NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 Review: Retaking The Performance Crown
by Ryan Smith on March 22, 2012 9:00 AM ESTThe Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Prior to the launch of our new benchmark suite, we wanted to include The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, which is easily the most popular RPG of 2011. However as any Skyrim player can tell you, Skyrim’s performance is CPU-bound to a ridiculous degree. With the release of the 1.4 patch and the high resolution texture pack this has finally been relieved to the point where GPUs once again matter, particularly when we’re working with high resolutions and less than high-end GPUs. As such, we're now including it in our test suite.
Skyrim presents us with an interesting scenario. At anything less than 2560 we’re CPU limited well before we’re GPU limited, and yet even though we’re CPU limited NVIDIA manages to take a clear lead while the 680 still finds room to push to the top. For whatever the reason NVIDIA would appear to have significantly less driver overhead here, or at the very least a CPU limited Skyrim interacts with NVIDIA’s drivers better than it does AMD’s.
In any case 2560 does move away from being CPU limited, but it’s not entirely clear whether the difference we’re seeing here is solely due to GPU performance, or if we’re still CPU limited in some fashion. Regardless of the reason the GTX 680 has a 10% lead on the 7970 here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
404 Comments
View All Comments
toastyghost - Sunday, April 29, 2012 - link
oh look, a fanboy fight in the comments on a hardware site. how very original.jewie27 - Sunday, July 8, 2012 - link
tonnes? WTF?santiagodraco - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
If you think overclocking RAM (which you imply but which isn't necessarily even true) makes that big of a difference than overclocking the GPU then you are fooling yourself.The GPU does the work, not the ram.
As for price/performance yes the 680 appears to be better now (they are ALWAYS leapfrogging each other) but wait until ATI releases their new variation, cuts prices to match and beats Nvidia by 20% or more... it will happen. Does every time :)
vol7ron - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
They're both important.What does a fast number cruncher mean, if it's busy waiting on the numbers?
Both CPU and RAM are important and they can both be bottlenecks.
Iketh - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
"The GPU does the work, not the ram."LOL you can't say something more stupid!
grave00 - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
Sometimes I really wish the editors could come in here and mark posts with strong agreement or disagreement with statements. I'd like to know what they think of things like. GPU does all the work vs RAM doesn't do much. I have an uninformed opinion. The interested but uninformed need some kind of truth detector. Maybe just for a few pages worth. I start to lose my grip on what is real in the forum after awhile. fun though it may be.blanarahul - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - link
Question -1To understand the statement that "GPUs do all the work and memory doesn't", consider this:-
1. You overclocked your Graphics Card, but only the core and not the memory.
You ran a benchmark and let's assume you got a score of 100.
2. Now, you overclocked your memory and ran the same benchmark again.
You got the score of 101.
This is what actually happens in MOST cases. It doesn't happen always.
Question - 2
Why it doesn't happen always?
Answer:- If you use extreme methods and take your core clock too high the memory will become a bottleneck.
Cosider that you try to overclock using Liquid Nitrogen.
1. After overclocking only the core clock to the maximum.
Benchmark score:- 150
2. You overclock your memory too.
Benchmark score:- 200
In this case the memory was holding back the GPU Core from operating at it's full potential.
But this does not happen if don't use extreme methods.
I hope this helps.
CeriseCogburn - Friday, April 6, 2012 - link
Actually the 79xx series is the 1st time in a very long time amd has had a lead, let alone a lead of 20%, let alone "leap frogging".Amd has been behind since the GTX8800 and I don't know how long before that.
Let's face it, the 79xx for 2.5 months was the 1st time amd played Frogger in a long time and made it across the street without getting flattened before stepping off the curb.
You're welcome for the correct and truth filled history.
SlyNine - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Sorry but the 7970 is still much faster in crysis min fps, which I would argue is more important then average. It's faster in Metro as well.All things considered, the 7970 stands up against the 680GTX well.
Lets also consider X.264 acceleration, as far as I can tell the 680GTX has none.
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
It loses in everything to 680 including 3 monitor performance.That's not standing up well, it's larger, hotter, and slower at everything, with far less features and it's $60 bucks more.
FXAA
dynamic Vsync
turbo
More features I'm sure you fans of the loser underdog don't care about as of 9 am this morning.
It's EPIC FAIL and it's not standing, it's decked to the ground and can't get up.