NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 Review Feat. EVGA: Bringing GK104 Down To $400
by Ryan Smith on May 10, 2012 9:00 AM ESTFinal Words
Looking at this data I’m reminded a great deal of the Radeon HD 6900 series launch. AMD launched the 6900 series after the GTX 500 series, but launch order aside the end result was very similar. NVIDIA’s second tier GTX 570 and AMD’s first tier Radeon HD 6970 were tied on average but were anything but equals. This is almost exactly what we’re seeing with the GTX 670 and the Radeon HD 7970.
Depending on the game and resolution we’re looking at the GTX 670 reaches anywhere between 80% and 120% of the 7970’s performance. AMD sails by the GTX 670 in Crysis and to a lesser extent Metro, only for the GTX 670 to shoot ahead in BF3 and Portal 2 (w/SSAA). Officially NVIDIA’s positioning on the GTX 670 is that it’s to go against the 7950 and not the 7970, and that’s a wise move on NVIDIA’s behalf; but the GTX 670 is surely nipping at the 7970’s heels.
With that said, there are a couple of differences from the 6900 series launch which are equally important. The first is that unlike last time the GTX 670 and Radeon HD 7970 are not equally priced. At MSRP the GTX 670 is $80 cheaper, while at cheapest retail it’s closer to $60. The second difference is that this time the competing cards are not nearly as close in power consumption or noise, and thanks to GK104 NVIDIA has a notable advantage there.
Much like the GTX 570 and the Radeon HD 6970, if you’re in the market for cards at these performance levels you need to take a look at both cards and see what kind of performance each card gets on the games you want to play. From our results the GTX 670 is doing better at contemporary games and is cheaper to boot, but the Radeon HD 7970 can hold its own here at multi-monitor resolutions and games like Crysis or Metro. Or for that matter it can still run circles around the GTX 670 in GK104's real weakness: compute tasks
On the other hand if you’re buying a gaming card on price then this isn’t a contest. For the Radeon HD 7950 this is the GTX 680 all over again. NVIDIA can’t quite beat the 7950 in every game (e.g. Crysis), but when it loses it’s close, and when it wins it’s 15%, 25%, even 50% faster. At the same time gaming power consumption is also lower as is noise. As it stands the worst case scenario for the GTX 670 is that it performs like a 7950 while the best case scenario is that it performs like a 7970. And it does this priced like a 7950, which means that something is going to have to give the moment NVIDIA’s product supply is no longer in question.
Outside of the obligatory AMD matchup, interestingly enough NVIDIA has put themselves in harm’s way here in the process. At 2560x1600 the GTX 680 only beats the GTX 670 by 7% on average. NVIDIA has always charged a premium for their top card but the performance gap has also been greater. In games that aren’t shader bound the GTX 670 does very well for itself thanks to the fact that it has equal memory bandwidth and only a slight ROP performance deficit, which means the GTX 680 is only particularly strong in Metro, Portal 2, and DiRT 3. The 7% performance lead certainly doesn’t justify the 25% price difference, and if you will give up that performance NVIDIA will shave $100 off of the price of a card, but if you do want that top performance NVIDIA intends to make you pay for it. Of course this is also why the GTX 670 is only priced $100 cheaper rather than $150. Potential buyers looking for a $350 GK104 card are going to be left out in the cold for now, particularly buyers looking for a meaningful GTX 570 upgrade.
Finally, the nature of NVIDIA’s power target technology has put partners like EVGA in an odd place. Even with a moderate 6%+ factory overclock the GTX 670 Superclocked just isn’t all that much faster than the reference GTX 670, averaging only a 3% gain at 2560. Since the GTX 670 virtually always operates above its base clock the culprit is NVIDIA’s power target, which keeps the GTX 670SC from boosting much higher than our reference GTX 670. Once you increase the power target the GTX 670SC can easily make an interesting niche for itself, but while this isn’t true overclocking it isn’t stock performance either. In any case it’s clear that for factory overclocked cards to really push the limit they’re going to need to go fully custom, which is what a number of partners are going to do in the coming months.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
414 Comments
View All Comments
SlyNine - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link
No the 5870 was replaced by the 6970. The 5870 was faster then the 6870.The wall was coming, since the 9700pro that needed a power adapter, to videocards that need 2 power adapters and took 2 slots. That was how they got those 2 and even 4x increases. the 9700pro was as much as 6x faster then a 4600 at times.
But like I said this wall was coming and from now on expect all performance improvements to be based on architecture and node improvements.
CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link
My text > " 4890-5870-6970 ???? "It was a typo earlier, dippy do.
9600pro was not 6X faster than a 4600 ever, period - once again we have your spew and nothing else. But below we have the near EQUAL benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/947/20
http://www.anandtech.com/show/947/22
6X, 4X, 2X your rear end... another gigantic lie.
Congrats on lies so big - hey at least your insane amd fanboy imagination and brainwashing of endless lies is being exposed.
Keep up the good work.
