Hi all, Two main reasons have caused me go ahead an create this thread / review, they are: 1) My curiosity around the GTX680. Not one review I have read has compared it against a HD7970 in Portrait Eyefinity and slightly less than one have bothered to answer the questions I had about the card itself. 2) Head-ache inducing tearing caused by different display connectors was making some of the games I enjoy the most unplayable. This meant I either had to switch back to a single screen (where the problem disappears) or try to find another solution. Anyway, to cut a long story short I ordered a MSI GTX680 and have set about reviewing it against my HD7970 with the aim to answer the questions I set myself from the very beginning. The card, box contents and HD7970 size comparisons As there are plenty of review sites that have reviewed the GTX680 already I will forgo all of the technical details and just look at the physical product. On receiving the card and removing the packaging, this is what I was greeted with: An attractive jet engine themed box covered in marketing talk. TBH there isn't much more to say about this so I quickly opened it up to find out what was inside. A big black box. Attractive! Inside the box you will find the card and the following: Quite frankly considering the cost I was expecting more. My HD7970 came with everything required to get Eyefinity working out of the box including a £20 active miniDP to DVI adaptor. Nvidia/MSI should have at least made a HDMI to DVI adaptor mandatory to enable anyone with DVI only displays (like me) to run surround out of the box. As it was, I ended up pinching the HDMI to DVI adaptor that came with the HD7970 to get surround up and running. Onto the card itself: The card itself is completely reference albeit with an MSI sticker on it. Output wise again it is reference affair with 2 DVI, HDMI and displayport connectors all present. GTX680 meet HD7970 I must admit, I had forgotten how big the HD7970 actually is. The GTX680 is around 1.5CM shorter and give or take the same thickness. Stacked PCI-e power connectors aside I had no issues fitting the card into my Define R3 case. Overall first impressions are mixed. The card is more compact than the HD7970 which is good for people with smaller cases / less clearance, but the box contents leave alot to be desired. Surround Setup & Impressions I must admit having been a Eyefinity user for quite a while (HD6950 launch) I was somewhat nervous about trying Nvidia surround especially after hearing some so not glowing user reviews. I can safetly say I shouldn't have been nervous, it is great! On first boot my monitors were corrected identified as being in Portrait mode and all three displayed perfectly as if extended mode was enabled in CCC. PLP can be enabled simply by changing the orientation of the middle monitor. Enabling surround was simply a case of opening the Nvidia control panel, clicking on a box and following the instructions. Bezel management was painless and well laid out. About 5 minutes from first boost I had surround up and running with no issues what-so-ever. Now I would like to point out at this point that Eyefinity is also a cinch to setup. Both companies have made multi screen gaming / productivity easy to set-up and easy to use. One slight niggle I have found with the Nvidia driver / control panel is the settings for Task bar placement and window re-sizing are held within a completely different section to the main surround settings. I also noted that with the task bar set to the middle screen only I couldn't click on the start menu. Whilst these aren't major problems I thought it best to highlight that there is still some work to be done before it is 100% there. The same of course can be said about Eyefinity. Another of my questions has been answered as surround doesn't use profiles to control the surround / extended modes. With surround enabled you can maximize screens such as Chrome to a single monitor whilst games will automatically default to all three. YOu can change this behaviour but I don't know why you want to. In Eyefinity you had to switch between Extended and Eyefinity profiles which whilst painless was one extra step. Overall I am impressed with how far Nvidia have come with Surround. I am a fan of both Surround and Eyefinity and would recommend either to anyone wanting to try out multi screen gaming for the first time (single card only of course). Benchmarking time! Unless otherwise stated all benchmarks / results are using the following setup / game scenario: Core i5 2500k @ 3.3Ghz 4GB DDR3 1600MT/s @ 8-8-8-20 MSI P67A-GD55 Crucial C300 64GB SSD HD7970 @ stock and overclocked 1125/6600 on 8.91 RC11 drivers GTX680 @ stock (1085 boost) and overclocked +100/+400 (1185/6800) on 301.24 drivers 3 x LG IPS321P monitors in Portrait mode - 3560x1920 Eyefinity and 3620x1920 Surround (The resolution is different due to the bezel management differences between CCC and Nvidia control panel. Actual results should not be affected beyond a margin of error). BF3 - 5 minute play through of Operation Swordbreaker starting from the point you exist the APC at the beginning. Unigine Heaven - Default settings BF3 - "High Settings" I forgot to run the HD7970 through at stock settings HD7970 OC Min - 48.00 Avg - 63.60 GTX680 Min - 39.00 Avg - 54.10 GTX680 OC Min - 45.00 Avg - 61.47 A minor "win" for the HD7970 although the two cards are basically imperceptible once overclocked. The GTX680 remained perfectly quiet when clocked whilst the 7970 became very noticable as the temperatures rose and the fan went above 50%. The orange line depicts a single HD6970. In absolute framerate terms both the