Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690 Benchmarked
MojoKid writes "NVIDIA has lifted the embargo on benchmarks and additional details of their GeForce GTX 690 card today. According to a few folks at NVIDIA, company CEO Jen Hsun Huang told the team to spare no expense and build the best graphics card they possibly could, using all of the tools at their disposal. As a result, in addition to a pair of NVIDIA GK104 GPUs and 4GB of GDDR5 RAM, the GeForce GTX 690 features laser-etched lighting, a magnesium fan housing, a plated aluminum frame, along with a dual vapor chamber cooler with ducted airflow channels and a tuned axial fan. The sum total of all of these design enhancements results in not only NVIDIA's fastest graphics card to date, but also one of its quietest. In the performance benchmarks, NVIDIA's new dual-GPU powerhouse is easily the fastest graphics card money can buy right now, but of course it's also the most expensive." The GeForce GTX 690 has been reviewed lots of different places today, Tom's Hardware and AnandTech to name a few.
Finally I can play minecraft the way it was meant to be played!
Seriously... who thought this was a good article? The "I have an $800 video card, I'm awesome!" fad died at least 5 years ago...
Tomshardware is showing GTX beating ATI by 50 - 200% in every benchmark. Anandtech shows the opposite with ATI still winning under the same games? Anyone else notice this?
Does Toms Hardware or Anandtech get paybacks from either company for biased remarks?
http://saveie6.com/
The GTX 680 and 690 have turned out to be pretty spectacular. The most impressive aspect is the relatively low power consumption for a high performance card.
I'm still waiting for the GK110-based "Big Fermi" due out Q3. Considering how well the 680 and 690 have performed the Gk110 will be a monster, probably power hungry but still a monster. Nvidia really hit gold with their latest generation, it is speculated that the current 680 was intended to be the 660 until it outperformed AMD's top offering. Can't wait to get my hands on a 4gb GK110.
Whatever happened to the Slashvertisement tag?
According to Semiaccurate there's a mask design flaw in the GK104, which has caused poor yields. Less than 10,000 GTX 680s shipped worldwide, even though it's been released a month ago.
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/01/why-cant-nvidia-supply-keplergk104gtx680/
well it depends on what you want things for
basically I don't really see much difference in the graphics openGL/DX11 side of things but this was very interesting to me :
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/15
regards
John Jones
I always harp about this but in a couple of years there will probably be a game that requires that much power. However by that time there will be a $150 card that can run it.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
who is going to pay $1000 for a piece of hardware with a halflife of maybe one year? this card is really worth about $400 at most.. and the 680 should be $200. what games actually take advantage of this? there are hardly any pc games worth playing nowadays :\. It's too bad too, because I LIKE new graphics hardware. it's always fun to play with, but at $1000 I can't justify it.
How long again before it burns out and Nvidia plays stupid?
and prOmoMtes our the bottoms butt
There is zero actual evidence that there is going to be a "GK110" this year, or that if there is it will be a high end part (bigger numbers in their internal code names don't always mean higher end parts).
I see people all in a lather about the supposed amazin' graphic card that is up and coming, and lots of furious rumors, but nothing in the way of any proof. I also can see some fairly good arguments as to why nVidia would NOT be releasing a higher end card later on (excluding things like Teslas and Quadros, which are higher end in a manner of speaking).
Speaking of Teslas and Quadros, that may be all that it is: A version of the hardware with a redesigned shader setup to give higher FP64 speed. As it stands the card is quite slow at FP64 calculations compared to FP32. It could be 50% of the speed, in theory, but is more like 1/16th. Basically it seems to be missing the necessary logic to link the 32-bit shaders together to do 64-bit calculations for all but a fraction of the shaders. Maybe to protect their high end market, maybe to keep size and heat down (since it does take additional logic). Whatever the case a Tesla/Quadro version with that in place would have much improved FP64 speed, and thus compute performance for certain things, but be no increase to gaming at all.
