Guru3D GeForce GTX 680

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by RagDoll_Effect

Well, the 680 has the GK104 chip, where the GK110 chip is the high end Kepler chip

regards,
RagDoll.

That doesn't automatically mean it's a mid range chip.

[RagDoll_Effect]

Originally Posted by Lavans

That doesn't automatically mean it's a mid range chip.

True, but they will eventually release cards with that chip, which is still a Kepler chip

regards,
RagDoll.

[---TK---]

the 680 does have a lot of qualities of a mid range chip except for price and performance of course.

[ESlik]

Originally Posted by RagDoll_Effect

True, but they will eventually release cards with that chip, which is still a Kepler chip

regards,
RagDoll.

Got any idea how long "eventually" is? Have you heard of a release date? I can wait,but not too long. Thanks bro.

[Redemption80]

Just because it will eventually come out doesn't mean GK104 isn't present high end.

GTX580/GF110 didn't make the 480/GF100 mid-range when it appeared, even though both were Fermi.

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

the 680 does have a lot of qualities of a mid range chip except for price and performance of course.

Sure, but only if you ignore the efficiency of the architecture. Just because it has a 256bit doesn't mean it's of "mid range quality".

If we just looked at specs alone, we could easily say that a Phenom II 980 is "higher quality" than a i7 2600K.

[Cyberdyne]

^
Yeah, for example we didn't say the 5870 from AMD was mid-range just because it had a 256-bit bus and the 480 had a larger 384-bit bus.
Both were high end.

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by Cyberdyne

^
Yeah, for example we didn't say the 5870 from AMD was mid-range just because it had a 256-bit bus the 480 had a larger 384-bit bus.
Both were high end.

Same could also be said comparing the HD6970 to the GTX580.

[RagDoll_Effect]

Originally Posted by ESlik

Got any idea how long "eventually" is? Have you heard of a release date? I can wait,but not too long. Thanks bro.

Sorry bro, from what I have read, we're looking at end of the year, beginning of next year

regards,
RagDoll.

[---TK---]

but what if gk110 is 384bit? the 480 and 580 were both 384bit. so if gk110 is 384 bit I would expect a much higher difference than a 480 to a 580. also amd didnt have any higher bus cards in the 5000 series iirc, so it was there high end

[Cyberdyne]

It makes no sense to compare NVidia's card to NVidia's unreleased card. But it makes perfect sense to compare it to AMD's already-out card; which is why the comparison is valid, and why it's a high end card.

[---TK---]

why not? its called speculating what is to come. but you sure can compare the 680 to the 7970 np

[Cyberdyne]

Big difference between speculating and comparing. The former makes sense, I would agree.

[---TK---]

yes if you say so

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

but what if gk110 is 384bit? the 480 and 580 were both 384bit. so if gk110 is 384 bit I would expect a much higher difference than a 480 to a 580. also amd didnt have any higher bus cards in the 5000 series iirc, so it was there high end

So? The HD2900 XT was 512bit, but that didn't stop the 256bit HD2900 Pro from offering comparable performance, nor did it stop ATI from going back to a 256bit model for their enthusiast quality hardware.

[---TK---]

now your bring up old video cards? before you were comparing cpu`? I brought up the 480 to 580 because another member brought it up. should we now bring up some pentium 1`s?

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

now your bring up old video cards? before you were comparing cpu`? I brought up the 480 to 580 because another member brought it up. should we now bring up some pentium 1`s?

If you like.

No matter how many examples are put on the table, the point will always stand that bus bandwidth or any other technical spec means nothing. It's the architecture you should be looking at.

[---TK---]

I specifically mentioned the 480 to 580 performance increase. not much of an increase there, and I stated if gk110 is 384 bit you can expect a bigger difference from a 680 to 780 as compared to a 480 to 580. all these other nonsense comparisons mean squat. enjoy your 680 it is the high end now and do not get your panties in a bunch. I never said the card not high end, I said it had all the qualities of midrange except for price and performance.

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

I specifically mentioned the 480 to 580 performance increase. not much of an increase there, and I stated if gk110 is 384 bit you can expect a bigger difference from a 680 to 780 as compared to a 480 to 580.

Pure speculation based off of nothing. You're only making this assumption because of your own perspectives on how bus bandwidth works. Every single example in the past has shown that an increased bus bandwidth has massive diminishing returns beyond 256bit.

Originally Posted by ---TK---

all these other nonsense comparisons mean squat.

Looking purely at bus bandwidth means even more squat. If you were to look at clock speed or shader processors, then I would agree with you. But an increased memory bandwidth often times offers little overall improvement by itself.

Originally Posted by ---TK---

enjoy your 680 it is the high end now and do not get your panties in a bunch. I never said the card not high end, I said it had all the qualities of midrange except for price and performance.

No one's saying you claimed the card to be mid range. We're just pointing out the flaw in your statement of it having "mid range quality with high end performance".

[---TK---]

look at the 460 560 256bit to a 480 580 384bit. the 384 bit cards are stronger. 480 to 580 same 384 bit bus same fermi not much difference. its not just the bus but the stronger gpu that comes with it.

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

look at the 460 560 256bit to a 480 580 384bit. the 384 bit cards are stronger. 480 to 580 same 384 bit bus same fermi not much difference. its not just the bus but the stronger gpu that comes with it.

You're right, the 384bit cards are stronger, but it's not because they're 384bit. The difference in performance largely comes from higher clocks + more shader processors + more texture/vertex units + more raster operators.

[---TK---]

I stated that in the quote you are quoting?

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

I stated that in the quote you are quoting?

Perhaps, though it wasn't worded in a way that I could consider to be clear to the point, so I would rather reiterate what you said in a clearer manner than simply assume you were saying something that you intended to come off differently.

[---TK---]

stronger gpu= bigger die, more shaders, more rops, more memory bandwidth due to the higher bus. not neccesarily higher clocks though. hows that 680 running with that core 2 quad? please tell me you did not update your specs. peace out

[Lavans]

Originally Posted by ---TK---

hows that 680 running with that core 2 quad?

Well enough for me to not have to worry about upgrading until I have the money for Ivy Bridge, but that's a discussion for another thread.