HD7970 and GTX680 are ~ 75% faster throughout the run. BF3 - Ultra Settings No MSAA HD7970 OC Min - 27.00 Avg - 49.07 GTX680 Min - 27.00 Avg - 42.57 GTX680 OC Min - 31.00 Avg - 47.99 Interestingly the GTX680 actually closes the gap slightly as the going gets tough. Again both cards are imperceptible once clocked but the 680 puts in a slightly higher minimum and if pushed, a *slightly* smoother experience. Again the GTX680 remained quiet whilst the 7970 was making a noticeable racket as the fan went above 50%. BF3 - Ultra Settings with MSAA HD7970 OC 4xAA Min - 25.00 Avg - 32.75 HD7970 OC 2xAA Min - 30.00 Avg - 38.42 GTX680 OC 4xAA Min - N/A - ran out of video memory Avg - N/A - ran out of video memory GTX680 OC 2xAA Min - 23.00 Avg - 37.68 At this "extreme" setting we finally see the GTX680 crumble. At 2xAA the cards were very close with a slight win going to the HD7970 for holding a better minimum frame rate. At 4xAA the HD7970 remained on the borderline of playable whilst the GTX680 curled up in a little corner and cried for its mummy. In fact it threw such a hissy fit that only a hard reset would coax it back. Personally I would say the 4xAA "win" for the HD7970 is somewhat academic as I wouldn't want to actually play at these settings normally. The framerate is just a bit low for my liking and personally I couldn't really tell the difference with MSAA on vs MSAA off in terms of graphical quality, but in terms of playability they are night and day different. Academic or not though one thing is clear, there are specific scenarios where the HD7970 makes a lot more sense than the GTX680 and that is VERY high settings coupled with mutli card configs. HD7970CF would have the grunt to run 4xMSAA at this resolution and the VRAM to boot. GTX680SLI on the other hand would have the raw grunt but not the VRAM. 4GB cards should cure this issue but TBH given the cost HD7970CF makes more sense in these rare scenarios. In summary I would say that at any setting that requires the HD7970's extra VRAM a single card isn't enough anyway, thus making the lack of VRAM point a bit moot. In terms of Vram usage I monitored the following during the Ultra settings with 2xAA run through: HD7970 - 2400-2600MB GTX680 - 1600-1800MB BF3 really isn't a very good indicator of actually how much VRAM is actually being used and thus is actually required. In all BF3 testing I couldn't tell any different between the GTX680 and HD7970 in terms of graphical quality. Anything that might be there simply doesn't show up when you actually play the game. Now for a bit of fun: Unigine Heaven - Default Settings Now I usually would not run synthetic benchmarks as I don't see the point but I know Heaven is popular so I ran it. Ignoring the random minimum frame rate on the stock HD7970 the cards are pretty evenly matched. You could say the HD7970 wins by having a slightly higher average but the minimums are still too low to consider it a "playable" result. I didn't even try MSAA on this as I think both cards would cry mercy. Conclusion & Summary + thoughts on Surround Overall I am not exactly surprised by the results I have gathered. I went into this expecting both cards to perform equally either at stock or overclocked (mildly in both cases). There might be some games out there that would show a different either way but in the hugely popular BF3 at least there isn't. High levels of MSAA highlights the GTX680's relative short comings but TBH at the settings that require it you would be looking at mutli card configs anyway. In terms of Surround itself I am pleasantly surprised how easy it was to setup and use. I am extremely pleased to report the tearing that plagued me in JC2 has now gone as has the random tearing I exhibited on the desktop under the 12.4 Cat drivers. I can also report that anyone concerned about the GTX680 running its side monitors at half the frame rate of the main monitor should not be. Either this isn't what is happening or it is a setting I haven't switched on as I genuinely could not see any difference across all three screens. Even attempting to split an action sequence across two screens ended up no different than if it was viewed on a single screen. Perhaps it does happen but to the end user it is imperceptible. The GTX680 itself has impressed me immensely. The auto clocking feature is a boon with my card clocking to 1085mhz steady out of the box. I have only overclocked it by +100 at the moment but I can sense there is plenty left in the tank. Couple this with a fan that unlike the HD7970 stays very quiet and you have a real corker. Price is obviously the main kicker now and I must say with HD7970's dropping in price (especially the Sapphire OC model) it does make the 680 a relatively hard sell at its current price point. My purpose though wasn't to save money it was to get rid of the tearing AND maintain the performance, I must say the GTX680 has achieved this perfectly. Anywhoo to summarize this rather large post I can conclude with the following positives and negatives with regard the GTX680: + Great performance, equalling a HD7970 at all settings where both are playable + Great overclocking potential + Stays quiet even when overclocked + Surround set-up is a doddle and you get no multi connector based tearing + Nvidia only features such as Physx and adaptive V-sync (for now at least) - Very poor box contents - Price is a bit steep now that HD7970's are dropping down a bit (£350-£400) - Slight feeling that the card could have been better but was held back deliberately Anyway I hope this has been a useful post and a good read. I am happy to answer any Surround or Eyefinity centric questions, so please ask away.
