NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 Review Feat. EVGA: Bringing GK104 Down To $400
by Ryan Smith on May 10, 2012 9:00 AM ESTIn a typical high-end GPU launch we’ll see the process take place in phases over a couple of months if not longer. The new GPU will be launched in the form of one or two single-GPU cards, with additional cards coming to market in the following months and culminating in the launch of a dual-GPU behemoth. This is the typical process as it allows manufacturers and board partners time to increase production, stockpile chips, and work on custom designs.
But this year things aren’t so typical. GK104 wasn’t the typical high-end GPU from NVIDIA, and neither it seems is there anything typical about its launch.
NVIDIA has not been wasting any time in getting their complete GK104 based product lineup out the door. Just 6 weeks after the launch of the GeForce GTX 680, NVIDIA launched the GeForce GTX 690, their dual-GK104 monster. Now only a week after that NVIDIA is at it again, launching the GK104 based GeForce GTX 670 this morning.
Like its predecessors, GTX 670 will fill in the obligatory role as a cheaper, slower, and less power-hungry version of NVIDIA’s leading video card. This is a process that allows NVIDIA to not only put otherwise underperforming GPUs to use, but to satisfy buyers at lower price points at the same time. Throughout this entire process the trick to successfully launching any second-tier card is to try to balance performance, prices, and yields, and as we’ll see NVIDIA has managed to turn all of the knobs just right to launch a very strong product.
| GTX 680 | GTX 670 | GTX 580 | GTX 570 | |
| Stream Processors | 1536 | 1344 | 512 | 480 |
| Texture Units | 128 | 112 | 64 | 60 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 | 48 | 40 |
| Core Clock | 1006MHz | 915MHz | 772MHz | 732MHz |
| Shader Clock | N/A | N/A | 1544MHz | 1464MHz |
| Boost Clock | 1058MHz | 980MHz | N/A | N/A |
| Memory Clock | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 6.008GHz GDDR5 | 4.008GHz GDDR5 | 3.8GHz GDDR5 |
| Memory Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit | 384-bit | 320-bit |
| VRAM | 2GB | 2GB | 1.5GB | 1.25GB |
| FP64 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/24 FP32 | 1/8 FP32 | 1/8 FP32 |
| TDP | 195W | 170W | 244W | 219W |
| Transistor Count | 3.5B | 3.5B | 3B | 3B |
| Manufacturing Process | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 28nm | TSMC 40nm | TSMC 40nm |
| Launch Price | $499 | $399 | $499 | $349 |
Like GeForce GTX 680, GeForce GTX 670 is based on NVIDIA’s GK104 GPU. So we’re looking at the same Kepler design and the same Kepler features, just at a lower level of performance. As always the difference is that since this is a second-tier card, NVIDIA is achieving that by harvesting otherwise defective GPUs.
In a very unusual move for NVIDIA, for GTX 670 they’re disabling one of the eight SMXes on GK104 and lowering the core clock a bit, and that’s it. GTX 670 will ship with 7 active SMXes, all 32 of GK104’s ROPs, and all 4 GDDR5 memory controllers. Typically we’d see NVIDIA hit every aspect of the GPU at once in order to create a larger performance gap and to maximize the number of GPUs they can harvest – such as with the GTX 570 and its 15 SMs & 40 ROPs – but not in this case.
Meanwhile clockspeeds turn out to be equally interesting. Officially, both the base clock and the boost clock are a fair bit lower than GTX 680. GTX 670 will ship at 915MHz for the base clock and 980MHz for the boost clock, which is 91MHz (9%) and 78MHz (7%) lower than the GTX 680 respectively. However as we’ve seen with GTX 680 GK104 will spend most of its time boosting and not necessarily just at the official boost clock. Taken altogether, depending on the game and the specific GPU GTX 670 has the capability to boost within 40MHz or so of GTX 680, or about 3.5% of the clockspeed of its more powerful sibling.
