Nvidia GeForce GTX 680 review
Nvidia’s first 28nm card blows the competition away on performance, efficiency and price, and steals AMD’s high-end crown
Review Date: 21 Mar 2012
Reviewed By: Mike Jennings
Price when reviewed: £358 (£430 inc VAT)
Features & Design
Value for Money
AMD was first out of the gates with 28nm, but every Radeon HD 7000 Series card we’ve so far reviewed has come with a big caveat: wait and see what Nvidia does. Now the first 28nm “Kepler” chip is in our Labs, we can safely say we hope you heeded that advice – Kepler was worth the wait.
The GeForce GTX 680 is Nvidia’s new single-core flagship card, tweaked, refined and renamed from the “Fermi” architecture first launched with the GTX 480 in 2010. Graphics Processing Clusters, or GPCs, still form the building blocks of the new GPU, with each having its own resources for shaders, textures and compute processing. Each pair of GPCs shares a memory controller, but L2 cache is shared between all of the card’s GPCs.
While the GTX 480 and GTX 580 made do with 15 and then 16 GPCs, each with 32 stream processors, Nvidia is using only eight clusters on the GTX 680, each boasting 192 stream processors. That’s a huge increase, and closer to the 2,048 stream processors AMD includes in its flagship Radeon HD 7970.
Nvidia’s biggest new feature is something you won’t find on any AMD card: GPU Boost. With a nod to Intel’s Turbo Boost, it dynamically adjusts the core clock from the stock 1,006MHz depending on the operating conditions – ours idled at 549MHz, for example. When performance is required it adjusts the core every millisecond to try to hit the 195W power draw ceiling – ours rose to 1,097MHz. Nvidia claims this constant power draw makes for a more reliable card, as it’s fluctuations in draw, rather than a high level, that harm reliability.
The card has 2GB of GDDR5 memory running at 6,008MHz – almost twice the speed of the Radeon HD 7970 – but the 256-bit memory bus is narrower. The transistor count of 3.5 billion is slightly less than the 4.3 billion on the AMD card, but the GTX 680’s texture fillrate of 128.8GT/sec is higher than the 118.4GT/sec of the HD 7970.
That strength translates to strong benchmark results. In Crysis at 1,920 x 1,080 and Very High settings the GTX 680 averaged 70fps, 2fps ahead of the HD 7970. Both cards returned the same result at 2,560 x 1,600 – a playable 42fps.
The GTX 680 smashed the AMD card in Crysis 2. At 1,920 x 1,080 and Ultra settings – the toughest the game offers – it averaged 57fps, with the HD 7970 on 36fps. There was a sizeable gap when we upped the resolution, too, with the scores at 33fps and 26fps.
It's about time...
Assuming I can get my hands on one any time soon, I shall be purchasing one of these for my new ivy bridge build. Thankfully me putting off buying AMD was worth waiting for.
By David1981 on 22 Mar 2012
What a strange review
One benchmark of a 4 year old game where you compare it to a 3 year old budget level graphics card.
By Cynewulf on 22 Mar 2012
GPGPU Performance issue
What worries me is according to annantech the GPGPU performance Suffers.I use Octane Render which is programmed to use Cuda.I suspect this card will likely bomb at that.I'm Waiting on someone on the Octane Forum to get one and compare it to the 580.
By Jaberwocky on 22 Mar 2012
What a strange comment
Crisis, Crisis 2, Just Cause 2, Dirt 3, TessMark tessellation benchmark, ShaderToyMark and 3DMark 11. In all tests it was compared to AMD's latest top-of-the-range card.
By Mark_Thompson on 22 Mar 2012
Yeah I think @Cynewulf was reading a different review
By TimoGunt on 22 Mar 2012
can you tell me how power consumption and operating temperature compare to a GTX560 Ti?
By revsorg on 23 Mar 2012
Its mentioned in the review
Power consumption and temps are shown in the review.
By curiousclive on 25 Mar 2012
800 000 000 is Slightly Less!!!
"The transistor count of 3.5 billion is slightly less than the 4.3 billion on the AMD" Has anybody in PcPro done some maths? It's 0.8 billion, "slightly" less than 1 billion.
By pasma1 on 29 Mar 2012
I posted it only once. What happened here?
By pasma1 on 29 Mar 2012
Is the A-list dead? If it were alive would this be on it?
By dougtmurphy on 24 May 2012
How can this still be on the A List almost 2 years on?
By majidalborz on 11 Dec 2013
- Europol warns: public Wi-Fi isn't safe
- Privacy groups challenge Facebook's WhatsApp buy
- IDC: iPad intertia opens door for Windows tablets
- Chip breakthrough to eliminate checkout queues
- Rivals put on notice as Spotify snaps up The Echo Nest
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 leaks via Microsoft's website
- Bitcoin "founder" says: you've got the wrong man
- Has bitcoin creator been found?
- HTC Desire 310: more competition for the Moto G
- Mozilla questions why Dell charges £16 to install Firefox
- Move over Delia: IBM Watson is cooking tonight
- Eric Schmidt on the double-edged smartphone: friend and foe
- Getty joins the race to the bottom
- Hour of Code: five steps to learn how to code
- Sony Xperia Z2 Tablet review: first look
- Sony Xperia Z2 review: first look
- Samsung Galaxy Gear 2 review: first look
- Nokia XL review: first look
- Samsung Galaxy S5 review: first look
- Nokia X review: first look
- Make the most of your mobile data
- Old-school internet scams: five that just won't die
- Bitcoin believers not worried by Mt. Gox disarray
- How to hack your car
- Small server vs cloud: which is best for SMBs?
- Block party: why do millions play Minecraft?
- What to do if you’re still on Windows XP
- Microsoft Word: top 20 secret features
- Measuring me: is your body the future of security?
- The best mobile apps for business
- Windows Server 2012 R2: how the Datacenter edition could change SMBs
- Invoices and VAT: how to set up your documents correctly
- Nexus 5 vs Samsung Galaxy S4 Active: the best phone for avoiding screen burn
- How much is a social user worth?
- The key to choosing a secure password
- Thunderbolt Bridge: a fast Mac migration tool
- Should you advertise on Twitter?
- How to track a lost smartphone
- Self-publishing success: the best way to sell your book
- 1.6TB SSD: why would you need one?