Extremely informative and well produced article. Whilst I won't be going out and buying a GTX680 anytime soon. Or running suround monitors this gives a very informative consumer review. +REP my friend.
Great review! Everything about the GTX 680 makes it look like a mid range card. I.E Size, 6+6pin power, small die size compared to previous generations, 256bit Bus speed, 2GB vram... When following suit with previous generation GFX cards, the true GTX 680 should have been the same size of previous generations, 8+6pin power, 5xxmm² die size, 384 or 512bit bus speed. 3/4GB of vram. So this imposter of a GTX 680, is in fact a midrange card. I Expect the GTX 685 or GTX 780 to be released Q4 this year. The 2GB card you have, are definitely getting held back. I will be happy to compare result with you when I get the 4GB cards. Anyhow, well deserved + Rep! Cheers, Simon.
yep as simon said cant wait for the 4gb. i wouldnt need it as im only running 1 screen, but i want as much future proofing as possible when im spending that much cash
Thanks guys. Comparing to a 4GB card will be useful as in single card config at least the 2GB is enough at playable settings and only really falters at settings that push it into unplayable territory in raw GPU grunt terms (at least in BF3). Still it will be interesting to see if there is a difference.
Galaxy 4gb preview with a couple of benchies http://translate.google.com/transla...f=1&u=http://www.expreview.com/19134-all.html
thanks for this write up - it's as I suspected and with a decent 3 monitor setup the 2GB just isn't enough
In single card configs it is enough. In multi card configs where you have the raw GPU grunt to push AA, 2GB becomes the limiting factor. I will be doing some further testing on the GTX680 (HD7970 is now sold) across a number of games to see just how far you have to push it before you run out of VRAM. Will the GPU crumble before the VRAM wall is reached or could it really do with more?
Great write up, very informative. The results are what I would have expected tbh. I still maintain that the 2GB Vram is fine for resolutions up to 2560x1600 (for now anyway). But for multi monitor setups more would be desirable.
the lesser memory interface/bandwidth and 2GB VRAM is holding this architecture back, hopefully GK110 will rock seeing how at Ultra setting it's equal/better than 7970 OC (i only look at minimal FPS) shows its rendering capabilities; but when you enable MSAA it just fails behind massively. very nice post, not a many people can play with both of latest and greatest cards to do such a comparison. also glad you got your screen tearing sorted. in defence of the 680 bundle, if i buy a AMD 6000 or 7000 card, i will also be forced to buy a mini-DP to DP cable. so can't really blame a company for not having all the accessories.
you should try fxaa on bf3 vs mxaa nvidia card should report more playable settings and use less memory using the fxaa prefix as its very little overhead on most games.
Thanks everyone The HD7970 bundle also included a mini DP to DP adaptor along with everything else. The screen tearing was the main reason for driving this change. I was under no illusions that the 680 would be faster than the 7970 at this resolution. I am quite surprised at how well a card, that on paper at least is somewhat lacking, can keep up. When the GTX685/780 & HD89XX are launched perhaps I will have to do the same comparison again . At the very least I need to compare something to the 680... BF3 uses a form of FXAA named Post AA anyway. The performance penalty is negligible with it set to any of the three levels available. The Ultra settings without MSAA includes post AA set to high.
