NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 Review: Retaking The Performance Crown
by Ryan Smith on March 22, 2012 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
Once again we have reached the end of another GPU launch article and once again we have a lot of data to digest, so let’s get to it.
For the last few generations AMD has always put up a good fight and always managed to spoil NVIDIA in some manner, be it by beating NVIDIA to market by months like we saw with the 5000 series, or significantly undercutting NVIDIA and forcing them into a bloody price war as we saw with the 4000 series. This time AMD once again spoiled NVIDIA by releasing the Radeon HD 7970 nearly 3 months early, but as always, at the end of the day it’s NVIDIA who once again takes the performance crown for the highest performing single-GPU card.
What makes this launch particularly interesting if not amusing though is how we’ve ended up here. Since Cypress and Fermi NVIDIA and AMD have effectively swapped positions. It’s now AMD who has produced a higher TDP video card that is strong in both compute and gaming, while NVIDIA has produced the lower TDP and weaker compute part that is similar to the Radeon HD 5870 right down to the display outputs. In some sense it’s a reaction by both companies to what they think the other did well in the last generation, but it’s also evidence of the fact that AMD and NVIDIA’s architectures are slowly becoming more similar.
In any case, this has ended up being a launch not quite like any other. With GTX 280, GTX 480, and GTX 580 we discussed how thanks to NVIDIA’s big die strategy they had superior performance, but also higher power consumption and a higher cost. To that extent this is a very different launch – the GTX 680 is faster, less power hungry, and quieter than the Radeon HD 7970. NVIDIA has landed the technical trifecta, and to top it off they’ve priced it comfortably below the competition.
Looking at the bigger picture, I think ultimately we still haven’t moved very far on the price/performance curve compared to where we’ve gone in past generations, and on that basis this is one of the smaller generational jumps we've seen for a GTX x80 product, or for that matter one of the smaller leads NVIDIA has had over AMD's top card. But even with NVIDIA’s conservative pricing we’re finally seeing 28nm translate into more performance for less, which of course is really what we're interested in. To that end, based on GK104’s die size I’m left wondering where GTX 680 is going to be sitting by the end of the year as 28nm production improves, as there’s clearly a lot of potential for price cuts in the future.
But in the meantime, in the here and now, this is by far the easiest recommendation we’ve been able to make for an NVIDIA flagship video card. NVIDIA’s drive for efficiency has paid off handsomely, and as a result they have once again captured the single-GPU performance crown.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
404 Comments
View All Comments
jospoortvliet - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Seeing on other sites, the AMD does overclock better than the NVIDIA card - and the difference in power usage in every day scenario's is that NVIDIA uses a few more watts in idle and a few less under load.I'd agree with my dutch hardware.info site which concludes that the two cards are incredibly close and that price should determine what you'd buy.
A quick look shows that at least in NL, the AMD is about 50 bucks cheaper so unless NVIDIA lowers their price, the 7970 continues to be the better buy.
Obviously, AMD has higher costs with the bigger die so NVIDIA should have higher margins. If only they weren't so late to market...
Let's see what the 7990 and NVIDIA's answer to that will do; and what the 8000 and 700 series will do and when they will be released. NVIDIA will have to make sure they don't lag behind AMD anymore, this is hurting them...
theartdude - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Late to market? with Battlefield DLC, Diablo III, MechWarrier Online (and many more titles approaching), this is the PERFECT TIME for an upgrade, btw, my computer is begging for an upgrade right now, just in time for summer-time LAN parties.CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - link
GTX680 overclocks to 1,280 out of the box for an average easy attempt...http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
See the feedback bro.
7970 makes it to 1200 if it's very lucky.
Sorry, another lie is 7970 oc's better.
CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - link
So you're telling me the LIGHTNING amd card is cheaper ? LOLFurther, if you don't get that exact model you won't get the overclocks, and they got a pathetic 100 on the nvidia, which noobs surpass regularly, then they used 2dmark 11 which has amd tessellation driver cheating active.... (apparently they are clueless there as well).
Furthermore, they declared the Nvidia card 10% faster overall- well worth the 50 bucks difference for your generic AMD card no Overclocked LIghtning further overclocked with the special vrm's onboard and much more expensive... then not game tested but benched in amd cheater ware 3dmark 11 tess cheat.
Reaper_17 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
i agree,blanarahul - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - link
Mr. AMD Fan Boy then you should compare how was AMD doing it since since the HD 5000 Series.6970= 880 MHz
GTX 580=772 MHz
Is it a fair comparison?
GTX 480=702 MHz
HD 5870=850 Mhz
Is it a fair compaison?
According to your argument the NVIDIA cards were at a disadvantage since the AMD cards were always clocked higher. But still the NVIDIA cards were better.
And now that NVIDIA has taken the lead in clock speeds you are crying like a baby that NVIDIA built a souped up overclocked GK104.
First check the facts. Plus the HD 8000 series aren't gonna come so early.
CeriseCogburn - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
LOL+1
Tell 'em bro !
(fanboys and fairness don't mix)
Sabresiberian - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Yah, I agree here. Clearly, once again, your favorite game and the screen size (resolution) you run at are going to be important factors in making a wise choice.;)
Concillian - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
"... but he's correct. The 680 does dominate in nearly every situation and category."Except some of the most consistently and historically demanding games (Crysis Warhead and Metro 2033) it doesn't fare so well compared to the AMD designs. What does this mean if the PC gaming market ever breaks out of it's console port funk?
I suppose it's unlikely, but it indicates it handles easy loads well (loads that can often be handled by a lesser card,) but when it comes to the most demanding resolutions and games, it loses a lot of steam compared to the AMD offering, to the point where it goes from a >15% lead in games that don't need it (Portal 2, for example) to a 10-20% loss in Crysis Warhead at 2560x.
That it struggles in what are traditionally the most demanding games is worrisome, but, I suppose as long as developers continue pumping out the relatively easy to render console ports, it shouldn't pose any major issues.
Eugene86 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Yes, because people are really buying both the 7970 and GTX680 to play Crysis Warhead at 2560x.... :eyeroll:Nobody cares about old, unoptimized games like that. How about you take a look at the benchmarks that actually, realistically, matter. Look at the benches for Battlefield 3, which is a game that people are actually playing right now. The GTX680 kills the 7970 with about 35% higher frame rates, according to the benchmarks posted in this review.
THAT is what actually matters and that is why the GTX680 is a better card than the 7970.