1. Post #41
    I received word that the GTX 680 is backwards compatible with the 2.0 PCI slot. Is this true... and if so, would it make a difference in performance if you used the 2.0 slot? Just curious!
    "Received word"?

    huh?

    PCIe is always backwards compatible. That's like saying you just heard that BD players magically play dvd's.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  2. Post #42
    That Dog
    Ehmmett's Avatar
    March 2009
    12,804 Posts
    I'll take 2, thanks.
    Aw fuck they sold out as soon as I woke up :(

  3. Post #43
    Headphone doctor
    David Tennant's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,449 Posts
    So the GTX 680s hype was once again blown widely out of proportion, as Tom put it, it's about the same as a 7970 in games, give or take a little.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Disagree Disagree x 9Agree Agree x 3Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member

    February 2008
    5,016 Posts
    So the GTX 680s hype was once again blown widely out of proportion, as Tom put it, it's about the same as a 7970 in games, give or take a little.
    Not entirely though. We need to remember that this card was initially meant to be a lower range offering until Nvidia saw the performance of AMD's 7 series cards. With the architecture Nvidia has developed we still have a lot of offerings to see on their part.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  5. Post #45
    Headphone doctor
    David Tennant's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,449 Posts
    Not entirely though. We need to remember that this card was initially meant to be a lower range offering until Nvidia saw the performance of AMD's 7 series cards. With the architecture Nvidia has developed we still have a lot of offerings to see on their part.
    There were so many people that told me the 680 was going to be double, triple the performance of a 580, of-course this was unrealistic but there were people who believed this was going to be the case and probably still is.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 5Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    thrawn2787's Avatar
    April 2007
    8,214 Posts
    i like how that article is says its affordable

    also i read it was supposed to replace the 560 Ti so why the fuck is it $500

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    ClaBrendon's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,109 Posts
    i love EVGA

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 6 (list)

  8. Post #48
    MC3craze's Avatar
    April 2009
    6,187 Posts
    All of those cards :flashfap:
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  9. Post #49
    Mr Jazz
    Makol's Avatar
    January 2009
    38,521 Posts
    All going to Cyberpower PC..

    Edited:

    There were so many people that told me the 680 was going to be double, triple the performance of a 580, of-course this was unrealistic but there were people who believed this was going to be the case and probably still is.
    They were telling you that because they're idiots who can't read.

  10. Post #50
    Gold Member
    ClaBrendon's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,109 Posts
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 3Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  11. Post #51
    There were so many people that told me the 680 was going to be double, triple the performance of a 580, of-course this was unrealistic but there were people who believed this was going to be the case and probably still is.
    Those people were idiots, no one from anywhere credible said it would have triple the performance. It had triple the processors.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member

    August 2006
    1,003 Posts
    Not entirely though. We need to remember that this card was initially meant to be a lower range offering until Nvidia saw the performance of AMD's 7 series cards. With the architecture Nvidia has developed we still have a lot of offerings to see on their part.
    It doesn't really make sense to call it lower range and a GF104 replacement when it consumes more power on a smaller die and smaller process (even though the number is still the same I don't get why Nvidia markets it like that) and costs $500. Well I guess partly it's $500 because of it's performance relevant to the 7970 but it's still surprising to see a 294mm2 chip priced that high. Honestly none of that bullshit matters anyways when the only relevant things to consider are power consumption, performance, and price.

    Considering Nvidia took a shit on compute performance with the 680 it doesn't surprise me that combining the die shrink and shader improvements that they were able to reduce the die size and hence increase efficiency. Also, transistor count pretty much tells you zero about how well a card is going to perform as there's parts of the chip that aren't designed for gaming (GPGPU (including Cuda, OpenCL) etc)

    One thing Nvidia has AMD on the ropes for is GPU efficiency and that's one thing AMD GPU's have had ahead of Nvidia that doesn't exist anymore. It wouldn't surprise me to see AMD release the 8k series and scrap compute or something similar.

