18 replies to this topic

[cipher]

It looks like kingpin is the first to break 2GHz for GPU speed on an NVIDIA GTX 680 card.

http://kingpincoolin...78&postcount=22

Looks like it completed 3DMark 11: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3694953

That's one fast GPU!

[Vulpesveritas]

7970 still holds the 3d mark world record at [color=#000000]214000 marks lol.[/color]
http://www.techpower...tive-Times.html

But yes, that is one fast GPU still. lol

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 20 June 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[cipher]

Vulpesveritas, on 20 June 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

7970 still holds the 3d mark world record at [color=#000000]214000 marks lol.[/color]
http://www.techpower...tive-Times.html

Well, not really. This 2GHz 680 just broke that record.

16472 vs. 16259 in 3DMark 11

Edited by cipher, 20 June 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

cipher, on 20 June 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Well, not really. This 2GHz 680 just broke that record.

16472 vs. 16259 in 3DMark 11

http://www.techpower...ck-Barrier.html
Yeah sounding like that's a no given the core voltage.... not to mention GPU-Z saying only 1.8ghz. Let's see the big picture...

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 20 June 2012 - 11:47 PM.

[cipher]

Vulpesveritas, on 20 June 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

http://www.techpower...ck-Barrier.html
Yeah sounding like that's a no given the core voltage.... not to mention GPU-Z saying only 1.8ghz. Let's see the big picture...

Who the frak cares what the core voltage is? It beat the record for the 7970. Then when AMD comes out with their next series it will eventually beat the NVIDIA series. The 600 series is newer. Enough said AMD Fanboy.

[Catamount]

I'm not sure I'd call a 1.3% win a win...

That difference is probably smaller than the margin of error in the test; I know subsequent runs on the same machine that I've done have often varied by more than a single percent.


So we'll say that Nvidia has finally managed to *possibly* come up with something infinitesimally faster by having a newer card, more geared towards gaming, that's effectively a fair bit more expensive (since 680s are basically never available at the actual advertised price) In other news, a GTX 480 is faster than a 4870

[CynicalCyanide]

Looking at the top 20 results, 2 of them are 7970. The rest are 680/690.

in other words, 90% of the top 20 OC's are 680s.

[silentD11]

Results are meh and I know kp from XS forums. You shouldn't much care though, brain dumb LN2 OCs are just that, what matters are the OCS you can get under water cooling.

The top cooling I've gamed on was phase change, that cost an arm and a leg, the max I do now is TEC.

[Vulpesveritas]

cipher, on 21 June 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

Who the frak cares what the core voltage is? It beat the record for the 7970. Then when AMD comes out with their next series it will eventually beat the NVIDIA series. The 600 series is newer. Enough said AMD Fanboy.

My point is that i thought the default core voltage on a Geforce GTX 680 is 1.15v. versus 1.21v where it is saying it is somehow running twice as fast.
that just doesn't make sense to me. That and GPU-Z showing a different value for the clocks versus the EVGA profiler....

that's what i don't get.

[silentD11]

Vulpesveritas, on 21 June 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

My point is that i thought the default core voltage on a Geforce GTX 680 is 1.15v. versus 1.21v where it is saying it is somehow running twice as fast.
that just doesn't make sense to me. That and GPU-Z showing a different value for the clocks versus the EVGA profiler....

that's what i don't get.

GPUZ, evga pro, MSI afterburner all report different values. Short of actually mesuring voltage on the card it's not going to be accurate, it's just a rough "guess".

[cipher]

Catamount, on 21 June 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

I'm not sure I'd call a 1.3% win a win...

That difference is probably smaller than the margin of error in the test; I know subsequent runs on the same machine that I've done have often varied by more than a single percent.

For people going for records, you can be sure they're running the tests over and over again to get the highest reading on a single pass.

Regardless of the amount, 1.3% is still a win. Time to remove the crown from AMD for fastest obtained single GPU speed AND score. Sorry, AMD fanboys, go back home. Of course, that crown will probably go back to AMD with their next card models or card revisions.

[Woopass]

I love AMD processors cause they are cheap and run great! But I love Nvidia Graphics Cards, just better experience than when I use to have ATI style cards. I do have an old EVGA 480 Fermi card that should handle this game with no problem But think of maybe Running SLI with some 580's or getting a 670. I am considering bying 2 more monitors to run with this game. Any of you tech's think either the 7900 series or 600 series would be ok to run three monitors off one card? Any help would be appreciated

[Vulpesveritas]

Woopass, on 21 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I love AMD processors cause they are cheap and run great! But I love Nvidia Graphics Cards, just better experience than when I use to have ATI style cards. I do have an old EVGA 480 Fermi card that should handle this game with no problem But think of maybe Running SLI with some 580's or getting a 670. I am considering bying 2 more monitors to run with this game. Any of you tech's think either the 7900 series or 600 series would be ok to run three monitors off one card? Any help would be appreciated

yes, the 670/680 and 7950/7970 are all fine for multi-monitor gaming.

[cipher]

Indeed. AMD actually started the first surround gaming with Eyefinity, then NVIDIA followed. Before AMD Eyefinity people used separated hardware to split signals to three monitors (via dual-channel DVI or VGA). I used a Matrox TripleHead2Go device many years ago.

[silentD11]

Vulpesveritas, on 21 June 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

yes, the 670/680 and 7950/7970 are all fine for multi-monitor gaming.

At low resolution and low details, which largely defeats the point of it.

[Vulpesveritas]

silentD11, on 21 June 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

At low resolution and low details, which largely defeats the point of it.

ummm... no.
If you max everything out and toss on 4xAA, you get this;


http://hexus.net/tec...reen-eyefinity/
kill the AA and lower a couple of settings and you're fine in eyefinity on a single 7970.

[silentD11]

Crysis 2 is an old game and easy to run, BF3 is an OK benchmark.

Also frame rates under 60 are bad in an FPS, under 30 is a serious handicap.

If you're throwing cash at three monitors you should be going for high details as well. It doesn't make sense to do it outside of that. And if you think 30fps is playable and not huge handicap your FPS experience must be limited to Halo and COD on the 360.

[mrcarlton]

But will it blend?

[Vulpesveritas]

silentD11, on 21 June 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Crysis 2 is an old game and easy to run, BF3 is an OK benchmark.

Also frame rates under 60 are bad in an FPS, under 30 is a serious handicap.

If you're throwing cash at three monitors you should be going for high details as well. It doesn't make sense to do it outside of that. And if you think 30fps is playable and not huge handicap your FPS experience must be limited to Halo and COD on the 360.

Actually no, and how is Crysis 2 old? it came out in 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_2

And actually, yes I do know that 60fps is more enjoyable, but for me at least 30fps is playable. Really, it comes down to personal preference.