So I think maybe people need to settle down a bit and stop getting so excited about a product that may not even exist or be what they think, and may not launch when they think even if it is. Chill out, see what happens. Don't get this idea that nVidia has something way MOAR BETTAR that is Coming Soon(tm). You don't know that, and may be setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
Oh that's right: Video games. You know, the thing it was made for.
The GTX series are nVidia's gaming cards. They are made for high performance when you wanna play 3D games. They aren't made for compute performance. That is not to say they cannot handle compute stuff, just that it isn't what they are primary designed for. So the kind of compute stuff they are the best at will be more related to what games want.
Their compute products with be the Teslas. They are made for heavy hitting compute performance of all kinds. If you are after purely GPGPU stuff, they are what you want.
nVidia seems to be separating their designs for the two to an extent. Still common over all design, but concentrating on making the desktop GPUs more efficient, at the expensive of high end computer features (like Integer and FP64 power), and the workstation/compute cards good at everything, even if they need beefier power and are louder.
I'm ok with that. I buy a GeForce to play games, not to do high end GPGPU stuff. We buy Teslas at work for that.
Also, there's a shitload of other things out there GPGPU wise that are FP32, and the 680 really is killer at that. Does a great job accelerating video encoding and the like.
I don't care for Anad's benches much because they seem to like synthetic compute benchmarks. That is really all kinds of not useful information for a game card. I want to see in game benchmarks. If any compute stuff is going to be benchmarked, let's have it be an actual program doing something useful (like Sony Vegas, which uses GPUs to accelerate a lot of what it does).
Personally I'm a HardOCP fan when it comes to benchmarks. Not only are they all about game benchmarks, but they are big on actual gameplay benchmarks. As in they go and play the game, they don't run a canned benchmark file. This does mean that it isn't a perfect, "each card sees the precisely equal frames" situation, but it is far more realistic to the task they are actually asked to do, and it all averages out over a play session. I find that their claims match up well with what I experience when I buy a card.
http://hardocp.com/article/2012/05/03/nvidia_geforce_gtx_690_dual_gpu_video_card_review is there 690 benchmark. It's a selection of newer games, generally played with triple head (the game displayed across three monitors at once) on a 690, 2 680s SLI'd and two 7970s CF'd.
So FP64 performance went from 1/8th FP32 performance in the 500 series to 1/24th FP32 in the 600 series? I, for one, would love it if using doubles in OpenGL 4.x didn't suck so much. I write visualization software with planet-sized ranges and having that extra precision on the card would be quite nice.
-SaNo
when getting a new graphics card every few years was like a new console launch to me. I get that they're being used by statisticians but seriously, what do gamers do with these? The only game that comes close to taxing a $150 graphics card is Crysis 2, and even that's not doing much... Maybe nvidia could put more effort into making these easy to program for so we'd get better games cheaper? I think we've hit the limit on graphic quality, if only because it's too much work to do the art assets...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've been watching my UPS power load meter since I upgraded from a GTX 560 to a GTX 680. I'd estimate the 680 uses a bit less than half the power of the 560 when idle. At peak usage the 680 uses more, but only by a hair.
I was never happy with the 560 in general. The 3D performance was surprisingly glitchy at 1080p. Even though I wasn't too keen on trying NVIDIA again after that, I gotta admit they won me back with the 680.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I know some people are very passionate with their hobbies but even if I were a billionaire I just couldn't justify spending around $1000 just for a few more frames per second. Just seems very strange.
no thanks, summer's coming.
According to the chart at http://www.anandtech.com/show/5805/nvidia-geforce-gtx-690-review-ultra-expensive-ultra-rare-ultra-fast/15
AMD Radeon HD 7970 CF wipes the floor with this baby from Nvidia
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
One question though: If I can play Skyrim with all settings to max at 1920x1200 with a GTX 560, what is SLI of two GTX 690's needed for?
Correction: this is the most expensive GAMING card you can buy. The price of a professional card can be up to US$10,000.
Well, when you test a gaming card by running GPGPU stuff on it, when nVidia specifically sells GPGPU cards, maybe you are running the wrong test.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?