**NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 680 NOW IN STOCK & AVAILABLE!!**

[Sin_Chase]

Mate I am pleased you got the EVGA. I was reading your concerns and hoping you also got one.

My EVGA has been shipped woooooot Roll on tomorrow and let the fun begin.

I was |-| close to phoning up and changing to another brand as I was almost positive the Hold screwed me over.

 

[ALXAndy]

So someone buying something that overclocks itself to the same level as something that you have to overclock yourself is a noob and a brainwashed Apple fan? Do you realise how stupid you sound?

If it was possible to manually overclock part A a fair performance amount beyond part B and it was the direct result of having manual control then you may have a point.

As it is, you can do the work yourself and gain nothing extra, or not.

Firstly you've taken what I said out of context again.

I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you as I CBA. Usually what happens is I waste my time explaining it, it sinks in and then they go rather quiet. TBH I'm quite frankly sick of trying to explain things to people that they clearly don't get so I'm not going to waste my time any more. There's no satisfaction in making some one understand something.

Secondly I am completely uninterested in this sorcery Nvidia are pulling off and FAR MORE interested in what the card can ACTUALLY DO without using the spazzy auto overclocking.

IE - real overclocks and real results.

Which you don't seem to be able to quite understand. So, as I continually point out I will reserve judgement until I see what the card can ACTUALLY DO against an overclocked 7970.

That doesn't make me aggressive, it doesn't make me stupid, and it doesn't make you any less or more capable of being able to grasp context.

 

[TAC4U]

I have yet to see a single case of some one not being able to reach 1125mhz at a "stock" voltage of 1100 or 1174mv.

Which is irrelevant IF the 680 can clock to the same or higher. You ignored the main point which is that the 680 perform better at stock and hasn't been shown to be a worse overclocker - the reviews so far put it at about 1.2, which is higher. Again, we simply don't know and I'm not trying to claim the 680 is a better overclocker - review cards are often specially tailored.

If you are happy that your card overclocks itself so you don't have to? that's excellent ! I'm glad that you are happy. However, this is the world of PC components, where anything automatic like that is usually considered stupid. You know? only brainwashed Apple fans like things that take care of it all for them.

Sadly it is true that most don't have a clue what they are doing. And, as I have also said elsewhere this is fantastic for your noob as it stops him blowing up his card However, to some one with a reasonable level of understanding it's rather insulting.

Look, you need to take a step back and be objective here. You have just stated that the 680 is "fantastic for your noob" and only people that are "brainwashed" would like the turbo boost feature. Your posts are becoming every more fanatical as you try to expose the "truth".

The 680 is a great card, just like the 7970. It's also expensive. The turbo boost feature could potentially be used to abuse benchmarking but at the same time improves performance and power efficiency. Overall the 680 is slightly faster.

 

[Freakbro]

The new ad breaks the sizing when browsing on a mobile device, it's too wide

Yea, who ever broke the forum with that gtx680 banner, can they fix it please

 

[MrH]

Bit more expensive than I was expecting, hopefully they'll come down in price before I build my new rig next month.

 

[B1gbeard]

Firstly you've taken what I said out of context again.

I'm not going to sit here and explain it to you as I CBA. Usually what happens is I waste my time explaining it, it sinks in and then they go rather quiet. TBH I'm quite frankly sick of trying to explain things to people that they clearly don't get so I'm not going to waste my time any more. There's no satisfaction in making some one understand something.

Secondly I am completely uninterested in this sorcery Nvidia are pulling off and FAR MORE interested in what the card can ACTUALLY DO without using the spazzy auto overclocking.

IE - real overclocks and real results.

Which you don't seem to be able to quite understand. So, as I continually point out I will reserve judgement until I see what the card can ACTUALLY DO against an overclocked 7970.

That doesn't make me aggressive, it doesn't make me stupid, and it doesn't make you any less or more capable of being able to grasp context.

Ah you've broken out the "you don't get it" card. It's the classic response when something isn't going someone's way and a bit earlier than expected. I'm quite comfortable with my IQ and doubt there is anything you could explain to me that I couldn't grasp.

Your argument is that there is something somehow dirty and wrong because Nvidia are doing something for you that the purer AMD are not. Ultimately it doesn't matter as the "REAL" results will probably turn out to be pretty like for like.

 

[ALXAndy]

Which is irrelevant IF the 680 can clock to the same or higher. You ignored the main point which is that the 680 perform better at stock and hasn't been shown to be a worse overclocker - the reviews so far put it at about 1.2, which is higher. Again, we simply don't know and I'm not trying to claim the 680 is a better overclocker - review cards are often specially tailored.


