GTX680 to arrive at the end of February!

[555BUK]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970/20.html

Techpowerup for AGES have both been Nvidia shills, and ridiculous, their comparisons mean NOTHING, according to that benchmark the 7970 IS faster than the 6990, flat out, are you saying the 6990 is no faster than a 6970.

You're using bogus results, when you quite simply add in a bunch of cpu limited games, and, this is great for techpowerup, disabled xfire in later reviews in the game AMD did best in earlier on when xfire worked fine, because they are guilty of that as well.

That single game (read specific circumstance) is clearly CPU limited, but as Starcraft2 still has a massive following it is a valid benchmark. Pleanty of people with 7970's will play it. Any idiot can pick one or two benchmarks to prove a point, but the informed tend to pick many more (TPU selected 15-20, at all resolutions). Even the HardOCP results shows that the GTX580 gives better minimun fps that the 7970. You can prove anything with a limited picture.

 

[555BUK]

So if big Kepler, the direct descendant of 580 is not 70% faster we can all agree its a failure...Ok?

No, we can agree that if it is only 25% faster than the 580, it will beat the 7970.

 

[MichaelM]

No, we can agree that if it is only 25% faster than the 580, it will beat the 7970.

So if its 26% faster then its a success?

 

[Stanners]

So if its 26% faster then its a success?

Are you just going to hang around anything Nvidia and give sarcastic ocmments?

 

[555BUK]

So if its 26% faster then its a success?

Depends on the specs. If Kepler turns out to be just a reworked GTX580 retaining the same shader count and 384bit memory bus, 20% will be okay. If however it is a 768 or 1024 shader monster, 20% will be very poor and 40 to 70% (dependent on shader count) will be expected. Price will also play a big part.

AMD increased the shader count of the 7970 by 30% over that of the 6970. The increased shaders, memory bandwidth, and "optimisations", give it a 30-40% performance hike over the old card. If we use the same formulae for NVidia, and assume a 50% increase in shaders, similar optimisations, and a 512bit memory bus, I would guess that >40% boost over the GTX580 would be reasonable.

My own opinion (which may or may not count for anything) is that Kepler's 768 shader part will be about 50% faster than the GTX580 at high resolutions and settings. Any more is a bonus, but it depends on pricing as well.

 

[MichaelM]

Are you just going to hang around anything Nvidia and give sarcastic ocmments?

Just seeing how people are going to judge it.

If it comes out with exactly the same gain as the 7970 did over the 6970 is it going to reverse peoples opinions?

If it gains less than the 7970 but just nudges it for the single GPU crown (at stock speeds) will it be hailed or hounded?

If it does not satisfy the 70% increase people demand of the 7970, will they deem it to also be a failure?

Are people too scared to voice their opinions today because they will be decided after the dust has settled and the positives of any situation can be found and spun?

 

[TheRealDeal]

Just seeing how people are going to judge it.

If it comes out with exactly the same gain as the 7970 did over the 6970 is it going to reverse peoples opinions?

If it gains less than the 7970 but just nudges it for the single GPU crown (at stock speeds) will it be hailed or hounded?

If it does not satisfy the 70% increase people demand of the 7970, will they deem it to also be a failure?

Are people too scared to voice their opinions today because they will be decided after the dust has settled and the positives of any situation can be found and spun?

Nvidia have something to aim it as they know what the 7970 has to offer at stock clocks. Imo this card will be slightly faster if they are gonna call it a gtx680 but we all know a 7970 is running no where near its actual potential out of the box. Its not gonna be anywhere near 70% faster than a gtx580 imo. I think nvidia will release this card with clocks that make it slightly faster than a 7970 and not much more.

I dont really care though as its the price/performance that matters to me and if its priced out of my reach like the 7970 is atm then it will not really matter much. I also think amd's pricing of the 7970 shows that they are not to worried about what nvidia have coming atm. If the price of the 7970 suddenly gets slashed by a decent amount then for me we know nvidia is coming with something thats gonna blow there 7970 out of the water.

It would not be the first time that nvidia had a rumour going around about cards being released for it to be just that a rumour. In the ops article it states the gtx680 will perform at the same kind of speed as the 7970.

 

[Wucked]

What a load of utter tripe... I struggle to believe anyone posting above has tried a multi GPU setup since about 2005/6 if they have at all.


(Granted there are some issues with BF3 and Black Ops but thats problems with those products and unrelated to multi GPU).

Yep, we're clearly going out of our way to deceive you. I mean, we haven't had the same awesome time with it that you have, and you've got loads of posts on the forum as well! So we must be lying! Amirite?

Well luckily my experiences with CF/SLI and the opinion I've formed from them aren't subject to your approval, or you might have really hurt my feelings.

Joking aside for a second I've actually always thought of CF/SLI as a great idea, its just that in practice its failed to live up to my expectations. But if the next time I try it I have an overwhelmingly positive experience I'll quite happily modify my opinion. Right now though I'm going to stick with a single GPU, and not feel bad about it at all.

 

[panyan]

If Kepler turns out to be just a reworked GTX580 retaining the same shader count and 384bit memory bus, 20% will be okay. If however it is a 768 or 1024 shader monster, 20% will be very poor and 40 to 70% (dependent on shader count) will be expected. Price will also play a big part.

+1

i agree with this

 

[Rroff]

Yep, we're clearly going out of our way to deceive you. I mean, we haven't had the same awesome time with it that you have, and you've got loads of posts on the forum as well! So we must be lying! Amirite?

Well luckily my experiences with CF/SLI and the opinion I've formed from them aren't subject to your approval, or you might have really hurt my feelings.