As for the memory subsystem, like the ROPs they have not been touched at all. GTX 670 will ship at the same 6.008GHz memory clockspeed of GTX 680 with the same 256-bit memory bus, giving it the same 192GB/sec of memory bandwidth. This is particularly interesting as NVIDIA has always turned down their memory clocks in the past, and typically taken out a memory controller/ROP combination in the past. Given that GK104 is an xx4 GPU rather than a full successor to GF110 and its 48 ROPs, it would seem that NVIDIA is concerned about their ROP and memory performance and will not sacrifice performance there for GTX 670.
Taken altogether, this means at base clocks GTX 670 has 100% of the memory bandwidth, 91% of the ROP performance, and 80% of the shader performance of GTX 680. This puts GTX 670’s specs notably closer to GTX 680 than GTX 570 was to GTX 580, or GTX 470 before it. In order words the GTX 670 won’t trail the GTX 680 by as much as the GTX 570 trailed the GTX 580 – or conversely the GTX 680 won’t have quite the same lead as the GTX 580 did.
As for power consumption, the gap between the two is going to be about the same as we saw between the GTX 580 and GTX 570. The official TDP of the GT 670 is 170W, 25W lower than the GTX 680. Unofficially, NVIDIA’s GPU Boost power target for GTX 670 is 141W, 29W lower than the GTX 680. Thus like the GTX 680 the GTX 670 has the lowest TDP for a part of its class that we’ve seen out of NVIDIA in quite some time.
Moving on, unlike the GTX 680 launch NVIDIA is letting their partners customize right off the bat. GTX 670 will launch with a mix of reference, semi-custom, and fully custom designs with a range of coolers, clockspeeds, and prices. There are a number of cards to cover over the coming weeks, but today we’ll be looking at EVGA’s GeForce GTX 670 Superclocked alongside our reference GTX 670.
As we’ve typically seen in the past, custom cards tend to appear when GPU manufacturers and their board partners feel more comfortable about GPU availability and this launch is no different. The GTX 670 launch is being helped by the fact that NVIDIA has had an additional 7 weeks to collect suitable GPUs compared to the GTX 680 launch, on top of the fact that these are harvested GPUs. With that said NVIDIA is still in the same situation they were in last week with the launch of the GTX 690: they already can’t keep GK104 in stock.
_thumb.jpg)
_(G57-V100950)_thumb.jpg)
Due to binning GTX 670 isn’t drawn from GTX 680 inventory, so it’s not a matter of these parts coming out of the same pool, but realistically we don’t expect NVIDIA to be able to keep GTX 670 in stock any better than they can GTX 680. The best case scenario is that GTX 680 supplies improve as some demand shifts down to the GTX 670. In other words Auto-Notify is going to continue to be the best way to get a GTX 600 series card.
Finally, let’s talk pricing. If you were expecting GTX 570 pricing for GTX 670 you’re going to come away disappointed. Because NVIDIA is designing GTX 670 to perform closer to GTX 680 than with past video cards they’re also setting the prices higher. GTX 670 will have an MSRP of $399 ($50 higher than GTX 570 at launch), with custom cards going for higher yet. This should dampen demand some, but we don’t expect it will be enough.
Given its $399 MSRP, the GTX 670 will primarily be competing with the $399 Radeon HD 7950. However from a performance perspective the $479 7970 will also be close competition depending on the game at hand. AMD’s Three For Free promo has finally gone live, so they’re countering NVIDIA in part based on the inclusion of Deus Ex, Nexuiz, and DiRT Showdown with most 7900 series cards.
Below that we have AMD’s Radeon HD 7870 at $350, while the GTX 570 will be NVIDIA’s next card down at around $299. The fact that NVIDIA is even bothering to mention the GTX 570 is an interesting move, since it means they expect it to remain as part of their product stack for some time yet.