Look, you need to take a step back and be objective here. You have just stated that the 680 is "fantastic for your noob" and only people that are "brainwashed" would like the turbo boost feature. Your posts are becoming every more fanatical as you try to expose the "truth".

The 680 is a great card, just like the 7970. It's also expensive. The turbo boost feature could potentially be used to abuse benchmarking but at the same time improves performance and power efficiency. Overall the 680 is slightly faster.

Stop reading too much into what I said and taking things so literally. It's text on a screen. Reading INTO that text? yes, you will come up with conclusions.

If you think I am fanatical because I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? fine.

Going on what has happened so far with Kepler it has been less than what I consider to be truthful.

Firstly it was a mid ranged part, now Nvidia flat out deny that and so does Gibbo. However, looking at the card and its miserable paper specs it definitely IS a mid ranged card. If it was their high end part why on earth would they outdate it in less than six month's time?

Then we have had the loaded benchmarks, now we get a card that automatically overclocks itself, then a bunch of people and reviewer saying things like -

Nvidia has a clear winner !

So yeah, maybe I am a bit too suspicious, but at least I don't mug myself off by jumping on the sheep bandwagon and making outrageous claims that could well turn out to be false once we get to the truth.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Which is irrelevant IF the 680 can clock to the same or higher. You ignored the main point which is that the 680 perform better at stock and hasn't been shown to be a worse overclocker - the reviews so far put it at about 1.2, which is higher. Again, we simply don't know and I'm not trying to claim the 680 is a better overclocker - review cards are often specially tailored.


Look, you need to take a step back and be objective here. You have just stated that the 680 is "fantastic for your noob" and only people that are "brainwashed" would like the turbo boost feature. Your posts are becoming every more fanatical as you try to expose the "truth".

The 680 is a great card, just like the 7970. It's also expensive. The turbo boost feature could potentially be used to abuse benchmarking but at the same time improves performance and power efficiency. Overall the 680 is slightly faster.

The reviews dont show it as a better clocker as you can set the card to what you want but its the card that decides the clock speed.

 

[Gregster]

I was |-| close to phoning up and changing to another brand as I was almost positive the Hold screwed me over.

Lol. I was in Paytalks with Management and at around 13:09 I ordered mine whilst one of my other reps was in deep discussions about pensions.

I thought something was wrong because after pressing confirm order, the phone just stayed with the spinning icon for about 5 mins. I have absoloutely no idea what the heck is happening in the pensions now though . Guess I will ask my colleague tomorrow.

 

[XeNoN89]

Not everyone on these forums is a skint student.
Some of them even bought the 79xx cards as stop gap until the green response.
A fool and his money as the old saying goes.

Ludicrous I agree, but the mentality of some enthusiasts goes beyond rational thought.

I wish everybody was a skint student so nobody would pay these insane prices and we could all get this stuff cheaper

 

[TAC4U]

The reviews dont show it as a better clocker as you can set the card to what you want but its the card that decides the clock speed.

I was basing it upon one review that covered it in minimal depth (just showed Crysis 2). We will have to see how it works in practice. And I do find it unusual that most reviews don't mention how well they overclock, which could suggest more limited headroom.

If you think I am fanatical because I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? fine.

Going on what has happened so far with Kepler it has been less than what I consider to be truthful.

Firstly it was a mid ranged part, now Nvidia flat out deny that and so does Gibbo. However, looking at the card and its miserable paper specs it definitely IS a mid ranged card. If it was their high end part why on earth would they outdate it in less than six month's time?

All of that is irrelevant. It's still faster, on average, than AMD's top-end card.

Then we have had the loaded benchmarks, now we get a card that automatically overclocks itself, then a bunch of people and reviewer saying things like -

Nvidia has a clear winner !

Last time I checked people want cards that perform better. And yes, there certainly is cause for criticism if nVidia is tweaking the turbo to benchmark better in certain titles. We're all aware of the dodgy moves nVidia has pulled in the past, especially with regards to PhysX. But you seem to be attacking everybody that posts anything positive about the 680, which takes it from exposing the "truth" to evangelical fanaticism.

once we get to the truth.[/B]

And here we go again, calling people that like the 680 "sheep". You're not simply countering inaccuracies - you're insult everybody with an opinion different to your. THAT is what people have a problem with. It's become an obsession for you.

 

[ALXAndy]

All of that is irrelevant. It's still faster, on average, than AMD's top-end card.

How can you say that, though? Do you have solid and conclusive evidence?

Because I have found two sites that are a little more in depth than some others and both say that there's nothing in it. IE - both cards perform bang on even when on a level playing field and thus one is not better than the other.

Yet, you are saying that the 680 IS faster.