Joking aside for a second I've actually always thought of CF/SLI as a great idea, its just that in practice its failed to live up to my expectations. But if the next time I try it I have an overwhelmingly positive experience I'll quite happily modify my opinion. Right now though I'm going to stick with a single GPU, and not feel bad about it at all.

I may be being a tad arrogant here but I have enough experience with multi GPU that I feel I can pretty confidently say that it is not the broken technology some people try to make it out that it is and that far more often these comments stem from user error or people who can't afford multi GPU setups.

Granted its not the most perfect technology by a long way, back in the days of owning a 7950GX2 I had to use nHancer on pretty much every other new release game but thats a long time in the past. Its not plagued by microstutter - tho there are some cases of it, your not waiting for months for game support in general tho there may be the odd title that doesn't work so great, etc. etc.

 

[Colasanto]

Not read the thread, but does anyone know when we could expect a high end keplar to take reigns of best performing GPU?

I have an nvidia 3d vision kit, and using my GTX 480 is starting to show signs of slow playing arkham city in 3d with DX11 and CSAA

 

[Duff-Man]

Not read the thread, but does anyone know when we could expect a high end keplar to take reigns of best performing GPU?

That's the $64,000 question really...

One early chart suggested around Q4 2012, but other rumours since have suggested a couple of months after the GK104, which would imply June time. Fudzilla even posted that the GK110 (which is probably the high end Kepler) would arrive first.

So little to no solid info as of yet. That in itself leads me to suspect we won't see it any time soon.

 

[snake55]

The arrival of the gtx680 doesnt excite me to be honest, my gtx560Ti SLi setup is plenty to play battlefield3 on ultra settings @1080p without a stutter, why the need for any more power

 

[kitch9]

I'm a single GPU guy too, can't stand multi gpu issues.

 

[muon]

That single game (read specific circumstance) is clearly CPU limited, but as Starcraft2 still has a massive following it is a valid benchmark. Pleanty of people with 7970's will play it. Any idiot can pick one or two benchmarks to prove a point, but the informed tend to pick many more (TPU selected 15-20, at all resolutions). Even the HardOCP results shows that the GTX580 gives better minimun fps that the 7970. You can prove anything with a limited picture.

It's fairly stupid to look at all resolutions. If you want to close the gap even more, just use a VGA resolution where the CPU matters even more...

TPU have given all resolutions separately and you'd have to be stupid to look at the combined one.

Weighting resolutions equally is incorrect. 1024*768 is irrelevant and 1280*1024 is increasingly irrelevant.

CPU bound benchmarks like Starcraft doesn't rank card properly. Why would you use it in a GPU review? It's a game but we are trying to compare graphics cards performance. How about we compare sports cars on a 200m track where they can't stretch them? Let's benchmark The Sims?

 

[CinderzFTW]

The arrival of the gtx680 doesnt excite me to be honest, my gtx560Ti SLi setup is plenty to play battlefield3 on ultra settings @1080p without a stutter, why the need for any more power

because some people have that much money or they are people that have to have the latest hardware...

 

[Meaker]

So you can fit that power in more portable devices and so you can get the power out of one card and avoid SLi issues.

 

[trisp]

Reads threw whole thread and i have to admit atlot of the time ....

Crossed my mind many a time.

Plain and simple fact's are that the gtx 580 was the fastest single gpu card the 7970 has now taken its place at the top by about 10-20% (in most benchmarks).

People should stop arguing over random topics and linking pointless things which show a random figure rather then the whole article (and fully understanding what is happening in said article) and saying this proves its amazing or this proves its terrible.

Everyone like's debating and talking over which they think is best this round but some people just seem to be arguing over the same thing for pages and pages or come into thread's and talk S***!

O wait i am doing that right now *bang*

(but you get my point right? )

 

[Mario]

Reads threw whole thread and i have to admit atlot of the time ....

Plain and simple fact's are that the gtx 580 was the fastest single gpu card the 7970 has now taken its place at the top by about 10-20% (in most benchmarks).

People should stop arguing over random topics and linking pointless things which show a random figure rather then the whole article (and fully understanding what is happening in said article) and saying this proves its amazing or this proves its terrible.

Everyone like's debating and talking over which they think is best this round but some people just seem to be arguing over the same thing for pages and pages or come into thread's and talk S***!

O wait i am doing that right now *bang*

(but you get my point right? )

+1

"Plain and simple fact's are that the gtx 580 was the fastest single gpu card the 7970 has now taken its place at the top by about 10-20% (in most benchmarks)." - tel about those % to drunkemaster,he will crucify you for that

 

[555BUK]

It's fairly stupid to look at all resolutions. If you want to close the gap even more, just use a VGA resolution where the CPU matters even more...

TPU have given all resolutions separately and you'd have to be stupid to look at the combined one.

Weighting resolutions equally is incorrect. 1024*768 is irrelevant and 1280*1024 is increasingly irrelevant.

CPU bound benchmarks like Starcraft doesn't rank card properly. Why would you use it in a GPU review? It's a game but we are trying to compare graphics cards performance. How about we compare sports cars on a 200m track where they can't stretch them? Let's benchmark The Sims?

I agree that VGA would be a useless comparison, but far more people game within the 1280x1024 to 1920x1200 range than game at 2560x1600. Even ruling out all other resolutions and just looking at 2560x1600, the 7970 is still less than 20% faster than the 1.5GB GTX580 when averaged accross the 20 or so games TPU tested. Sure, not all games are as intensive as others, but even ones such as Metro 2033 and BF3 only show 20% increases for the 7970 at 2560x1600. Few people buy a graphics card just to play one game. I spend more time playing TF2 than any other game, but I still like to have a fast'ish card.