Iketh - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link
do you listen to yourself? you're just as bad as wreckage....you have never and will never run a corporation
CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link
How can I disagree as obviously you are another internet blogger CEO - one of the many thousands we now have online with corporate business school degrees and endless babbling about profits without a single price cost for a single component of a single video card discussed under your belts.It's amazing how many of you tell us who can cut prices and remain profitable - when none of you have even the tiniest inkling of the cost of any component whatsoever, let alone the price it's sold at by nVidia or amd for that matter.
I'm glad so many of you are astute and learned CEO mind masters, though.
chizow - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link
You really don't need to be an internet blogger or CEO, you don't even need a business degree although it certainly wouldn't hurt (especially in accounting).Just a rudimentary understanding of financial statements and you can easily understand Nvidia's business model, then see when and why they are most successful financially by looking at the market landscape and what products were selling and for how much.
I can tell you right now, Nvidia was at its most profitable during G80 and G92's run of success (6 straight quarters of record profits that have been unmatched since), so we know for a fact what kind of revenues, margins and ASPs for components they can succeed with by looking at historical data.
CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
G92's were the most wide ranging selection of various cores hacks, bit width, memory config, etc- and released a enormous amount of different card versions - while this release is a flagship only tier thus far - so they don't relate at all.So no, you're stuck in the know exactly nothing spot I claimed you are, no matter what you spew about former releases.
Worse than that, nVidia profit came from chipset sales and high end cards then - and getting information to show the G80 G92 G92b G94 etc profitability by itself will cost you a lot of money buying industry information.
So you know nothing again, and tried to use a false equivalency.
Thanks for trying though, and I certainly won't say you should change your personal stance on pricing of the "mid tier" 680, on the other hand I don't see you making a reasonable historical pricing/ performance/current prices release analysis - you haven't done that, and I've been reading all of your comments of course, and otherwise often agree with you.
As I've said, the GTX580 was this year $499 - the 7970 released and 2.5 months later we're supposed to see the 580 killer not just at $499, but at $299 as the semi-accurate rumors and purported and unbelievable "insider anonymous information" rumors told us - that $299, since it was so unbelievable if examined at all, has become $399, or maybe $449, or $420, whatever the moaner wants it to be...
I frankly don't buy any of it - and for good reason - this 680 came in as it did because it's a new core and they stripped it down for power/perf and that's that - and they drove amd pricing down.
Now they're driving it down further.
If the 680 hit at $299 like everyone claimed it was going to (bouncing off Charlie D's less than honest cranium and falling back on unquoted and anonymous "industry wide" claimed rumors or a single nVidia slide or posted trash prediction charts proven to be incorrect), then where would the 670 be priced at now ? $250 ?
I suggest the performance increase along with the massive driver improvement bundle and keeping within the 300watt power requirements means that there is nowhere else to go right now.
The "secret" "held back" performance is nowhere - the rumored card not here yet is a compute monster - so goodbye power/perf win and the giant PR advantage not to mention the vast body of amd fanboys standing on that alone - something nVidia NEVER planned to lead with this time - the big Kepler.
It's not that nVidia outperformed itself, it's that their secrecy outperformed all the minds of the rabble - and all that's left is complainers who aren't getting something for nothing or something for half price as they hoped.
chizow - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link
I don't need to run a corporation to understand good and bad business. The fact there are *OUTRAGED* GTX 680 buyers who feel *CHEATED* after seeing the GTX 670 price:performance drives the point home.Nvidia really needs to be careful here as they've successfully upset their high-end target market on two fronts:
1) High-end enthusiasts like myself who are upset they decided to follow AMD's lackluster price:performance curve and market a clearly mid-range ASIC (GK104) as a high-end SKU (GTX 670, 680, 690) and charge high-end premiums for it.
2) High-end enthusiasts who actually felt the GTX 680 was worthy of its premium price tag, paid the $500 asking price and often, more to get them. Only to see that premium completely eroded by a card that performs within a few % points, yet costs 20% less and is readily available on the market.
Talk about losing insane value overnight, you don't need to run a business to understand the kind of anger and angst that can cause.
CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
Well, the $$ BURN $$ is still less than the $$ BURN $$ the amd flagship cost - $130 + and that's the same card, not a need to be overclocked lower shader cut version.So as far as angry dollar burning, yeah, except amd has done worse in dollar costs than nvidia, and with the same card.
Nice to know, hopefully your theory has a lot fo strong teeth, then the high end buyers can hold back and drive the price down...
( seems a dream doesn't it )
CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
Let's not forget there rage guy, that 7970 burn of $130+ bucks just turned into a $180 or $200 burn.Yet, CURRENTLY, all GTX680 owners can unload for upwards of $500... LOL
Not so for 7970 owners, they are already perma burned.
I guess you just didn't think it through, it was more important to share a falsity and rage against nVidia.
Nice try, you've failed.
chizow - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link
Yes I've said from Day 1 the 7970 was horribly overpriced; it was just an extension of the 40nm price:performance curve 18 months after the fact.But that doesn't completely let Nvidia off the hook since they obviously used AMD's weak offering as the launching point to use a mid-range ASIC as their high-end SKU.
End result is the consumer gets the SMALLEST increase in performance for their money in the last decade of GPUs. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand. Look at the benchmarks, do the math and have a seat.