NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Review: Ultra Expensive, Ultra Rare, Ultra Fast
by Ryan Smith on May 3, 2012 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
Traditionally dual-GPU cards have been a mixed bag. More often than not they have to sacrifice a significant amount of single-GPU performance in order to put two GPUs on a single card, and in the rare occasions where that tradeoff doesn’t happen there’s some other tradeoff such as a loud cooler or immense power consumption. NVIDIA told us that they could break this tradition and put two full GTX 680s on a single card, and that they could do that while making it quieter and less power consuming than a dual video card SLI setup. After going through our benchmarking process we can safely say that NVIDIA has met their goals.
From a gaming performance perspective we haven’t seen a dual-GPU card reach the performance of a pair of high-end cards in SLI/CF since the Radeon HD 4870X2 in 2008, so it’s quite refreshing to see someone get so close again 4 years later. The GTX 690 doesn’t quite reach the performance of the GTX 680 SLI, but it’s very, very close. Based on our benchmarks we’re looking at 95% of the performance of the GTX 680 SLI at 5760x1200 and 96% of the performance at 2560x1600. These are measurable differences, but only just. For all practical purposes the GTX 690 is a single card GTX 680 SLI – a single card GTX 680 SLI that consumes noticeably less power under load and is at least marginally quieter too.
With that said, this would typically be the part of the review where we would inject a well-placed recap of the potential downsides of multi-GPU technology; but in this case there’s really no need. Unlike the GTX 590 and unlike the GTX 295 NVIDIA is not making a performance tradeoff here compared to their single-GPU flagship card. When SLI works the GTX 690 is the fastest card out there, and when SLI doesn’t work the GTX 690 is still the fastest card out there. For the first time in a long time using a dual-GPU card doesn’t mean sacrificing single-GPU performance, and that’s a game changer.
At this point in time NVIDIA offers two different but compelling solutions for ultra-enthusiast performance; the GTX 690 and GTX 680 SLI, and they complement each other well. For most situations the GTX 690 is going to be the way to go thanks to its lower power consumption and lower noise levels, but for cases that need fully exhausting video cards the GTX 680 SLI can offer the same gaming performance at the same price. Unfortunately we’re going to have to put AMD out of the running here; as we’ve seen in games like Crysis and Metro the 7970 in Crossfire has a great deal of potential, but as it stands Crossfire is simply too broken overall to recommend.
The only real question I suppose is simply this: is the GTX 690 worthy of its $999 price tag? I don’t believe there’s any argument to be had with respect to whether the GTX 690 is worth getting over the GTX 680 SLI, as we’ve clearly answered that above. As a $999 card it doesn’t double the performance of the $499 GTX 680, but SLI has never offered quite that much of a performance boost. However at the same time SLI has almost always been good enough to justify the cost of another GPU if you must have performance better than what the fastest single GPU can provide, and this is one of those times.
Is $999 expensive? Absolutely. Is it worth it? If you’re gaming at 2560x1600 or 5760x1200, the GTX 690 is at least worth the consideration. You can certainly get by on less, but if you want 60fps or better and you want it with the same kind of ultra high quality single GPU cards can already deliver at 1920x1080, then you can’t do any better than the GTX 690.
