GTX 680 worth getting?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by auronvscloud (36 posts) -

Is it worth getting at the moment? And how many years do you think it'll still be good for?

#2 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12895 posts) -
I would just go for an OC 670 instead if you have your heart set on Nvidia, 680 isnt worth the price tag at the moment.
#3 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

The Radeon 7950, 7970 and the GTX 670 are the cards to consider in the high-end. The GTX 680 isn't practical for the price IMO.

#4 Posted by glez13 (8663 posts) -

The Radeon 7950, 7970 and the GTX 670 are the cards to consider in the high-end. The GTX 680 isn't practical for the price IMO.

hartsickdiscipl

This.

Also future proofing is ridiculous. There is no way to know when something will become obsolete or at least not pass a certain standard.

#5 Posted by II-Siamak-II (463 posts) -

This is the card I have and Love it, solid, stay icy cold, never hear the card even in most intense gaming seassions:

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-Series-Graphics-Card-GTX670-DC2-4GD5/dp/B0094CWZ8U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354075655&sr=8-1&keywords=Asus+GTX+670+4gb

#6 Posted by jakes456 (1437 posts) -

680 sucks. anyone who wastes money on this card is clueless.

the 660 ti also sucks big time.

The only nvidia card worth getting is the 670 at the right price.

Otherwise 7850, 7870, 7950, 7970 are all better for the price.

#7 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

680 sucks. anyone who wastes money on this card is clueless.

the 660 ti also sucks big time.

The only nvidia card worth getting is the 670 at the right price.

Otherwise 7850, 7870, 7950, 7970 are all better for the price.

jakes456
lol, GTX 660ti is just a shade slower then a 7950 in performance so how does it suck? besides your trolling.....
#8 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

The 7970 is faster and $100 cheaper. The reason its cheaper is probably becayse amd is prepping the 8000 series due out in a fewm months.

#9 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

The 7970 is faster and $100 cheaper. The reason its cheaper is probably becayse amd is prepping the 8000 series due out in a fewm months.

blaznwiipspman1

Calm down there, and no a normal 7970 is not overall faster then the 680. And about the price, its not because of the upcoming gpu line its because AMD has to provide a cheaper alternative to the GTX 670 and GTX 680 or they wouldn't be able to sell their gpu's as well.

#10 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

The 7970 is faster and $100 cheaper. The reason its cheaper is probably becayse amd is prepping the 8000 series due out in a fewm months.

04dcarraher

Calm down there, and no a normal 7970 is not overall faster then the 680. And about the price, its not because of the upcoming gpu line its because AMD has to provide a cheaper alternative to the GTX 670 and GTX 680 or they wouldn't be able to sell their gpu's as well.

The ghz 7970 is ocd 75 mhz from a stock 7970 which isnt a huge amout for a card that regularly ocs to 1150-1200 mhz on air. Also the 7000 seriea were released late december 2011 and amd usually releases new series once every 12-14 months. Im gueasing the 8000 series release around february the latest.

#11 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3632 posts) -
[QUOTE="jakes456"]

680 sucks. anyone who wastes money on this card is clueless .

the 660 ti also sucks big time.

The only nvidia card worth getting is the 670 at the right price.

Otherwise 7850, 7870, 7950, 7970 are all better for the price.

680 sucks, lol. Sure it does.
#12 Posted by robertoenrique (1161 posts) -
If you can afford it comfortably, then go for it.
#13 Posted by 5SI-GonePostal (355 posts) -

Isnt a bad card - just overpriced vs 670/7970 (as others have said)

#14 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

The 7970 is faster and $100 cheaper. The reason its cheaper is probably becayse amd is prepping the 8000 series due out in a fewm months.

blaznwiipspman1

Calm down there, and no a normal 7970 is not overall faster then the 680. And about the price, its not because of the upcoming gpu line its because AMD has to provide a cheaper alternative to the GTX 670 and GTX 680 or they wouldn't be able to sell their gpu's as well.