Update 5/11: NVIDIA said GTX 670 supply would be better than GTX 680 and it looks like they were right. As of this writing Newegg still has 5 of 7 models still in stock, which is far better than the GTX 680 and GTX 690 launches. We're glad to see that NVIDIA is finally able to keep a GTX 600 series card in stock, particularly a higher volume part like GTX 670.
| Spring 2012 GPU Pricing Comparison | |||||
| AMD | Price | NVIDIA | |||
| $999 | GeForce GTX 690 | ||||
| $499 | GeForce GTX 680 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7970 | $479 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7950 | $399 | GeForce GTX 670 | |||
| Radeon HD 7870 | $349 | ||||
| $299 | GeForce GTX 570 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7850 | $249 | ||||
| $199 | GeForce GTX 560 Ti | ||||
| $169 | GeForce GTX 560 | ||||
| Radeon HD 7770 | $139 | ||||
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
414 Comments
View All Comments
CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
Hmm.. 10X costlier ? Are we into some bloviating bullfuddo or what ?2500k $ 225
z68 100
4G 1333 25
case 50
HD 75
1920X 175
key/M 25
ps 50
GTX670 400
win7 100
_____________
$1,225 for a top end system, monitor and all, except we could just reuse your $500 big screen your console box uses, so we're down to $1,050 for a SMOKING FAST computer system.
I guess you bought a 1050/10 ....
$105 gaming console - enjoying that amiga pong dude ?
snakefist - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
good luck with that system on ultra settings in highest resolution (which is, btw, NOT 1920x1080). one can argue with about every item you listed - but lets just say this:what if i DON'T have a console and cannot reuse that "$500 big screen"?
and you honestly think i value you so much that i actually make a calculation of current hardware prices just to contradict you? you're so wrong... but your "gaming configuration" did made me laugh on several occasions
7x, 8x, 9x, 10x - what's ESSENTIAL difference? point is still valid, and will be as long as we don't go into 2-3x range
@raghu78
i cannot say i saw Alan Wake on any platform, but xbox360 is 2010? and PC version is 2012? i fail to see significance in comparing them...
what i DID say is that it's often hard to notice difference between highest and next-highest level of settings - might be subjective and/or game-dependent - ones i saw didn't make me feel compelled to switch GPU. again, it can be just me
i would also prefer you not to put words in my mouth, i never had and probably never will buy a game console
CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
Ok, so 1920x1080 is better than consolers, or at least equal to, their TV resolution, so the point is still valid, the point I made, not your exaggerated 10X.A carefully built $600 gaming system can look far superior to a console.
Now, after you blurted out the price blabber, I added your two comments together and understand where you're coming from.
You like a low or medium PC game setup and you really could care less for quality, just fast frames.
The system I posted whallops any console, period. It smokes it into the dirt. Keep laughing then, as your stupid comment about gaming at 10X the cost is stupid because you claimed you can't tell the difference and even if you could you wouldn't and don't care.
So you just keep your non console no eye candy occasional game rig and be happy. Whatever.
snakefist - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
"So you just keep your non console no eye candy occasional game rig and be happy."oh, thank you very much for allowing me to do this :)
for your information, i am building systems (gaming or otherwise, all price ranges) for many, many years and am in fact quite good at it... your proposed configuration is quite laughable (high-end gamer with 25$ mouse+keyboard)...
please post more configurations, i might learn something :) - someone with so much posts must me exceedingly intelligent and experienced
i don't deal with consoles, and if you failed to comprehend
meaning of "2013 consoles will have mid-range 2012 graphics)" in the light of "overall increase of game graphics quality" (last one not said by me, btw)... well, it's totally not my problem...
btw, you should ask for professional help, both in system building and anger-management - someone raging so much at every hardware review/comment have definite issues
oh, i currently have 5 systems, some of them with AMD and some with NVIDIA graphics (of different price-ranges), NOT because i'm very rich, but because i need them for work. but objectivity is not something you would understand, is it?
CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
Objectivity and communication skills is not something you have, that's for sure. Nor do you have honesty.You certainly, I guarantee, have not built more systems for others than I have, and haven't owned retail, besides that. None of that matters, as your posts alone should be proof of your capabilities, as they are the only evidence any of us here have.
So let's talk about understanding - understand this, there isn't a thing you could teach me, and so far, I've caught you lying.
If you actually have a point, or rather had one, I already told you it became clear after your second post - and it's still as clear as it was then.
Now let's go back to 10X more expensive - a console is easily or generally $299, some $599, so let's go with $499, then we have the $500 TV set, and we're at $1,000 for console -
Now at your 10X rate, we have $10,000 for a top end gaming system. Congratulations, you're a great teacher.
Like I said I got it - you dissed consoles, and you dissed decent high end gaming rigs, you like dissing, you started out dissing, and ended with dissing, and as far as facts in between, there were none.
snakefist - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link
"You certainly, I guarantee, have not built more systems for others than I have, and haven't owned retail, besides that."getting personal, aren't we? you are building system for OTHERS (unlucky people)? i do it for living, quite successfully and for many years... you have no way of knowing how many i made, yet claim your own superiority...
as facts are concerned you're turning a figure of speech into your chief argument - what did you expect from me, to browse current console prices and say it's 7.14x times more expensive (feel free to use this number as a further proof, it could improve your calculating abilities). oh, by the way, including monitor/tv into 10x calculation is a stunningly clever - what the hell would anyone do with ten 500$ screens? or i have missed well-known fact that consoles are sold EXCLUSIVELY packed with 500$ screen - in which case i do apologize to you..
and if you had any communication skill, everyone wouldn't hate you - i browsed several random replies people posted on your so called "fact-based comments" and none were positive. however all of them had more or less clear evidence of your incompetence
CeriseCogburn - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link
Oh cut the crap. You haven't provided a rudimentary price structure to even get close to 7.14X and you NEVER will.You're like chizow the flaming red hater, who screamed 80% and 75% perf increases vs 40% current when finally after ten demands he had to reply with something, and it was like you, his "word", then "his demand" I "look around at benches" and get a clue - so I posted the links from anandf flagship releases and the numbers, and found 33% to be a fair number not 80%.
My competence is far above yours because I'm not a knee jerk liar, and I can actually be a man about things and go where the evidence leads, and ignore the hyper emo fanboy lies that well up from within - something about 90% of you need a lot of training in to overcome.
Since you blew out your big lying spew, you'll have to come clean to gain any shred of respect, and it is clear you have no intention to do so.
SlyNine - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link
Ya but Chizo backed it up with facts, and you were just cherry picking data.CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link
No chizow never had any facts, and you know it.AFTER I took the time to post all the links on the RELEASE reviews of the very cards from anantech over the years here, AND post the frames for the easy comparison... WHICH HE NEVER DID ONCE WITH ANY DATA AT ALL....
chizow then finally by way of not so lazy and lying as to be laughable, did what I told him to do prior, GO LOOK AT THE BENCH chart here at anand and then give us the real percentages, not his lies he just prior got caught on.
So he posted one link on one game (with what systems behind them we have no clue like we do in the REVIEW links I posted ).
Now after having your lies exposed with chizows, your absolute lack of data, and my work, you're still whining.
I used the very first game in each review, Crysis, and it's all nVidia cards bud. That'sa not cherry picking anything, I even used the release review from anandtech because that's what were using and the EXACT SAME LOOK we are all having here.
I have been 100% fair. You two on the other hand...
Ananke - Thursday, May 10, 2012 - link
Great cards. The great battles are only in the forums though, in reality sales happen under the $200 mark...I see only AMD 7850 and NVidia 560ti where the actual money is made. So, yeah NVidia is still behind its competition on new releases in the money making segments.Applause to green team though, their architecture and mnf process are so good, they managed to offer the GT560 replacement as an higher tier card with double the price :):)
Have said so, I will consider these when they hit the $199 mark...