NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Review: Ultra Expensive, Ultra Rare, Ultra Fast
by Ryan Smith on May 3, 2012 9:00 AM ESTCrysis: Warhead
Kicking things off as always is Crysis: Warhead. It’s no longer the toughest game in our benchmark suite, but it’s still a technically complex game that has proven to be a very consistent benchmark. Thus even four years since the release of the original Crysis, “but can it run Crysis?” is still an important question, and the answer when it comes to setups using a pair of high-end 28nm GPUs is “you better damn well believe it.”
Crysis was a game that Kepler didn’t improve upon by a great deal compared to the Fermi based GTX 580. NVIDIA sees some good SLI scaling here, but AMD’s performance lead with a single GPU translates into an equally impressive lead with multiple GPUs; in spite of all of its capabilities the GTX 690 trails the 7970CF by 18% here. So long as AMD gets good Crossfire scaling here, there’s just no opening for Kepler to win, allowing AMD to handily trounce the GTX 690 here.
As for the intra-NVIDIA comparisons, the GTX 690 does well for itself here. Performance relative to the GTX 680 SLI at 2560 is 98%, which represents a 77% lead over the GTX 680. Overall performance is quite solid; at 55.7fps we’re nearly to 60fps on Enthusiast quality at 2560 with 4x MSAA, which is the holy grail for a video card. Even 5760 is over 60fps, albeit at lower quality settings and without AA.
It’s taken nearly 4 years, but we’re almost there; Crysis at maximum on a single video card.
Our minimum framerates are much the same story for NVIDIA. The GTX 690 once again just trails the GTX 680 SLI, while interestingly enough the dual-GPU NVIDIA solutions manage to erode AMD’s lead at a single point: 2560. Here they only trail by 8%, versus 20%+ at 5760 and 1920. Though at 1920 we also see another interesting outcome: the GTX 580 SLI beats the GTX 680 SLI and GTX 690 in minimum framerates. This would further support our theory that the GTX 680 is memory bandwidth starved in Crysis, especially at the lowest performance points.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
200 Comments
View All Comments
CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
I'm certain they would pay none of you since not a single one can be honest nor has a single argument to counter my points.You're all down to name calling trolls - and you all have to face the facts now, that your clueless ignorance left out of your minds for some time.
Have fun buying your cheap 1080P panels and slow and cheapo amd cards - LOL
Oh sorry, you all now buy premium flat panels...
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
No actually I expected a lot more from the people here.I expected a big thank you, or a thanks for the information we'll keep that in mind and it helps our purchasing decisions.
Instead we got a flood of raging new monitor owners and haters and name callers.
Next time just thanking me for providing very pertinent information would be the right thing to do, but at this point I don't expect any of you to ever do the right thing.
UltraTech79 - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Never seen a triple screen setup before?tipoo - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
I'm curious why the 680 and 690 trail AMD cards in Crysis and Metro, seeing as those seem to be the most GPU intensive games, while they win in most other tests. Would it be shading performance or something else?My mind is pretty blow that we have cards that can run Crysis and Metro at 5760x1200 at very comfortable framerates now, that's insane. But barring that resolution or 2560 for some games, I'm sure most of us don't see appeal here, it will be sold in a very very small niche. For normal monitor resolutions, I doubt games in large quantities will get much more demanding until we have new consoles out.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Oh, wow, they also are so biased toward amd they removed the actual most demanding game, Shogun 2, Total War, because I kept pointing out how the Nvidia 680's swept that game across the board - so now it's gone !ROFL
(before you attack me I note the anand reviewer stated S2TW is the most demanding, it's right in the reviews here - but not this one.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Um, it's there. Page 8.Sabresiberian - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
LOL.Cerise, epic fail!
;)
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Oh I see it was added because the patch broke the Nvidia cards - but in amd's favor again, the tester kept the breaking patch in, instead of providing results.Wow, more amd bias.
Glad my epic fails are so productive. :-)
U still mad ? Or madder and raging out of control?
silverblue - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
So, if they failed to add it, it'd have been AMD bias, but considering they DID add it... it's AMD bias.And you're the one talking about rage, trollboi?
Had you just merely mentioned that the patch doesn't provide favourable results for NVIDIA cards, Ryan might have been tempted to reinstall the game and retest. Well, he might have - can't speak for the guy. Doubt he will now, though.
tipoo - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
So back on non-trolling topic...?