The ghz 7970 is ocd 75 mhz from a stock 7970 which isnt a huge amout for a card that regularly ocs to 1150-1200 mhz on air. Also the 7000 seriea were released late december 2011 and amd usually releases new series once every 12-14 months. Im gueasing the 8000 series release around february the latest.

Problem is that a 75-100 mhz increase is a 7.5 to 10% overclock which allows the ghz 7970 to be on average 5% faster then gtx 680 with 12.11 drivers, Before those drivers GTX 680 was 5-6% faster on average and then a GTX 670 was only 3% on average slower then ghz 7970. Companies dont drop prices on cards before they even announce a new gpu series, the reason prices drop is because of competition.
#15 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

680 sucks. anyone who wastes money on this card is clueless.

the 660 ti also sucks big time.

The only nvidia card worth getting is the 670 at the right price.

Otherwise 7850, 7870, 7950, 7970 are all better for the price.

jakes456

You're definitely holding on to your "most useless poster" award for another week.

#16 Posted by Fizzman (9869 posts) -
I have been debating whether to drop 900 bucks on a pair of SLI 680's. I am well aware of the small gap between the 670 and 680, but I am very weird and don't want to spend 600-700 on inferior cards even if the difference in performance is so small. My current 480's max everything out but the heat and noise has begun to annoy me more than usual. Also the temps have gotten even more ridiculous lately. 109 Celsius with 100% fan speed while gaming. The temps were originally in the low 90's when I first bought them, but two years of heavy use has taken its toll. II would probably use one of the 480's for dedicated Physx.
#17 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

I have been debating whether to drop 900 bucks on a pair of SLI 680's. I am well aware of the small gap between the 670 and 680, but I am very weird and don't want to spend 600-700 on inferior cards even if the difference in performance is so small. My current 480's max everything out but the heat and noise has begun to annoy me more than usual. Also the temps have gotten even more ridiculous lately. 109 Celsius with 100% fan speed while gaming. The temps were originally in the low 90's when I first bought them, but two years of heavy use has taken its toll. II would probably use one of the 480's for dedicated Physx. Fizzman

You may need to apply a freash coat of thermal paste but getting aftermarket coolers and your problem with heat will be solved.

#18 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

I have been debating whether to drop 900 bucks on a pair of SLI 680's. I am well aware of the small gap between the 670 and 680, but I am very weird and don't want to spend 600-700 on inferior cards even if the difference in performance is so small. My current 480's max everything out but the heat and noise has begun to annoy me more than usual. Also the temps have gotten even more ridiculous lately. 109 Celsius with 100% fan speed while gaming. The temps were originally in the low 90's when I first bought them, but two years of heavy use has taken its toll. II would probably use one of the 480's for dedicated Physx. Fizzman

both the 670 and the 680 are inferior to the 7970, but I wouldn't recommend going crossfire with radeon cards yet. Their drivers aren't that great in that area. A single 7970 is about as powerful as a 590, as can be seen from benchmarks and a 590 is about as powerful as both your 480s in SLI. Alternatively you could go with a 680 gtx after selling both 480s. The 680 is also pretty close performance wise to a 590 gtx, and you could SLI it later for more performance, while using much less power than your 480s.

perfrel_1920.gif

#19 Posted by Truth_Hurts_U (9108 posts) -

Well you get the extra cores and that's good for a few extra frames in physics titles and shader heavy games.

#20 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
[QUOTE="jakes456"]

680 sucks. anyone who wastes money on this card is clueless.

the 660 ti also sucks big time.

The only nvidia card worth getting is the 670 at the right price.

Otherwise 7850, 7870, 7950, 7970 are all better for the price.

04dcarraher
lol, GTX 660ti is just a shade slower then a 7950 in performance so how does it suck? besides your trolling.....

