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 - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
It's a very pertinent topic because despite the protestations the vast majority of readers are likely to have a 1080p monitor, and apparently they all have amnesia as well since this came up in a very, very recent article - one of the last few on the video cards - where it was even pointed out by Anand himself that one should extrapolate the fps data with the 11% pixel difference, something every last one of you either never read or completely forgot or conveniently omitted.Unfortunately Anand isn't correct, period. He should know it, but of course has to have an answer for the complainers - so he gave one.
What should be clear, even by just looking at the 1920X benches here is that below that resolutin and above it don't always jibe with it - and personally I've noticed nVidia has issues with 1600X1200.
So, all the hundreds of readers with 1080p monitors can thank me deep down in their hearts, as they now know Nvidia is supreme at that resolution, by 17%+ on average, more so than at 1200p, and thus "saving money" on an amd card using this sites 1920 1200p stats is for many, incorrect.
Makaveli - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
no one is mad or raging I think most are just amused at your stupidity! and sad attempt at trolling.Trololol
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
Yet my point is absolutely prescient and helpful to anyone whom isn't a raging fanboy fool.Doesn't appear you've risen above that category.
InsaneScientist - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
And yet they specifically called out the fact that the patch broke performance on nVidia cards, went out of their way to state what performance was like before the patch (which is clearly better than any of the other cards), and finally stated that they're pretty sure that the game is at fault, not nVidia or their drivers...Yeah, they really must have it out for nVidia... *sigh*
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
Except in the 680 tests all you fools ignored S2TW, which I had to repeatedly point out was the hardest game in the bunch, not Crysis or M2033 - over and over again I had to tell all the fools blabbering, and now suddenly the game is "broken". ROFL - it's beyond amazing.CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link
Oh look it's not broken, TPU can handle it with nearly 100% single card SLI scaling with the 690http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_...
Gee I guess it was "harder" here.
blackened23 - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
you appear to be using an old version of Batman without the latest patch.blackened23 - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/340746/batman...You are using an outdated version, the newest version released in March enhances both SLI and CF performance.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
We're on the latest version. I triple checked.blackened23 - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link
Are you using the Steam version? Your results differ from that of HardOCP, hardwareheaven, and hardwarecanucks. They get scaling you don't. Your version should be dated March 2012, thats when the patch was released.