It's this sort of thing that has aroused my suspicions, and rightly so. To claim such a thing within hours of the card launching is a bit brave. Me? I am not that brave. I want to see conclusive even evidence. If the 680 comes out faster in every scenario? awesome ! I will have no problem then considering it a worthy winner.

But, I am not prepared to accept that based on a card that overclocks itself, slows down two side monitors to improve FPS on the middle screen and soon. Not yet. Not until it has been put forward with concrete evidence.

The reason I feel that way is because IMO computer parts are based on what they can do. What they can really do.

Not what they may do out of the box. So for all I know when both are heavily overclocked to their performance limit the 680 may even beat the 7970 even more conclusively than it does already. If so? great ! that is the sort of thing I wanted to know. Not what a card that dynamically overclocks itself to butter up scores whilst the other one sits there at the same speed.

And I think I am being reasonable and fair enough. I've already said that so far from what I have seen from the 680 that I think it's a fantastic GPU. However, I am also suspicious that things may well change when the 7970 is pushed harder.

No one buys a 7950 based on "out of the box" performance, do they? no. They buy one because if you overclock it it performs as well as a 7970 and costs considerably less.

Hopefully now you can understand where I am coming from.

 

[bhavv]

People seem to be unaware that the GK104 was meant to be Nvidias mid range card this generation, hence why its only a 256 bit card.

The 7970 underperformed so much that Nvidia got to release their mid range card which trumps everything else as a high end model instead, and can delay the 384 and 512 bit cards they had planned until the next gen.

AMD have lost this round, even if they pull something out thats a bit faster than the current stuff, Nvidia have this new gen fully capable up to 512 bit models with tonnes more stream processors that will trump anything AMD can release for this generation.

And thanks to AMD's pricing, what was meant to have been a <£250 card from Nvidia is now £400+.

 

[ALXAndy]

And thanks to AMD's pricing, what was meant to have been a <£250 card from Nvidia is now £400+.

So AMD got the blame for price matching Nvidia with their faster 28nm cards, and now they are getting the blame for the price of the 680.

I love it.

 

[bhavv]

The 7950 / 7970 were never price matched to Nvidia, they were simply priced higher than they should have been because the beat an older generation. Nvidia had no competing products available at the time of the 7970s launch for it to be price matched to.

A new gen card beating an old gen one doesnt give it any reason to be priced £100 higher than it deserved to be. The 7970 should have been priced at £300, which would have bought on the usual price cuts on the older generation.

 

[ALXAndy]

The 7950 / 7970 were never price matched to Nvidia, they were simply priced higher than they should have been because the beat an older generation. Nvidia had no competing products available at the time of the 7970s launch for it to be price matched to.

3GB 580 £440. 3GB 7970 £440 at release. 7970 was faster.

1.5gGB 580 £380. Quelle surprise 3GB 7950 £380 at release, 7950 is faster.

OK?

 

[TheRealDeal]

People seem to be unaware that the GK104 was meant to be Nvidias mid range card this generation, hence why its only a 256 bit card.

The 7970 underperformed so much that Nvidia got to release their mid range card which trumps everything else as a high end model instead, and can delay the 384 and 512 bit cards they had planned until the next gen.

AMD have lost this round, even if they pull something out thats a bit faster than the current stuff, Nvidia have this new gen fully capable up to 512 bit models with tonnes more stream processors that will trump anything AMD can release for this generation.

And thanks to AMD's pricing, what was meant to have been a <£250 card from Nvidia is now £400+.

It was meant to be the mid range at the end of the year which this clearly is not. Its been rumoured and speculated that gk112 was always meant to be released late this year. Do you not think amd will have something in the works to release around that time. Its not there mid range its simply the fastest gpu that nvidia have to offer at this point in time.

 

[bhavv]

3GB 580 £440. 3GB 7970 £440 at release. 7970 was faster.

1.5gGB 580 £380. Quelle surprise 3GB 7950 £380 at release, 7950 is faster.

OK?

Comparing a new gen to an old gen is pathetic, ok?

How much did the 4870, 4890, and 5850 cost again on release for high end cards?

 

[Marine-RX179]

So AMD got the blame for price matching Nvidia with their faster 28nm cards, and now they are getting the blame for the price of the 680.

I love it.

Nope...AMD deserve the blame because they think they can enter "last year" graphic card battle with graphic cards that are launched over a year later, and with a price to match. It is like someone showing up a year later try to steal the champion title from the winner despite the competition has already finished over a year ago. If they want the champion title, they should be competing against the rival in the new competition, not one that already concluded.

 

[ALXAndy]

Comparing a new gen to an old gen is pathetic, ok?

How so? Price and performance are what lead to pricing. So AMD simply priced their cards accordingly.