NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Review: Ultra Expensive, Ultra Rare, Ultra Fast
by Ryan Smith on May 3, 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.
Battlefield 3 has been NVIDIA’s crown jewel; a widely played multiplayer game with a clear lead for NVIDIA hardware. And with multi-GPU thrown into the picture that doesn’t change, leading to the GTX 690 once again taking a very clear lead here over the 7970CF at all resolutions. With that said, we see something very interesting at 5760, with NVIDIA’s lead shrinking by quite a bit. What was a 21% lead at 2560 is only a 10% at 5760. So far we haven’t seen any strong evidence of NVIDIA being VRAM limited with only 2GB of VRAM and while this isn’t strong evidence that the situation has changed is does warrant consideration. If anything is going to be VRAM limited after all it’s BF3.
Meanwhile compared to the GTX 680 SLI the GTX 690 is doing okay here. It’s only achieving 93% of the GTX 680 SLI’s performance at 2560, but for some reason pulls ahead at 5760, covering that to 96% of the performance of the dual video card setup.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
200 Comments
View All Comments
JPForums - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Not mine. I'm running a 1920x1200 IPS.
1920x1200 is more common in the higher end monitor market.
A quick glance at newegg shows 16 1920x1200 models with at 24" alone. (starting at $230)
Besides, I can't imagine many buy a $1000 dollar video card and pair it with a single $200 display.
It makes more sense to me to check 1920x1200 performance than 1920x1080 for several reasons:
1) 1920x1200 splits the difference between 16x10 and 25x14 or 25x16 better than 1920x1080.
1680x1050 = ~1.7MP
1920x1080=~2MP
1920x1200=~2.3MP
2560*1440=~3.7MP
2560x1600=~4MP
2) People willing to spend $1000 for a video card are generally in a better position to get a nicer monitor. 1920x1200 monitors are more common at higher prices.
3) They already have three of them around to run 5760x1200. Why go get another monitor?
Opinionated Side Points:
Movies transitioned to resolutions much wider than 1080P long ago. A little extra black space really makes no difference.
1920x1200 is a perfectly valid resolution. If Nvidia is having trouble with it, I want to know. When particular resolutions don't scale properly, it is probable that there is either a bug or shenanigans are at work in the more common resolutions.
I prefer using 1920x1200 as a starting point for moving to triple screen setups. I already thing 1920x1080 looks squashed, so 5760x1080 looks downright flattened. Also 3240x1920 just doesn't look very surround to me (3600x1920 seems borderline surround).
CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 5, 2012 - link
There are only 18 models available in all of newegg with 1920x1200 resolution - only 6 of those are under $400, they are all over $300.+
There are 242 models available in 1920x1080, with nearly 150 models under $300.
You people are literally a bad joke when it comes to even a tiny shred of honesty.
Lerianis - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
I don't know about the 'sadly' there in all honesty. I personally like 1920*1080 better than *1200, because nearly everything is done in the former resolution.Stuka87 - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Who buys a GTX690 to play on a 1080P display? Even a 680 is overkill for 1080. You can save a lot of money with a 7870 and still run everything out there.vladanandtechy - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Stuka i agree with you.....but when you buy such a card....you think in the future....5 maybe 6 years....and i can't gurantee that we will do gaming in 1080p then:)....retrospooty - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
"Stuka i agree with you.....but when you buy such a card....you think in the future....5 maybe 6 years....and i can't gurantee that we will do gaming in 1080p then:)...."I have to totally disagree with that. Anyone that pays $500+ for a video card is a certain "type" of buyer. That type of buyer will NEVER wait 5-6 years for an upgrade. That guy is getting the latest and greatest of every other generation, if not every generation of cards.
vladanandtechy - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
You shouldn't "totally disagree".......meet me...."the exception"....i am the type of buyer who is looking for the "long run"....but i must confess....if i could....i would be the type of buyer you describe....cyaorionismud - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
retrospooty and I mean you no disrespect, but if you're spending $500 and buying for the "long run," you're doing it wrong.If you had spent $250, you could have 80% of the performance for 2.5 years, then spend another $250 and have 200% of the performance for the remaining 2.5 years.
von Krupp - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Don't say that.I bought two (2) HD 7970s on the premise that I'm not going to upgrade them for a good long while. At least four years, probably closer to six. I ran from 2005 to 2012 with a GeForce 7800GT just fine and my single core AMD CPU was actually the larger reason why I needed to move on.
Now granted, I also purchased a snazzy U2711 just so the power of these cards wouldn't go to waste (though I'm quite CPU-bound by this i7-3820), but I don't consider dropping AA in future titles to maintain performance to be that big of a loss; I already only run with 8x AF because , frankly, I'm too busy killing things to notice otherwise. I intend to drive this rig for the same mileage. It costs less for me to buy the best of the best at the time of purchase for $1000 and play it into the ground than it is to keep buying $350 cards to barely keep up every two years, all over a seven year duration. Since I now have this fancy 2560x1440 resolution and want to use it, the $250-$300 offerings don't cut it. And the, don't forget to adjust for inflation year over year.
So yes, I'm going to be waiting between 4 and 6 years to upgrade. Under certain conditions, buying the really expensive stuff is as much of an economical move as it is a power grab. Not all of us who build $3000 computers do it on a regular basis.
P.S. Thank you consoles for extending PC hardware life cycles. Makes it easier to make purchases.
Makaveli - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
lol agree let put a $500 videocard with a $200 TN panel at 1920x1080 umm ya no!