance. For me, AMD will be the more interesting to watch this time around: They're making a major revision to their architecture (as Nvidia did with Fermi last generation), and it will be interesting to see how well it works out. With a brand new design there's always the possibility for a great success (9700pro, 8800GTX), or for teething problems that aren't resolved until later iterations (FX5800, x1800xt, GTX480).
 
Personally I expect a doubling (100% increase) in performance between the two top end parts (GF vs GK), thanks to
1) the doubling of transistor counts = doubling of CMOS logic
2) reduced distance between transistors (electrons travel faster through the circuit)
3) lower energy requirements (less heat to dissipate... But there is a bit trade-off here given the frailty of smaller gate/drain/source thickness)
4) Improved architecture (ostensibly)

But NVIDIA could just as well try to produce more chips more cheaply this time (e.g. reducing the size of the chips for greater yield) which could sacrifice some of the gain that amounts to this 100%. Then again they made decide to be aggressive and not do that).

But pessimistically I'd expect no less than a 50% performance boost over GTX 580 for their top end part (GTX "680"). I imagine the monolithic GTX "690" (the leaked GK112) will be comfortably better than 100% faster than GTX 580.
 
Back
Top Bottom