NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 - Post your default and manual overclocks

my understanding is it's worse than gpu boost because gpu boost converts every single available remained power to clocks.. but This allows you to use stable GPU clock.. it should be useful for camparisons to older nV or AMD cards.. it still downclocks on certain circumstances, though.. it just wont overclock if there is power room unlike GPU Boost..

 

Thanks alot MfA

 

Wait so, people are already hitting the 195 TDP max with reference cards?

 

Hi guys,

Sorry to jump in late on this thread but just to share some of my findings. The TDP on this card is 195W but the typical power draw is 170W, which is 100% Power Target. The limit of 2 x 6pin connectors plus PCIe slot is 225W, which is 132% Power Target. Basically you can have up to 225W peak but the card and cooling system is designed to dissipate the heat generated by up to 195W continuous, so you need to be careful.

Key thing to maxing your OC is temps and keeping them below 70. Increasing Power Target only increases the power the card has available but will only use it if it requires it. If it is using more power then it will generate more heat of course so it's a balancing act.

When discussing OC's the offset settings don't mean much without stating the end clock speed as well due to the way GPU Boost works and the variety there is between cards and what boost they will achieve on their own.

 

I was gonna say something about this, but you beat me to it. Also because of these factors, the amount you can OC your GPU is diminished the more GPUs (cards) you add to your rig, as I can only get about +120 before I start running into issues (and keeping the temp at 70 or below becomes harder).

 

Does anyone else think that the 70 C threshold is too low a temperature before the card starts limiting performance, considering the thermal shutdown temp is 98 C according to NVIDIA. 75 C or even 80 C would have been better IMO, particularly as during testing I haven't seen my own GTX 680 with a GPU offset of +150 and a memory offset of +400 exceed 75 C using a custom fan profile. Even then it's only the really demanding games that exceed 70 C anyway. Are NVIDIA being over-cautious?

 

I have a fews question about 680:
- how much VRAM uses Crysis 2 maxed in 1080p?
- how much VRAM uses in BF3 MP maxed in 1080p?
- how much VRAM uses in Skyrim MP maxed in 1080p?
- how runs RAGE on this card?

I read about tearing on NVcards, is there a problem with this? Or it's OK:nerd:
And how do you think guys, it will be enough 2GB VRAM for 1440p or 1600p?

 

Crysis 2 1080p Maxed High-Res Texture Pack + DX11 = 1700mb's
BF3 1080p Ultra = 1550mb's

Can't comment on the other two. Keep in mind just because my usage is such doesn't mean the game needs that much memory to run smoothly. Modern games and graphics cards will attempt to fill the frame buffer in it's entirety.

 

- Skyrim, not sure but at Ultra settings it's smooth as butter. WAY better than 5850CF that I was using earlier. Note that I'm just playing with the FXAA injector, no other mods. I should try the 2K texture option some day even though I still don't think its perfect last time I tried it.
- Rage, not sure but maxxed it's also supersmooth. Texture popping is still present but minimal and I almost do not notice it. I'm still just at the starting area so it will be interesting to get a bit further to see how it is near the bit city area. I remember having major FPS drops there with my old 5850CF setup. Oh, the GPU Transcoding option works now

I'll try checking VRAM usage when I get home tonight.

Regarding your last questions, I do not see any tearing since I exclusively play with Vsync enabled (thus why I wrote that my gaming experience with Skyrim and Rage is "butter smooth"). BF3 is the only game that seems taxing on my GTX 680. I play on High settings with 4xMSAA.

2GB VRAM should be enough for 1440p and 1600p at High settings but since the 4GB cards are just around the corner I advise you to wait for them if you want Ultra settings (maxxed).

 

Running the games you mentioned at 2560x1440, I´ll never run out of VRAM on my gtx580 1.5gb.
So don´t worry, gtx 680 2gb is plenty.