Agreed. GTX 660ti is one heck of a card, especially for the price. Slightly better than GTX 580 in some games and the price is less than $300. GTX 580 was $500...
#21 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

Is it worth getting at the moment? And how many years do you think it'll still be good for?

auronvscloud

680 doesn't support full DirectX11.1. NVIDIA kitbashing Microsoft's APIs again.

NVIDIA kitbash DirectX10.1 with custom DX10.0 with NVIDIA extensions http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/10/22/nvidia-gpus-support-dx10-1-features-in-far-cry-2/1

explained Vincent Greco, Worldwide Production Technical Coordinator at Ubisoft. "This feature was enabled by either using DX10.1 or using a DX10.0 extension supported by Nvidia DirectX 10 GPUs."

#22 Posted by clyde46 (44801 posts) -
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="jakes456"]

680 sucks. anyone who wastes money on this card is clueless.

the 660 ti also sucks big time.

The only nvidia card worth getting is the 670 at the right price.

Otherwise 7850, 7870, 7950, 7970 are all better for the price.

Elann2008
lol, GTX 660ti is just a shade slower then a 7950 in performance so how does it suck? besides your trolling.....

Agreed. GTX 660ti is one heck of a card, especially for the price. Slightly better than GTX 580 in some games and the price is less than $300. GTX 580 was $500...

Oh man. That makes me sad :(
#23 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12895 posts) -

[QUOTE="auronvscloud"]

Is it worth getting at the moment? And how many years do you think it'll still be good for?

ronvalencia

680 doesn't support full DirectX11.1. NVIDIA kitbashing Microsoft's APIs again.

NVIDIA kitbash DirectX10.1 with custom DX10.0 with NVIDIA extensions http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/10/22/nvidia-gpus-support-dx10-1-features-in-far-cry-2/1

explained Vincent Greco, Worldwide Production Technical Coordinator at Ubisoft. "This feature was enabled by either using DX10.1 or using a DX10.0 extension supported by Nvidia DirectX 10 GPUs."

Yeah because DX10.1 was a huge hit:roll: How come you dont bring up Nvidias stuff like PhysX?

#24 Posted by Guovssohas (330 posts) -
No. It's a waste imo. If you want Nvidia get the 670.
#25 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="auronvscloud"]

Is it worth getting at the moment? And how many years do you think it'll still be good for?

V4LENT1NE

680 doesn't support full DirectX11.1. NVIDIA kitbashing Microsoft's APIs again.

NVIDIA kitbash DirectX10.1 with custom DX10.0 with NVIDIA extensions http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/10/22/nvidia-gpus-support-dx10-1-features-in-far-cry-2/1

explained Vincent Greco, Worldwide Production Technical Coordinator at Ubisoft. "This feature was enabled by either using DX10.1 or using a DX10.0 extension supported by Nvidia DirectX 10 GPUs."

Yeah because DX10.1 was a huge hit:roll: How come you dont bring up Nvidias stuff like PhysX?

I believe I heard before that alot of features in dx11 were actually supposed to come out in dx10 like tessellation but was delayed to the whining of nvidia. Also the only way the 660ti could be considered a "superb" card is for power consumption. Everything else the 7950 takes a dump on the 660ti. This is even accounting for the fact that the 7950 stock clock is almost 100 mhz lower than the 660ti

#26 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

680 doesn't support full DirectX11.1. NVIDIA kitbashing Microsoft's APIs again.

NVIDIA kitbash DirectX10.1 with custom DX10.0 with NVIDIA extensions http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/10/22/nvidia-gpus-support-dx10-1-features-in-far-cry-2/1

explained Vincent Greco, Worldwide Production Technical Coordinator at Ubisoft. "This feature was enabled by either using DX10.1 or using a DX10.0 extension supported by Nvidia DirectX 10 GPUs."

blaznwiipspman1

Yeah because DX10.1 was a huge hit:roll: How come you dont bring up Nvidias stuff like PhysX?