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    Mr. Agree's Avatar
    May 2010
    7,388 Posts
    Heh, I'd be tempted to sell my current 560ti for 120 as i've only had it for two months. Then possibly put funds to a 680

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    farmatyr's Avatar
    June 2007
    4,208 Posts
    Really tempting, but I think I'll stick with my 580's.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Norway Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  15. Post #55
    Quite so, ol' chap.
    Dominicus's Avatar
    December 2011
    4,040 Posts
    Seeing as I don't have the finance to purchase this slice of heaven I'll be sticking with my 580.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Netherlands Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Cypher100's Avatar
    February 2008
    772 Posts
    Getting a GTX 680 for $172, will not show up til the mid-end of April most likely. I love EVGA's step up program.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    ClaBrendon's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,109 Posts
    wonder how much it would be for a 670 then with EVGA. going to look into it
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  18. Post #58
    Gold Member

    February 2008
    5,016 Posts
    It doesn't really make sense to call it lower range and a GF104 replacement when it consumes more power on a smaller die and smaller process (even though the number is still the same I don't get why Nvidia markets it like that) and costs $500. Well I guess partly it's $500 because of it's performance relevant to the 7970 but it's still surprising to see a 294mm2 chip priced that high. Honestly none of that bullshit matters anyways when the only relevant things to consider are power consumption, performance, and price.
    Nvidia is pricing it at $500 because they know they can label their midrange card as high end when it's on par with the AMD 7970. This is an amazing time for Nvidia to profit, but a terrible one for us consumers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 6 (list)

  19. Post #59
    Mr Jazz
    Makol's Avatar
    January 2009
    38,521 Posts
    What?

    $500 is a great price for that card.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 17Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    ClaBrendon's Avatar
    July 2009
    3,109 Posts
    What?

    $500 is a great price for that card.
    this

  21. Post #61
    Gold Member

    February 2008
    5,016 Posts
    What?

    $500 is a great price for that card.
    $500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 10 (list)

  22. Post #62
    Nvidia is pricing it at $500 because they know they can label their midrange card as high end when it's on par with the AMD 7970. This is an amazing time for Nvidia to profit, but a terrible one for us consumers.
    This is a fantastic time for a consumer. There is so much god damn value going around. Just wait for the 660's.

    Edited:

    $500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.
    Then don't buy the 680. Whether or not the GK104 was supposed to be midrange should be irrelevant. It beats the 7970 is nearly every aspect and was priced since it competes so well. Pricing it so low would be silly for Nvidia.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  23. Post #63
    Mr Jazz
    Makol's Avatar
    January 2009
    38,521 Posts
    $500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.
    Are you high?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  24. Post #64
    SirCrest Sexual Enthusiast
    wingless's Avatar
    August 2008
    14,598 Posts
    $500 is still a lot of money though for what was to be a $300 midrange card. Yes it's a good card nonetheless, but for what was originally planned it's a bit of a letdown for us. Also the card costs over $650-$700 here in the UK.
    If you knew anything about the manufacturing process of a new GPU like Kepler, you wouldn't be saying this utter bullshit. They should literally cost $250 more MINIMUM.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Australia Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member

    February 2008
    5,016 Posts
    This is a fantastic time for a consumer. There is so much god damn value going around. Just wait for the 660's.
    Since it seems don't know much about economics in this case then I should probably back off a bit then.

    Then don't buy the 680. Whether or not the GK104 was supposed to be midrange should be irrelevant. It beats the 7970 is nearly every aspect and was priced since it competes so well. Pricing it so low would be silly for Nvidia.
    I am aware of this though. I'm not saying that Nvidia should have priced the cards lower, I'm just saying it's a bit of let down since Nvidia have much more behind their sleeves with their new architecture but have to work alongside AMD's current cards in terms of performance and price. Perhaps I'm just terrible at explaining things and I'm sending the wrong message or I have no idea what I'm talking about.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  26. Post #66
    Gold Member
    bobsynergy's Avatar
    August 2010
    3,837 Posts
    http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desk...specifications

    *GeForce GTX 680 supports PCI Express 3.0. The Intel X79/SNB-E PCI Express 2.0 platform is only currently supported up to 5GT/s (PCIE 2.0) bus speeds even though some motherboard manufacturers have enabled higher 8GT/s speeds.
    But would it be worth it to use it in a 2.0 slot? like would it affect it much? or would it make more sense to just buy a 3.0 compatible board?

  27. Post #67
    Movie quote goes here, because...
    Dennab
    October 2008
    8,076 Posts
    Considering this card for all the new features. But i'm almost 100% sure that it's not a good idea with just a Q9550 and an old p43 Motherboard.

  28. Post #68
    Wait... so if I write anything here, it's going to show up under my name?
    B!N4RY's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,062 Posts
    But would it be worth it to use it in a 2.0 slot? like would it affect it much? or would it make more sense to just buy a 3.0 compatible board?
    Not noticeable.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Canada Show Events Informative Informative x 3Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member

    August 2006
    1,003 Posts
    Nvidia is pricing it at $500 because they know they can label their midrange card as high end when it's on par with the AMD 7970. This is an amazing time for Nvidia to profit, but a terrible one for us consumers.
    It's dumb for people to accept it as a mid-range chip when it consumes more power than the 560Ti, on a smaller process and less die space. I just find it amusing how the number of the chip it represents is a similar number to their previous generation mid-range chip yet people just accept it as mid-range because of the number Nvidia decided to call it, but whatever. It is considerably cheaper for Nvidia to make that chip for it's relative performance versus Fermi, so in that sense it costs them the same amount to produce that chip as it would if it was being marketed as a mid-range card.