 

Thanks for replys guys, so I should wait 4GB version.
Well I hope for a decent price for that version.
I think 1440 is great resolution, but 1600p is more popular resolution, because in some release notes of NV drivers, there are otimisations for that res 2560x1600
I think i'll buy one, 1600p monitor later. Hope will be enough VRAM and HP for actual games :nerd:

 

The 2Gb GTX680 can run games at 1440p with no issue in regards to vram, even when using SGSSAA. Heck, even at 5760x1080, the 2Gb model can run Saints Row The Third with 8xAA and never exceed 1.8Gb usage. IMHO, the GTX680 4Gb is unnecessary.

 

There are some issues with tearing? I read somewhere on forum about that.

And another question: PhysX is fixed, I mean GPU usage. I don't want to buy another card just as PPU. It will be enough in Batman or Mafia 2 which uses Apex?
So 4GB is too much. I was thinking the same.

 

If you enable V-Sync (not the new Adaptive V-Sync) then you shouldn't see any screen tearing. I certainly haven't. You may see some with V-Sync *disabled but that's no different from any other graphics card, whether NVIDIA or AMD.

Adaptive V-Sync doesn't tear if the framerate is at or above the refresh rate of your display but can do if it dips below as it works by temporarily disabling v-sync to minimise stutter then when the framerate increases to or above the refresh of your display then it re-enables v-sync again (i.e. there will be no tearing). Perhaps it is this new Adaptive V-Sync that you're referring to?

The GTX 680 is a more powerful, faster card than my GTX 580 so PhysX games run with higher framerates than before. However, in my testing, PhysX still has the same old stuttering/hitching issues as before. It's the software itself that needs a major rewrite IMO. The GTX 680, unfortunately, doesn't revolutionise PhysX at all. Which is a shame as prior to the card's launch there were rumours going around that it would feature optimisations for PhysX. Games with PhysX run with higher framerates simply because the GTX 680 itself is faster.

If you game at 1920x1200 then yes. That's the resolution I use and I haven't seen a single game use more than 2 GB. Most use 1-1.5 GB and a few up to 1.7 GB (e.g. Skyrim). Alien vs. Predator does use the full 2 GB @ 1920x1200 with 4xMSAA and everything maxed under DX11 but the game runs silky-smooth, which it never did on those settings on my GTX 580. If you play games at 2560x1440 or higher with max settings and lots of AA or use multiple monitors then you'd be best waiting for a 4 GB card.

*Edit

 

Yeah, 2GB is enough at 1920x1200, as just the same as you I game at that resolution, and I haven't seen anything run out of VRAM yet, in fact the most I've utilized is around 1-1.2GB's at most at that resolution when gaming, even in Skyrim (as I don't overload it with mods).

 

Thanks Darren, very usefull information/post.
So, there are no tearing. Ok, that's good.
I thought so about PhysX, interesting why they can't fix it...
Now I'm playing on 1080p monitor, but after a few months, i think, I'll buy one with 1600p
Interesting thing is AVP, 2GB is a lot of VRAM. Why the game need so much :nerd: For tesselation? Oh textures in game are very OK, but 2GB... and it could be more, who knows

And one more question: how runs GTA 4 on your rig, Darren?
I'm waiting for the remake(mod) of San Andreas and Vice City on RAGE engine(GTA4 engine).
I get 55 fps always, seems to be the CPU, or....

About skyrim:
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=5400
I can't download it now and try it, but with this... :nerd:

 

Honestly, from my own experience, this really only applies to games with exceedingly demanding graphics. I have yet to actually come across a title that warrants more than 2Gb vram at 2560x1440 or 5760x1080. The likelihood that you'll even run out of vram is second only to running out of raw GPU horsepower.

It might be possible to ding the 2Gb limit of these cards if they were being run in SLI or TriSLI, but you're talking about using amazing amounts of SSAA in the games that support it. In my own testing, I was running Saint's Row The Third at 12xS ( 2x2 + 4xMS ) & 4xSGSSAA and it was hitting 1.75Gb of usage at 2560x1440...with frame rates in the 20's or lower.

 

Checked VRAM usage and Skyrim just eats 1GB whereas RAGE uses 1,5GB

 

Thanks bro