Wrapping things up, there is one question left I feel like we still don’t have a good answer to: how much RAM a $999 card should have. NVIDIA went with a true equal for the GTX 680 SLI, right down to the 2GB of VRAM per GPU. Looking back at what happened to the Radeon HD 5970 and its 1GB of VRAM per GPU – we can’t even run our 5760x1200 benchmarks on it, let alone a couple of 2560x1600 benchmarks – I’m left uneasy. None of our benchmarks today seem to require more than 2GB of VRAM, but that much VRAM has been common in high-end cards since late 2010; the day will come when 2GB isn’t enough, and I'm left to wonder when. A GTX 690 with 4GB of VRAM per GPU would be practically future-proof, but with 2GB of VRAM NVIDIA is going to be cutting it close.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
200 Comments
View All Comments
Makaveli - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Some of us don't buy 16:9 monitors or TN panels!I want results at 1920x1200 and other 16:10 resolution you can shut up with your amd bias which you have no proof of other than your flawed logic.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Then you don't buy much. 1920x1200 is a very rare monitor.Parhel - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
1920x1200 was very common for several years. Until a few years ago, they were much more common than 1920x1080. I even have an old laptop that's 1920x1200. Looking at what's available to buy new, today, doesn't tell the whole story. Because people don't replace their monitors every day.Anandtech has always recommended spending up and getting a quality monitor. You see it in nearly every review. So, I think the readers here are more likely than the average guy on the street to own less common screens. I've had the same 2560x1600 monitor through 3 computers now, and I spent more on it than I've ever spent on any computer.
CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
Yes, you're all super premium monitor buyers, and moments ago you were hollering the videocards are way too expensive and you cannot possibly afford them unless you are an idiot with too much money.I love this place, the people are so wonderfully honest.
Makaveli - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
1920x1200 is only rare now. i've gone thru enough monitor to know what I like and cheap 16:9 TN panels are not if its that good enough for you then enjoy.As for your other comment about v-sync and 4xAA Guess what some of us don't care to have 8x AA and 16XAF running all the time.
I would rather play at 1200p at high settings with AA and AF off if it means playable fps and a enjoyable experience. This isn't [H] i'm not gonna spend $1000 on a Gpu so I can meet your approved settings for playing games dude. Get a clue!
CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
But you'll spend well over $400 for 11% more monitor pixels because "you'd rather".. "all of a sudden".LOL
Way to go, thanks for helping me.
anirudhs - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
No...I couldn't afford one but I very much wanted to buy one. It is much prettier than 16:9 for workstation purposes. New ones are being released all the time. You just have to pay more, but its worth it.CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
Oh, so someone who almost wants to be honest.So isn't it absolutely true a $500 videocard is much easier to buy when your monitor doesn't cost half that much let alone twice that much or $2,000 plus ?
You don't need to answer. We all know the truth.
Everyone in this thread would take a single videocard 680 or 7970 and a 1080P panel for under $200 before they'd buy a $450 1200P monitor and forfeit the 680 or 7970 for a $200 videocard instead.
It's absolutely clear, no matter the protestations.
In fact if they did otherwise, they would be so dumb, they would fit right in. Oh look at that, why maybe they are that foolish.
InsaneScientist - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
Oh? A little over a year ago, I had some money for an upgrade and I wanted to upgrade either my monitor or my video card.Now, I have (and play) Crysis, which can only now, just barely, be handled by a single card, so obviously I could have used the GPU upgrade (still can, for that matter). I also had a decent (though not great) 22" 1920x1200 monitor.
However, despite that, I chose to buy a new monitor, and bought a used 3008WFP (30" 2560x1600). I have not regretted that decision one bit, and that was a lot more money than your $200-300 upsell for 1920x1200
Now, admittedly, there were other factors that were a consideration, but even without those, I would have made the same decision. Putting money into a good monitor which I'll use ALL the time I'm on the computer vs. putting money into a good video card that I'll use some of the time is a no-brainer for me.
If all of my electronics were taken and I were starting from scratch, I'd get another 2560x1600 monitor before I even bought a video card. I'd suffer through the integrated IGP as long as I needed.
Now, that's my choice, and everyone's needs are different, so I wouldn't demand that you make the same decision I did, but, by the same token, you shouldn't be expecting everyone to be following the same needs that you have. ;)
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
You've jumped from 1920 to 2560 so who cares, not even close.In your case you got no video card. ROFL - further proving my point, and disproving everyone elses who screamed if you get this card you have another two grand for monitors as well - which everyone here knows isn't true.
I never demanded anyone follow any needs, let alone mine which are unknown to you despite your imaginary lifestyle readings, and obverse to the sudden flooding of monitor fanboys and the accompanying lies.