I believe I heard before that alot of features in dx11 were actually supposed to come out in dx10 like tessellation but was delayed to the whining of nvidia. Also the only way the 660ti could be considered a "superb" card is for power consumption. Everything else the 7950 takes a dump on the 660ti. This is even accounting for the fact that the 7950 stock clock is almost 100 mhz lower than the 660ti

Typical bias post from you....
#27 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

Yeah because DX10.1 was a huge hit:roll: How come you dont bring up Nvidias stuff like PhysX?

04dcarraher

I believe I heard before that alot of features in dx11 were actually supposed to come out in dx10 like tessellation but was delayed to the whining of nvidia. Also the only way the 660ti could be considered a "superb" card is for power consumption. Everything else the 7950 takes a dump on the 660ti. This is even accounting for the fact that the 7950 stock clock is almost 100 mhz lower than the 660ti

Typical bias post from you....

yes and you would make a fox news reporter blush

#28 Posted by 04dcarraher (19215 posts) -

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

I believe I heard before that alot of features in dx11 were actually supposed to come out in dx10 like tessellation but was delayed to the whining of nvidia. Also the only way the 660ti could be considered a "superb" card is for power consumption. Everything else the 7950 takes a dump on the 660ti. This is even accounting for the fact that the 7950 stock clock is almost 100 mhz lower than the 660ti

blaznwiipspman1

Typical bias post from you....

yes and you would make a fox news reporter blush

You do that nearly every time you post half truths praising AMD gpu's. GTX 660ti at 1080 is only on average 1-2% slower then 7950 even with 12.11 drivers , without those drivers GTX 660ti was about 5% faster on average. So 7950 taking a dump on 660ti is false. Driver updates and overclocking goes both ways so even when their OC'ed at the same ratios the performance differences are no different from stock.

#29 Posted by V4LENT1NE (12895 posts) -
[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="V4LENT1NE"]

Yeah because DX10.1 was a huge hit:roll: How come you dont bring up Nvidias stuff like PhysX?

04dcarraher

I believe I heard before that alot of features in dx11 were actually supposed to come out in dx10 like tessellation but was delayed to the whining of nvidia. Also the only way the 660ti could be considered a "superb" card is for power consumption. Everything else the 7950 takes a dump on the 660ti. This is even accounting for the fact that the 7950 stock clock is almost 100 mhz lower than the 660ti

Typical bias post from you....

He has been like that for a loonnnggg time :P
#30 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="auronvscloud"]

Is it worth getting at the moment? And how many years do you think it'll still be good for?

V4LENT1NE

680 doesn't support full DirectX11.1. NVIDIA kitbashing Microsoft's APIs again.

NVIDIA kitbash DirectX10.1 with custom DX10.0 with NVIDIA extensions http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2008/10/22/nvidia-gpus-support-dx10-1-features-in-far-cry-2/1

explained Vincent Greco, Worldwide Production Technical Coordinator at Ubisoft. "This feature was enabled by either using DX10.1 or using a DX10.0 extension supported by Nvidia DirectX 10 GPUs."

Yeah because DX10.1 was a huge hit:roll: How come you dont bring up Nvidias stuff like PhysX?

If DX10.1 wasn't a huge hit, how come NVIDIA kitbashed Microsoft's DX10.1 standand with thier own DX10.1 like APIs?


PS; NVIDIA's pattern of kitbashing standards are also being applied in Google's Andriod platform.

#31 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] Typical bias post from you.... 04dcarraher

yes and you would make a fox news reporter blush

You do that nearly every time you post half truths praising AMD gpu's. GTX 660ti at 1080 is only on average 1-2% slower then 7950 even with 12.11 drivers , without those drivers GTX 660ti was about 5% faster on average. So 7950 taking a dump on 660ti is false. Driver updates and overclocking goes both ways so even when their OC'ed at the same ratios the performance differences are no different from stock.

660 Ti didn't win where performance was needed e.g. remove 1280x800 resolution and light weight Blizzard games from the benchmarking mix.