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
- Tech firms shell out to prevent another Heartbleed
- Cisco: 100% of companies hosting malware
- Brits willing to pay for secure web services
- Google creates Maps time machine
- Facebook scores with mobile advertising
- Cook: Microsoft should have released Office for iPad sooner
- What's on this week's PC Pro podcast?
- Universal wireless charging gets a boost from Microsoft
- Amazon Phone: release date, features and 3D display
- Apple offers sneak peak at OS X via Beta Seed
- Hello Cortana, it's nice to meet you
- Windows 8.1 Update: an abject surrender
- The insane economics of Sky Now TV
- No such thing as a free app... so pay up if you want quality
- Time to outlaw crapware-laden installers
- Windows Phone 8.1 video: hands-on
- Office for iPad: key information
- Why every PC buyer owes Richard Durkin a debt of gratitude
- HTC One M8 vs Samsung Galaxy S5: 2014's big-hitters compared
- Windows XP end of life: key information
- How to upgrade from Windows XP to Ubuntu
- The great iPhone ripoff and how it works
- Heartbleed: what you need to know and do
- Data recovery: inside the clean room
- Best tablet PCs to buy in 2014
- How much RAM do you really need?
- News of the weird: the strangest ever tech stories
- Five hyped technologies: disruptive or not?
- Piracy's dying: why we're all going straight
- Office: should you buy it, rent it - or dump it?
- Why laptops with serial ports matter to the Internet of Things
- Make your mobile battery last longer
- Small steps into handling Big Data
- Nexus 5: does it really run stock Android?
- How to get broadband to a garden office
- How to write your company's IT security policy
- Raspberry Pi and Wolfram: a must-have for every child
- Could you get by with Office Web Apps?
- The best Android antivirus apps for 2014
- Headings vs headers: how to use both in Word