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
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.