    Using that same logic though, since Fermi chips cost significantly more money to produce and compete with the same performance as AMD cards (due to such a big die space) that the cards from the 5870, 6970, and part of the 7970 were technically mid-range chips as they were much smaller chips with a lot less power consumption but were able to keep up with Nvidia's high-end chips.

    just my $0.02

  30. Post #70
    Headphone doctor
    David Tennant's Avatar
    April 2010
    5,449 Posts
    The ranges (low/mid/high) all derive from the price, and performance to some degree but mostly the price on modern hardware, $500 is most definitely not mid-range, not unless we all start earning twice money we currently make come next week, not to say nVidia won't have a higher end single GPU up their sleeves, but calling it mid-range at $500 is just plain wrong.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    acds's Avatar
    October 2008
    14,886 Posts
    Remember that the first set of drivers will have a few games seeing a 10%-20% increase in performance. It's always like that.

  32. Post #72
    Civil's Avatar
    December 2009
    3,721 Posts
    So the GTX 680s hype was once again blown widely out of proportion, as Tom put it, it's about the same as a 7970 in games, give or take a little.
    For everyone disagreeing about the performance being similar to the 7970.
    If 1-5 fps is not similar performance then what is.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    acds's Avatar
    October 2008
    14,886 Posts
    For everyone disagreeing about the performance being similar to the 7970.
    If 1-5 fps is not similar performance then what is.
    5 FPS is not similar performance (it is if it's all runnin g at 150+, but at 60 it's a difference). Also drivers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,354 Posts
    Not to be a fuckwit, but I just looked up comparisons with overclocked cards:
    XFX 7970: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha.../XFX_R7970_BE/
    GTX 680: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...vidia_GTX_680/
    And while you generally shouldn't cross-compare GPUs, this gives a different result. The GTX 680 and the 7970 perform pretty much equally when overclocked, with the GTX 580 winning at stock clocks. power consumption and so on still favors Nvidia, but if AMD puts down the price, the 7970 isn't bad by any means. Just my two cents.

    Edited:

    5 FPS is not similar performance (it is if it's all runnin g at 150+, but at 60 it's a difference). Also drivers.
    True, but these cards are really only doing chomps at 2560x1600.

  35. Post #75
    Mr Jazz
    Makol's Avatar
    January 2009
    38,521 Posts
    2GHz core clocks from Zotac soon.

    http://www.techpowerup.com/162935/ZO...ock-Speed.html

  36. Post #76
    Master Cheese Tactician
    The Decoy's Avatar
    August 2011
    932 Posts
    so the 680 uses slightly less power than the 560ti... I'll probably buy it (or buy the 660ti) and sell my 560ti to a friend

  37. Post #77
    Gold Member
    GoDong-DK's Avatar
    November 2009
    14,354 Posts
    That's gonna cost a billion bucks. Performance would be amazing, though.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Denmark Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    Coridan's Avatar
    April 2006
    1,188 Posts
    I highly doubt that. It would need to be water cooled if they did successfully do it though.

    Edited:

    Dumb because...?

    The highest I've seen a professional overclocker go with the 680 is around 1.4-1.6Ghz and that's with the fan on 95%. Even if 2Ghz was possible it would have to be water cooled unless you want to keep replacing your fan because of a broken bearing every week.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United States Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  39. Post #79
    Mr Jazz
    Makol's Avatar
    January 2009
    38,521 Posts
    Sorry, the dumb rating was a mistake. I was on my phone and was going to reply but I missed the reply button.

    I'll give you a rainbow instead.

    What I was going to say was that if they did give it a water cooler it'd probably be like PNY's water cooled GTX 580.

    Edited:

    Like this.

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  40. Post #80
    Wait... so if I write anything here, it's going to show up under my name?
    B!N4RY's Avatar
    December 2009
    7,062 Posts
    Sorry, the dumb rating was a mistake. I was on my phone and was going to reply but I missed the reply button.

    I'll give you a rainbow instead.

    What I was going to say was that if they did give it a water cooler it'd probably be like PNY's water cooled GTX 580.

    Edited:

    Like this.

    This type of cooling is absolute shit to be honest, especially for a high end GPU. They should just make a full body bare waterblock instead.