NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 Review: Retaking The Performance Crown
by Ryan Smith on March 22, 2012 9:00 AM ESTBattlefield 3
Its popularity aside, Battlefield 3 may be the most interesting game in our benchmark suite for a single reason: it’s the first AAA DX10+ game. It’s been 5 years since the launch of the first DX10 GPUs, and 3 whole process node shrinks later we’re finally to the point where games are using DX10’s functionality as a baseline rather than an addition. Not surprisingly BF3 is one of the best looking games in our suite, but as with past Battlefield games that beauty comes with a high performance cost
NVIDIA’s cards have always done well at Battlefield 3, which puts the Radeon HD 7900 series in a bad position from the beginning. Short of the GTX 680’s massive lead in the Portal 2 bonus round, this is the single biggest victory for the GTX 680 over the 7970, beating AMD’s best by 28% at 2560, and by continually higher amounts at lower resolutions. Based on our experience with BF3 I’d hesitate to call the 680 fully fluid at 2560 as large firefights can significantly tear into performance relative to Thunder Run, but if it’s not fully fluid then it’s going to be very, very close.
What’s also interesting here is that once again the GTX 680 is doing very well compared to the dual-GPU cards. The GTX 590 and 6990 never pull away from the GTX 680, and at 1920 with FXAA the GTX 680 finally squeaks by and takes the top of the chart. Performance relative to the GTX 580 is also once again good for that matter, with the GTX 680 beating its predecessor by 48% at almost every resolution.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
404 Comments
View All Comments
Sabresiberian - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Do you work for AMD's marketing department, or are you just a fanboy with tunnel vision?silverblue - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Could be beenthere under a different name... ;)CeriseCogburn - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Youtube has settled that lie - all the "bumpgate" models have defectively designed heatsinks - end users are inserting a penny (old for copper content) above the gpu to solve the large gap while removing the laughable quarter inch thick spongepad.It was all another lie that misplaced blame. Much like the ati chip that failed in xbox360 - never blamed on ati strangely.... (same thing bad HS design).
Arbie - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
IMHO the only game worth basing a purchase decision on is Crysis / Waheard. There, even the 7950 beats the GTX680, especially in the crucial area of minimum frame rate. The AMD cards also take significantly less power long-term (which is most important) and at load. They are noisier under load but not enough to matter while I'm playing.
So for me it's still AMD.
kallogan - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Don't know if you can say that. Crysis is old now. No directx 11. But it's true the GTX 680 does not particularly shine in heavy games like Metro 2033 or Crysis warhead compared to other games that may be more Nvidia optimised like BF3.CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - link
Except in the most punishing benchmark Shotun 2 total War, the GTX680 by Nvidia spanks the 7970 and wins at all 3 resolutions !*
*
Can we get a big fanboy applause for the 7970 not doing well at all in very punishing high quality games comparing to the GTX680 ?
Sabresiberian - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
The key phrase you use here is "where it matters to me". I wouldn't argue with that at all - your decision is clearly the right one for your gaming tastes.That being said, you change your wording a bit, and it seems to me to imply (softening it "IMHO") that everyone should choose by your standards; that is also clearly wrong. The games I play are World of Warcraft, and Skyrim. WoW test results can be best compared to BF3, of those benches that were used in this article. I've never played Crysis passed a demo - so choosing based on that benchmark would be shooting myself in the proverbial foot.
Clearly, the GTX 680 is the better choice for me.
I've always said, choose your hardware by application, not by overall results (unless, of course, overall results matches your application cross-section :) ), and the benches in this article are more data to back up that recommendation.
;)
3DoubleD - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Please don't buy a GTX 680 for WoW...It's even overkill for Skyrim, since you don't really need much more than 30 fps. You'd be fine using more economical variants.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Wrong, but enjoy your XFX amd D double D.The cards, all of them, are not good enough yet.
Always turning down settings and begging the vsync.
They all fail our current gams and single monitor resolutions.
Iketh - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
for pvp you most certainly do need more than 30 FPS, try 60 at the least and 75 as ideal with a 120hz monitor... the more FPS I can get, the better I perform... your statement is true for raiding only